SB 19-11: PITBULL Act (Passed)

[fhtagn]

There's no such thing as a certified service animal. 

[Lumine]

The comparison made towards the Vice-President was uncalled for and rather inappropriate, so it was deleted and infracted.

That aside, I do agree with Fhtagn and several others that this is a necessary bill, and an important step towards fighting certain types of discrimination - or even mistreatment - against animals. I would hope the Senate would pass the original bill and not a diluted version.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

The only way I would support this bill is if penalties for those whose dogs attack/hurt other people are strengthened, and so that they would be unable to own any dog after a certain number of attacks and misconduct.

[Sestak]

Fhtagn: "Why aren't any Laborites debating"

Laborite: "I oppose this bill.."

Fhtagn: "YOU'RE A LITERAL NAZI"

[fhtagn]

Fhtagn: "Why aren't any Laborites debating"

Laborite: "I oppose this bill.."

Fhtagn: "YOU'RE A LITERAL NAZI"

Supporting using measurements of physical features on a dog to determine whether or not it's dangerous is eerily similar to certain things.

Also worth noting only 27 states have banned the use of gas chambers for euthanasia IRL.

Context is very important Sestak.

[Dr. MB]

For the record, the Labor Party shouldn't be for authoritarian policies like breed restrictions. I hope my fellow party members vote for this bill.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Devout Centrist is recognized as sponsor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So where are we at on this, now that we have a sponsor, does someone want to offer Jimmy's amendment idea?

[Former President tack50]

So where are we at on this, now that we have a sponsor, does someone want to offer Jimmy's amendment idea?

I will offer Jimmy's amendment

[fhtagn]

Friendly reminder, the wording in Jimmy's amendment is bad and illegal.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

An amendment idea:

Protecting Innocent Tame Breeds from Unjust Laws and Liabilities Act

HOUSE BILL

Be it enacted by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia in Congress assembled,

SECTION I: NAME

1. This bill may be cited as the Protecting Innocent Tame Breeds from Unjust Laws and Liabilities Act, or alternatively, the PITBULL Act.

SECTION II: SUBSTANCE

1. All statutes and regulations which currently place additional legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of dogs based solely upon the breed of said dog, including but not limited to the breeds of dogs known as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, and Staffordshire terriers are hereby repealed.

1. All statutes and regulations which currently place additional legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of dogs based solely upon the breed of said dog, including but not limited to the breeds of dogs known as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, and Staffordshire terriers, shall not apply to any dog where ownership of said dog is legally protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Fair Housing Act.

2. Nothing in this act shall be construed to remove legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of any dog based on prior misconduct of that particular dog or owner.

[Former President tack50]

An amendment idea:

Protecting Innocent Tame Breeds from Unjust Laws and Liabilities Act

HOUSE BILL

Be it enacted by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia in Congress assembled,

SECTION I: NAME

1. This bill may be cited as the Protecting Innocent Tame Breeds from Unjust Laws and Liabilities Act, or alternatively, the PITBULL Act.

SECTION II: SUBSTANCE

1. All statutes and regulations which currently place additional legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of dogs based solely upon the breed of said dog, including but not limited to the breeds of dogs known as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, and Staffordshire terriers are hereby repealed.

1. All statutes and regulations which currently place additional legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of dogs based solely upon the breed of said dog, including but not limited to the breeds of dogs known as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, and Staffordshire terriers, shall not apply to any dog where ownership of said dog is legally protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Fair Housing Act.

2. Nothing in this act shall be construed to remove legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of any dog based on prior misconduct of that particular dog or owner.

Dropping the previous amendment and sponsoring this one instead

[Devout Centrist]

Amendment is unfriendly

[ON Progressive]

Aye

[Esteemed Jimmy]

A vote on whether to approve the amendment has begun on this bill. Please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.

(OntarioProgressive's vote of Aye will be counted)

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Good to know that certain Senators are ignoring statements from organizations that are qualified to speak on this and are putting their personal feelings over factual information.

Actual, verifiable positions from organizations that are qualified to speak on this issue:

American Bar Association

“…the American Bar Association urges all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.”

American Veterinary Medical Association

“Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite. Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds.”

“Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the ‘dangerousness’ of a particular breed, relative to other breeds, for several reasons.”

American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior

“Any dog may bite, regardless of the dog’s size or sex, or reported breed or mix of breeds. The AVSAB’s position is that such legislation—often called breed-specific legislation (BSL)—is ineffective, and can lead to a false sense of community safety as well as welfare concerns for dogs identified (often incorrectly) as belonging to specific breeds.”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The CDC recommends against using breed as a factor in dog-bite prevention policy and states: “Any dog of any breed has the potential to bite.”

National Animal Control Association

“…breed specific legislation may create an undue burden to owners who otherwise have demonstrated proper pet management and responsibility…Agencies should encourage enactment and stringent enforcement of dangerous/vicious dog laws.”

National Canine Research Council

“The trend in prevention of dog bites continues to shift in favor of multifactorial approaches focusing on improved ownership and husbandry practices, better understanding of dog behavior, education of parents and children regarding safety around dogs, and consistent enforcement of dangerous dog/reckless owner ordinances in communities. Effective laws hold all dog owners responsible for the humane care, custody, and control of all dogs regardless of breed or type.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

HUD recognizes that breed is an irrelevant factor to ensuring the general public health and safety of a housing community by asserting that all breeds of domestic dogs can be assistance animals regardless of any state or local breed bans and states: "Breed, size, and weight limitations may not be applied to an assistance animal. A determination that an assistance animal poses a direct threat of harm to others or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others must be based on an individualized assessment that relies on objective evidence about the specific animal's actual conduct—not on mere speculation or fear about the types of harm or damage an animal may cause and not on evidence about harm or damage that other animals have caused."

The U.S. Department of Justice

Similarly, the DOJ requires that places of public accommodation grant service dogs access to the premises regardless of breed: "Municipalities that prohibit specific breeds of dogs must make an exception for a service animal of a prohibited breed, unless the dog poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. Under the "direct threat" provisions of the ADA, local jurisdictions need to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal’s actual behavior or history, but they may not exclude a service animal because of fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave."

And IRL, even the Obama administration weighed in on the issue:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation—research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources."

[fhtagn]

Also once again pointing out that this amendment doesn't even protect service dogs in training, as they are not covered under the ADA or FHA. Do thank you guys for admitting you still want to cause an unnecessary inconvenience for those with disabilities.

[Vern]

Nay

[Comrade Funk]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[fhtagn]

Aye

Good to know you lied about your position on this bill.

I will support this bill if/when it gets into the Senate.

I know that Labor is already the anti-alcohol party, do they really want to become the anti-dog party as well?

There's multiple Laborties in this thread supporting this bill, but ok.

[tmthforu94]

This amendment almost makes the bill pointless, a true shame to see senators voting FOR this amendment and AGAINST the rights of innocent dogs.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

The vote on whether to adopt the amendments ends in a 3-3 tie.