Louisville Kentucky Federal Court Decision

Discussion in 'Dogs - General Dog Chat' started by xpaeanx, Oct 6, 2009.

  1. xpaeanx

    xpaeanx Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,387
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    I got this from yesterday's ShowCardi. So I think since this is a Federal Court decision... then I think it makes that whole thread about "if your dog even looks wild it can be shot" illegal.


    > Date: October 5, 2009 1:07:51 PM EDT
    > Subject: Louisville Kentucky Federal Court Decision
    >
    > DEAR FRIENDS OF THE LOUISVILLE KENNEL CLUB & THE KENTUCKIANA CLUSTER
    > OF
    > DOG SHOWS:
    >
    > Below is an important MESSAGE to dog lovers everywhere!!! The
    > ruling in
    > the lawsuit earlier filed by the Louisville Kennel Club (and a variety
    > of other groups) against the Louisville Metro Government was handed
    > down
    > by Judge Charles Simpson late last week. As you can see from the
    > narrative below, we are VERY HAPPY!!!
    >
    > Please feel free to cross-post to your breed message boards (and
    > anywhere else).
    >
    > As always, thank you for your CONTINUED support of the Kentuckiana
    > Cluster AND the Louisville Kennel Club.
    >
    > If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact
    > Louisville
    > KC President (and Canine Legislative Chairman) Donna Herzig at
    > 502-339-7062 or donnaherzig@hotmail.com.
    >
    > Thanks!
    > Dianne O'Regan, National/Regional/Local Specialty Coordinator
    > Kentuckiana Cluster of Dog Shows
    >
    >
    > Via Barbara Haines, LKC
    > This precedent has far-reaching implications, and sets the stage for
    > class-action lawsuits nationwide - anywhere similar ordinances have
    > been
    > enacted, and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been violated
    >
    > Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:
    >
    > 1. Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process,
    > search
    > and seizure, etc.. (all protections provided by Constitution) apply to
    > pets.
    > You are the OWNER of your pets (not the "guardian.")
    >
    > 2. Requirements for housing, treatment, etc.. cannot be mandated by
    > legislation to be different for intact dogs (vs. altered dogs.).
    >
    > 3. Seizure bond is FLAT-OUT illegal and unconstitutional. This
    > practice
    > constitutes unlawful taking of personal property. If, after search
    > warrant
    > is obtained, a person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their
    > dogs
    > must be held AS IS (cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold,
    > "transferred" or euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after
    > trial.
    > Meantime, owner DOES NOT have to pay a dime for their care, until/
    > unless
    > they are found guilty of the charges
    >
    >
     
  2. Lizmo

    Lizmo Water Junkie

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    17,300
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    2
    Location:
    AL
    Sounds pretty reasonable to me. . .
     
  3. filarotten

    filarotten Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    8,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    3 Filas 1 potbelly pig
    Location:
    Texas
    Seems reasonable to me also.
     
  4. xpaeanx

    xpaeanx Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,387
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    yeah, I don't actually know anything about the case other than this email.... but I hope it helps change and/or stop some of the current stupid laws.
     
  5. Zoom

    Zoom Twin 2.0

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    40,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Sounds good!!
     
  6. Lolas Dad

    Lolas Dad New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Didn't California recently have a bill authorizing dogs to be confiscated without any questions asked of the owner?. I read it on here somewhere and seemed to be a thread about anyone authorized to take your dog if it even appears to be wild or a wolf hybrid.

    I can see this heading for the supreme court because the Federal court in KY does does not rule on the entire US. They can only rule on the states that the court covers.

    It brings up a question though. Let's say a puppy mill gets busted (which is always good) that means the dogs will have to be held and cared for and not put up for adoption until the case goes to trial. Hope they have speedy trials because that could prevent strays being in the shelter because of space or worse yet increasing the rate of dogs being PTS for space considerations.
     
  7. Pops2

    Pops2 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    UT
    yes, but is also means Floyd Boudreaux (among others) has grounds for a federal lawsuit against the HSUS for civil rights violations & opens them to RICO for conspiring to commit civil rights violations.
     
  8. Upendi&Mina

    Upendi&Mina Mainstreme Elitist

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Three dogs + one evil rabbit
    Location:
    Wonderland
    I think it sounds reasonable. Hopefully if it does go to the supreme court they vote the same way.

    It's reminds me of a pa state law that basically says banning breeds in the state is illegal. So techincally if a local bsl ordinance was enacted, it could be fought in court.
     

Share This Page