Ladies and Gents. Howdy, Happy Thanksgiving and guess what? I’m pissed, not that that’s anything new. Ran across an article on free thought project.com. An article which details that the town of Moreauville, Lousiana..or at least it’s city council..and possibly some of it’s residents…have lost their goddamn minds.
They have passed a BSL ordinance. Breed Specific Legislation. A BSL which singles out Pit Bulls and Rottweilers as to dangerous, too viscious to be allowed to be kept. The law passed in October and it gives residents with those dogs to either move, move their dogs out of the town or hand over their dogs by Dec 1st. Or the city will send cops to your door, to TAKE your dog from you and fine you for breaking the law.
Let me splain something. I believe the people of the township should be insanely pissed off. One person was quoted in the article as saying the only way they were taking his dog was from his cold dead hands. THIS boys and girls is the proper response. Why?
Article 1 sec 2 of the State Constitution reads:
“Due Process of Law: No person shall be deprives of life, liberty or property except by due process of law.”
Therefore this ordinance violates the Due process clause of the STATE Constitution of Louisiana.
Amendment 4 of the United States Constitution reads:
“The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause under oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched or the people or things to be seized.”
Therefore they are going to be violating that article of the US Constitution…in its entirety.
Article 1 section 4 of the STATE Constitution states
“Right to Property 4a Every person has the right to acquire, own, control, use, enjoy, protect, and dispose of private property. This right is subject to reasonable statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of the police power.”
Guess what? This is not reasonable exercise of police power. far from it.
Section 4b ” Property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its political subdivisions except for public purposes and with just compensation paid to the owner or into court for his benefit. Except as specifically authorized by Article VI, Section 21 of this Constitution property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its political subdivisions: (a) for predominant use by any private person or entity; or (b) for transfer of ownership to any private person or entity.”
Nowhere that I know of is just compensation paid to the owner or into the court mentioned at all in this ordinance
I could keep listing the sub sections of article 4…suffice to say, so far as I can tell this ordinance violates well…. ALL of them.
Article 1 Section 5
Right to Privacy” Every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy. No warrant shall issue without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons or things to be seized, and the lawful purpose or reason for the search. Any person adversely affected by a search or seizure conducted in violation of this Section shall have standing to raise its illegality in the appropriate court.”
So again…violating further the due process clause.
Article 1 Section 12
Freedom from Discrimination In access to public areas, accommodations, and facilities, every person shall be free from discrimination based on race, religion, or national ancestry and from arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable discrimination based on age, sex, or physical condition”
Now if you want to you could I suppose try to argue this is being violated as well since people are being discriminated against and treated abominably because they own a specific breed of dog. Don’t know that it would hold water in court but…*shrug*
Now in an update to this story I just found.
“Moreauville Alderman Penn Lemoine said the city board of aldermen, which is comprised of three aldermen and the mayor, will soon have a special meeting to address the “vicious dog” ordinance following all of the backlash. They’ll likely overturn the ban and perhaps replace it with another measure, he said.”
They also rescinded the December 1st deadline. Oh and YES the Alderman admits the ordinance specifically says the dogs were going to be destroyed.
Perhaps Alderman…you fuckwits should have THOUGHT before passing the goddamn thing in the first fucking place!
By the way Alderman…if you replace it with some sort of registration or special licensing scheme in a move to get yourselves more money? I’ll be just as enraged…and so I suspect…will the owners and everyone else who has picked up on this. I’d advise you to just advocate for more funds for picking up and dealing with your roving strays. Which is where I’d bet half your problem comes from. Hell you’ve GOT a “leash law” Where in if the animals are not chained, or confined behind a fence of some kind while outside…then the owners will be fined. Fucking ENFORCE IT!
Edit: Sigh…sadly after reading more on this that this came about because out of a town of 950, only 25 people bothered to show up at the council meeting about this ordinance. 23 were in favor. 2 were opposed. The owners of the “therapy dog” in the first linked article. This is how STUPID, intrusive laws get passed people.