This non-breed-specific bill is HB 0238/SB 0555.
Trying to Take a Bite Out of Crime via Felons’ Dogs
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: May 14, 2010[...]
A bill awaiting Gov. Phil Bredesen’s signature would bar felons convicted of violent or drug-related crimes from keeping “potentially vicious” dogs for 10 years after being released from prison or probation. [...] The Tennessee proposal, modeled on a 2006 law in Illinois that was the first of its kind, focuses just on felons and also avoids naming breeds.
Article retrieved on 5/15/10 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15dogs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
StopBSL
weigoba
stopbsldiane
They are onto something with this, but then who’s to decide what makes a dog “potentially viscous”? Sounds like another way to take peoples dogs.
I think this is closer to something that I could actually support. But like the above poster said, who decides what makes a potentially vicious dog? My dog jumps/flips and barks while we are walking him, but not because he is vicious, but because he wants anyone and everyone that walks by to play with him. He is 9 months old, but in no way vicious. He has been mistaken for a Pit Bull by several people when in fact, he is not. It scares me that someone might try and claim he is vicious. He has never tried to bite anyone. If anything he is a little too eager to get attention from strangers, which means he surely wont ever be a guard dog :) With a little more information, I could possibly support this bill.
Either make it so felons cannot own any dog or they can own any dog. The “potentially vicious dog” clause makes it too confusing and can be interpreted in anyway that suits law enforcement. I do agree if felons are allowed to own a dog it should have to be fixed. That is a clear standard. Not only are dogs less aggressive when fixed, many criminals get involved with dog fighting and breeding dogs to fight.