Kory Nelson’s 2nd e-mail to officials

Kill em all Kory Nelsons 2nd letter of psycho babble to Denver officials

The opponents to SB861 and BSL have interjected irrelevant issues and misleading facts into the debate. Those California legislators who are interested in objective analysis should consider the most recent results of actual legal litigation over the same issues, as courts of law consider only relevant legal issues and reliable evidence. During the recent litigation in 2004-2005 in Denver, Colorado, I was the lead attorney for the City and County of Denver against the State of Colorado, which passed a state statute prohibiting breed specific legislation. In the litigation, there were 2 legal issues: (1) Who gets to decide what the regulations are over dangerous dogs – local government or state government? And (2) Is there rational evidence to support the differential treatment of pit bulls from other breeds of dogs. While much more detailed information, including the full judicial rulings, copies of legal briefs, trial exhibits, and full historical reviews of Denver’s ordinance and the litigation is available online at the official website of the Denver City Attorney’s Office at: Link I will summarize the two answers here.

Regulation of Dangerous Dogs is a “Municipal Affair” w/o a Need for Statewide Uniformity

The State of Colorado, like the State of California, has provisions in their state constitution that provide that matters of pure local concern should be decided by local government. Local government’s regulations in such an area would supersede conflicting state law. The propriety of such regulation of a matter of local concern is not for the State or the Courts to decide. The decision on the type and manner of Breed Specific Legislation, which is a matter of pure local concern, should be decided at that level of government that is closest to the people and is most informed about the unique nature of their community’s problems and attitudes. The Denver District

Court ruled in favor of the City & County of Denver on this issue, stating:

The Court concludes that the issue of which dog breeds are permitted, prohibited, or restricted within a city is a matter of purely local concern. The State has not articulated, and the Court cannot conceive, a need for statewide uniformity. In fact, there seems to be a need for local control in this area. Each community has its own attitudes and preferences with respect to dogs. In each community, depending on culture and demographics, dogs occupy a different role. It would not make sense for the owners of mountain dogs in Telluride, farm dogs in Lamar, and urban dogs in Denver to be subject to the same kinds of laws and restrictions. . . . local control of breeds means flexibility in crafting locally-acceptable solutions to the problems created by dogs. As the largest and most populous metropolitan area in Colorado, Denver faces unique challenges in ensuring that dogs enhance the lives of citizens rather than threaten their safety.

The California Constitution, Article XI, 5(a), states:
(a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.

The California Supreme Court has already determined that matters that are a “municipal affair” supersede any conflicting state law:

When the charter city measure “‘implicates a “municipal affair” and poses a genuine conflict with state law,’ ” the determinative question is whether the subject of the statute is of statewide concern. (Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389, 399 (Cal., 1992)) If it is not, “‘the conflicting charter city measure is a “municipal affair” and “beyond the reach of legislative enactment.” Cawdrey v. City of Redondo Beach, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1212, 1222-1223 (Cal. Ct. App., 1993)

A Constitutional Rational Basis for Differential Treatment of Pit Bulls Continues To Exist

In 1991, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the case of Colorado Dog Fanciers v. Denver, that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that despite there being unreliable evidence as to which breed of dog may be more likely to attack, should a pit bull attack it was more likely to result in severe bodily injury or death.

The history of pit bulls clearly shows these dogs were selectively bred by humans to maximize their dog’s chances of winning in a fight against another animal – initially bulls, then other dogs. Humans bred these dogs in order to enhance specific behavioral traits: strength, agility, tolerance to pain, tenacity to continue attacking, and the infliction of maximum damage to their opponent. Other breeds of dogs, when they do attack, are more likely to bite their victim and release. Pit bulls were specifically developed for their bite, hold and shake behavior. They will bite their victim and hold that bite for long periods of time, refusing to let go. Some mistakenly use the incorrect term “Lock”, but there is no physiological mechanism – these dogs just are so tenacious that they refuse to release their bite, despite having massive pain and injuries inflicted upon them. One reported incident had the pit bull owner cutting off their dog’s legs, one at a time, to display their dogs continued drive to attack their opponent in the ring (the dog died, but its progeny’s value multiplied several times). Once a pit bull, with its well developed and stronger jaw muscles, has grabbed its victim, it will shake its head back and forth, ripping the victim’s skin, muscle, blood vessels and tissue. Pit Bulls were first selected to encourage its predatory behavior passed down from their wolf ancestors, who would run along side larger caribou, elk, and moose, jump up and bite, holding their bite until joined by other pack members to drag the large animal down for a kill. Single Pit Bulls would hang onto fighting bulls for hours! Their advocates call them loyal – sure they are – they will engage in a battle to the death for their masters – that’s loyalty no one needs.

Finally, those who support pit bulls support dog fighting, by providing dog fighters their favorite gladiators. Dog fighting is still a multi-million dollar illegal enterprise that goes on across this county in closed groups, like the mafia, that are extremely difficult for law enforcement officials to penetrate. As these dog fighters’ activities are so “underground”, do you believe that they would obey any ban on pit bulls – of course not! But, if pit bulls were illegally to possess, law enforcement officials could obtain search warrants where pit bulls are discovered and during such a search, additional evidence of their dog fighting could be discovered and seized for felony prosecutions. By giving them the legal ability to possess their favorite gladiator, they are insulated to continue in their horrible acts of cruelty. These dog fighters can’t hire their own political lobbyists to openly advocate their position, so as to protect their millions of gambling income. So how and where are they going to oppose such BSL activities? These anti-BSL groups who accept anonymous donations to support their organizational efforts are being deliberately indifferent to the support they give dog fighters.

There is no legitimate necessity for the pit bull breed to continue. They provide no unique traits that are beneficial to any organized society based upon socially redeeming qualities that can not be provided by other breeds. Nothing offered by pit bulls can possibly justify the deaths and maiming this breed has inflicted upon innocent humans and other domesticated companion animals. The bite of a Chihuahua is one thing, the bite of a pit bull is of a completely different category, described by doctors at the University of Texas Department of Medicine as being closer to a “shark attack”.

As no litigation on the merits of the increased dangerousness of pit bulls has ever resulted in a victory for pit bull advocates, their emotional illogical anthropomorphic rhetoric should be discounted and disregarded, and the results of actual litigation should be respected and followed. America had long ago decided where disputes of fact and law should be decided, and the pro-pit bull advocates can’t win there. SB861 should be passed so that each and every charter municipality in California can decide for themselves if they want to avail themselves of a very practical tool in the form of BSL to protect their community.

Kory Nelson, Esq.
Denver, Colorado
–Kory Nelson, Esq.

So there you have it. The 2nd of the two letters of lunacy from Kill em all Kory Nelson. It makes you wonder who ties the shoelaces of the Denver officials who passed the ban

Share this:

Related