Tag Archives: statewide

Connecticut Governor signs HB6311 outlawing breed discrimination

Posted on June 5, 2013 by | 8 Comments

Connecticut HB 6311 has been signed into law by the Governor and now becomes the 15th state to outlaw breed discrimination.

Like the recently passed Nevada Assembly Bill 110, Connecticut HB6311 has no home rule exemption or grandfather clause.  This was an easy sell because currently there are no municipalities in Connecticut known to have a breed discriminatory law.  Grandfather clauses are often added when a municipality has a law that they are fighting to keep, often lobbying against the law to prohibit breed discrimination.

It is also interesting to note that, also like the Nevada bill, HB6311 passed with a very small minority of dissenting votes.  There were only 4 votes against the bill’s passage in the Senate, the bill passed unanimously in the House.

This is not to say that passing these bills is a simple task.  There is a lot of educating that must be done to make law makers understand what breed discriminatory laws entail in cost to both municipalities and citizens. What this does point to is an increased willingness by law makers to address the issues that prevent municipalities from becoming the safe and humane communities they deserve to be.

Congratulations Connecticut!  We look forward to finding out who will be number 16 in the rapidly growing list of states that do not want breed discrimination.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in Connecticut

Tagged , ,

Connecticut HB6311 to prohibit breed discrimination moves to the Governor’s desk

Posted on May 30, 2013 by | Leave a comment

This Thursday the Connecticut bill to out law breed discriminatory laws on the state level passed the full Senate with a vote of 30-4.  The bill now moves to the Governor to be signed into law. The bill must go to the House for concurrence first but this is usually a very simple matter especially since the bill was voted for unanimously.

If the Governor signs the bill, this will not only be the 15th state to out-law breed discriminatory laws but it would also be the second state this year to do so, following Nevada AB110 that was just signed into law.

If signed the bill would go into effect October 1st 2013. There is no home rule exemption in this bill and there is also no grandfather clause.  This means that any place with a discriminatory law in place would have to repeal it.

Connecticut residents: Please reach out to Governor Dannel P. Malloy and ask that he sign this bill, ensuring that the real causes of dangerous dogs are addressed at the municipal level.

You can e-mail the Governor via the states website.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Connecticut

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Nevada AB 110 signed into law

Posted on May 28, 2013 by | 2 Comments

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed AB110 and officially ushers Nevada into breed neutral status.  The bill goes into effect October 1, 2013.

AB110 includes a very short section that says “A local authority shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog.”

It’s an elegantly simple provision. There is no home rule exemption and no grandfather clause.

The legislative path of AB 110 can be read about in full detail in our previous alert.  There is always a lot of hard work that is not seen when bills of this kind are passed, work that begins before the bill itself is even introduced.  For all the hard work of all those behind the scenes breed neutral Nevada thanks you.

One by one, prohibitions against breed discriminatory laws are becoming the norm as more legislators and citizens recognize the destruction breed discriminatory laws can cause.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Nevada

Tagged , , , ,

Nevada AB 110 goes to the governor to be signed into law

Posted on May 21, 2013 by | 3 Comments

Today is a great day for Nevada communities.  AB110, the bill to prohibit breed discriminatory laws on the state level, has passed the full Senate with a vote of 20-1.

AB110 was introduced February 13 and sat waiting for the first committee meeting until April 9th.  It was amended during the second reading and passed the full House on April 15th with a unanimous vote.

When the bill was sent to the Senate committee it hit a road block. According to Laura Handzel of Best Friends Animal Society, the primary opposition centered around 2 issues. The first issue was a general lack of knowledge about breed discriminatory laws and how they impact the community both personally and financially. The second issue was about home rule. Simply put home rule is an amendment in a state constitution that grants cities, municipalities, and counties the ability to pass laws to govern themselves as they see fit. Several legislators expressed concern over telling municipalities what kind of dangerous dog laws they cannot pass. There was a general concern stepping on the rights of cities and towns to self govern. Once explain that the bill would protect citizens from the towns overstepping their rights this issue resolved in a vote that shock advocates involved. Some dissension had been expected but ultimately the bill passed the committee with a unanimous vote.

And now AB110 has passed the full Senate with only one opposing vote.  This strong stand of almost complete agreement by all the Representatives and Senators is a wonderful thing to see. We know intellectually that support for breed discrimination is the small minority, but having such resounding legislative support shows concretely where the majority of people really stand on this issue.

The bill now moves to the Governors desk to be signed into law.

Nevada is the 14th state to enact this kind of protection for it’s citizens.

Congratulations to everyone involved in getting AB110 passed, for all the hard work put in to address the concerns of legislators.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Nevada

Tagged , , ,

Hearing set for Massachusetts S969, to allow breed discriminatory laws on the state level

Posted on May 16, 2013 by | Leave a comment

At the end of 2012, the Massachusetts legislature passed a comprehensive animal control act.  This new law contained a clause in it that subverted all breed discriminatory laws in Massachusetts, making breed discrimination illegal on the state level.

Boston officials were extremely unhappy with this clause and as a result immediately filed S969 which would create an exemption in the state law prohibiting breed discriminatory laws.  The language of the bill states that a municipality would be able to institute breed discriminatory laws if

“a city or town deems a specific breed to be deemed dangerous through analysis of municipal attack data and by a majority vote of the city council with the approval of the mayor, in the case of a city with a Plan A, Plan B, or Plan F charter; by a majority vote of the city council, in the case of a city with a Plan C, Plan D, or Plan E charter; by a majority vote of the annual town meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose, in the case of a municipality with a town meeting form of government; or by a majority vote of the town council, in the case of a municipality with a town council form of government.”

The bill sets forth no clear rules for what constitutes proof in regards to data collection methods or data analysis.  The bills backers seem to want people to take their word on what they deem to be a “dangerous breed.”

Despite claims from the bills backers that they have data that would allow Boston an exemption under the proposed changes, no such data has ever been provided to any constituents that have made the request to see this data.

Pit Bulletin Legal News drafted a Freedom of Information Act Request, which can be viewed here, in an attempt to access the information that officials were relying on to make the determination that Boston should be allowed to re-institute their breed discriminatory ordinance.

This bill has been set for a hearing date.  The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government is set to hear this bill on June 4th.

Massachusetts residents: Reach out to the members of the committee and your legislators to offer opposition to S969. All members of the committee are listed below. You can find you specific representatives here.

Senator Sal DiDomenico: Phone: 617-722-1650 Email: Sal.DiDomenico@masenate.gov

Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz: Phone: 617-722-1673 Email: Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov

Senator William Brownsberger: Phone: 617-722-1280 Email: William.Brownsberger@masenate.gov

Senator James Timilty: Phone: 617 722-1222 Email: James.Timilty@masenate.gov

Senator Barry Finegold: Phone: 617-722-1612 Email: Barry.Finegold@MASenate.gov

Senator Richard Ross: Phone: 617-722-1555 Email: Richard.Ross@masenate.gov

Rep. Sarah Peake: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Sarah.Peake@mahouse.gov

Rep. Gailanne Cariddi: Phone: 617-722-2450 Email: Gailanne.Cariddi@mahouse.gov

Rep. Thomas Stanley: Phone: 617-722-2230 Email: Thomas.Stanley@mahouse.gov

Rep. Sean Garballey: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Sean.Garballey@mahouse.gov

Rep. Rhonda Nymann: Phone: 617-722-2210 Email: Rhonda.Nyman@MAhouse.gov

Rep. Wayne Matewsky: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Wayne.Matewsky@mahouse.gov

Rep. Kevin Kuros: Phone: 617-722-2460 Email: Kevin.Kuros@mahouse.gov

Rep. Cleon Turner: Phone: 617-722-2090 Email: Cleon.Turner@mahouse.gov

Rep. Timothy Madden: Phone: 617-722-2810 Email: Timothy.Madden@mahouse.gov

Rep. David Rogers: Phone: 617-722-2400 Email: Dave.Rogers@mahouse.gov

Rep. Peter Durant: Phone: 617-722-2060 Email: Peter.Durant@mahouse.gov

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Nevada, AB 110, to prevent breed discrimination, advances to full Senate vote

Posted on May 13, 2013 by | 2 Comments

A bill to prevent breed discrimination at the state level has been working its way through the Nevada legislature. Despite some opposition during the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have just found out that AB110 has passed the committee unanimously.

The results of the vote can no doubt be linked to the hard work of representatives from Best Friends Animal Society. Last week on Pit Bulletin Legal News Radio, Laura Handzel discussed some of the issues that had been raised by the committee and how, through respectful and clear communication, the concerns of the legislators were addressed.  Most of the objections revolved around either the issue of home rule or a general misunderstanding of the bill and breed discriminatory laws in general. The efficacy of the approach is reflected in the unanimous vote.  Even those legislators who had the largest opposing voice voted in favor of ending breed discrimination in Nevada.

Nevada residents: The bill is almost there! The full Senate vote should come up soon so please contact your Senators to ask that they support this bill. After the vote it just needs to be signed into law. Reach out and ask your Senators to support this bill.

You can find your respective Senators here.

Or if you are having trouble with wording you can us the contact form Best Friends has set up. Click here for the Best Friends Action alert.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Nevada

Tagged , , , , , , ,

California legislator intends to try to repeal state protection from breed discrimination

Posted on May 11, 2013 by | 2 Comments

Following a fatal attack on a jogger, Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich has announced intentions to approach the state legislature and ask them to repeal the portion of California state law that prohibits breed discriminatory laws on the state level.

The current law allows mandatory spay/neuter to be passed but bars municipalities from enacting any other laws directed at the breed of the dog. In 2005, the law was amended to allow spay/neuter by SB861, which had initially been a proposal to allow any kind of breed discriminatory laws, but was amended down in committee.

“We’re going to go back to the state legislature and see if we can change that law, allow the local communities to make up their own minds with regards to breeds,” said Tony Bell, spokesman for Antonovich. “Pit bulls are a different breed of animal. They’re capable of incredible damage to humans, to other dogs, to horses.” (read more)

Interestingly, Antonovich himself points out that this has been the only fatal attack attributed to pit bulls ever in Los Angeles County. As it stands the ID of the breeds of dogs involved is spotty at best.  The attacking dogs were ID’ed by a motorist, and the dogs ran into the desert after the attack.  A group of dogs have been confiscate from a local man and will be DNA tested to determine if they were involved in the attack.  These results are expected Friday. The dogs in question have a history of aggressive behavior, the owner has a history of engaging in illegal activities and there is no doubt that the owner was not operating proper control of the dogs. If it comes out that these were, in fact, the attacking dogs, we have a long history of owner failure that the attack can be traced back to.

This does not just affect “pit bulls.”  Should the state law be changed to allow breed bans and restrictions there are many other breeds that are targeted, as well as dogs who are not those breeds but just happen to have some vague resemblance to them.  All dog owners are at risk when breed discrimination is allowed. This would also have sweeping consequences for people who utilize service dogs and members of our military.

California residents: It is extremely important that this never reach the legislature, so reach out now to oppose breed discrimination. Below are links to contact your legislators, as well as Supervisor Antonovich. Please reach out, respectfully, factually and unemotionally to oppose any form of breed discrimination because of its failure to make communities safer.

Los Angeles County residents: Constituents voices always hold more power. Please write Supervisor Antonovich to ask him to reconsider and offer your factual and professional opposition to breed discrimination.

If you are have trouble with what to say, please see our “What is BSL?” tab.

Supervisor Antonovich’s website has an e-mail contact form which can be found here.

You can find your legislators on the states website.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in California

Tagged , , , , , ,