The Nanny State strikes again, this time about dogs

I hate government nannies. When they start telling me what I can and can’t do, all I hear is “Sean is too stupid to be allowed to make his own decisions.” It’s the siren call of autocratic states everywhere. The politician decides that we’re too stupid to have a say in our own affairs, so they take our choices away from us.

Here’s a case in point, House Bill 956 – Regulate Ownership of Aggressive Dog Breeds

Let’s look at the language of the bill

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to regulate the ownership of aggressive dog breeds.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1.  Chapter 58 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read:

Article 82B.

Regulation of Aggressive Dog Breeds.

§ 58‑82B‑1.  Regulation of aggressive dog breeds; permits.

(a)        For purposes of this section, the term “aggressive dog breed” means any of the following breeds of dog and dogs that are predominantly of any of the following breeds:

(1)        Pit bull, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed, American Staffordshire Terrier breed, and American Pit Bull Terrier breed.

(2)        Rottweiler.

(3)        Mastiff.

(4)        Chow.

(5)        Perro de Presa Canario.

The term “aggressive dog breed” also includes wolf hybrids.

(b)        A person shall not take ownership of a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed on or after January 1, 2014, unless that person does the following:

(1)        Submits to a criminal background check by the sheriff of the county where the owner resides. The sheriff shall determine the criminal and background history of the owner by accessing computerized criminal history records as maintained by the State Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation by conducting a national criminal history records check, by conducting a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and by conducting a criminal history check through the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(2)        Enrolls in a course of instruction of no less than four hours’ duration provided by the Humane Society of the United States, or any of the rescue organizations for any of the aggressive dog breeds as defined in subsection (a) of this section, that is designed to educate the owners of these dogs about their temperament and about the requirements for responsible ownership of the breed, or any other similar course of instruction approved by the Department of Insurance. Each organization offering such a course shall register a syllabus of the course with the Department of Insurance and, in consultation with the Department of Insurance, shall develop a certification process to enable owners of aggressive dog breeds to demonstrate to insurers that they have successfully participated in that course. If the owner of the dog is under 18 years of age, then the parent or guardian of the owner shall enroll in the course with the owner and be responsible for obtaining the certification.

(3)        Notifies the issuer of the person’s homeowners’ or renters’ insurance policy, if any, that the person has complied with the provisions of this section in order to establish the level of risk involved in providing insurance to the person.

(4)        Applies to the Department of Insurance for a special permit to possess a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section and obtain such a permit.

For purposes of this subsection, the term “take ownership” means the purchasing, adopting, or otherwise taking possession of a dog for the first time by a person who intends to maintain possession of the dog.

(c)        The Department of Insurance shall develop and implement a program for issuing special permits to owners of dogs of an aggressive dog breed, as defined in subsection (a) of this section. Before issuing a permit under the program, the Department shall confirm that the applicant has complied with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, as well as any additional requirements designed to increase the likelihood that the person may obtain affordable insurance to cover the risks to the public that may result from the person’s ownership of such a dog. If the Department determines that the criminal background check required under subdivision (1) of subsection (b) of this section indicates that an applicant is not suitable for the ownership of a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed or that an applicant has not fully complied with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, then the Department shall not issue a permit to the person. The Department shall provide to the applicant within seven days of the refusal a written statement of the reason for the refusal to issue a permit. An appeal from the refusal shall lie by way of petition to the chief district court judge for the district in which the application was filed. The determination by the court on appeal shall be upon the facts, the law, and the reasonableness of the Department’s refusal and shall be final.

(d)        The Department may charge a fee of up to twenty‑five dollars ($25.00) for issuance of an aggressive dog breed permit under this section.

(e)        Effective January 1, 2014, until December 31, 2015, any person to whom subsection (b) of this section applies who possesses a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed without complying with the provisions of this section and obtaining a permit under this section commits an infraction and, if found responsible, is liable for a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00). Effective January 1, 2015, any person to whom subsection (b) of this section applies who possesses a dog belonging to an aggressive dog breed without complying with the provisions of this section and obtaining a permit under this section is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

SECTION 2.  This act becomes effective January 1, 2014, and applies to persons who take ownership of dogs covered by this act on or after that date, and the provisions of G.S. 58‑82B‑1(e) become effective January 1, 2014, and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.

So some dumbass legislator thinks that in order for me to own a Pit Bull type, a Rottweiler, a Mastiff, a Chow, or a Pero de Presa Canario, I need to pass a background check as if I was buying a handgun. I’m supposed to go to the Sheriff and say “Please Mr. Sheriff, can I buy a dog?” The bill doesn’t even have any standards to which the Sheriff could measure you. Does he simply apply the Pistol laws? If you’re a felon, a domestic violence misdemeanant, or a non-resident alien, you get rejected? Or does the Sheriff just make it up on a whim? We know how well that goes.

In addition to the background check I have to attend 4 hours of training, and then make sure I have insurance to cover the dog. Apparently the Department of Insurance will administer the permit system for this stupidity, and I will have to pay $25 for my permission slip. If I fail to do so, I get slapped with a $50 fine, until after Dec 31, 2015. After that it’s a class 3 misdemeanor.

Here’s what I think. I think that the statist idiot who wrote this bill needs to hear from us. He needs to be told in no uncertain terms to mind his own business. There is absolutely no reason in the world that someone should have to submit to a background check before buying a dog.

Here’s the Sponsor’s info

Representative Rodney W. Moore (Democrat)
919-733-5606
He is from District 99, in Mecklenburg County.
 
Here’s the Co-sponsor’s info
Representative Larry G. Pittman (Republican)
919-715-2009
He is from District 82, Cabarrus County
 

12 responses to “The Nanny State strikes again, this time about dogs

  1. Mecklenburg County–why am I not surprised?

  2. Wow. That’s like combining buying a handgun AND getting a CHL here, plus mandatory insurance and minus the fingerprinting.

    I’m sure they’ll claim “no Constitutional right to own a dog” to justify this abomination.

  3. The bastards want to negate our free will, a gift from our Creator. They will attack it with any means at their disposal and in any guise they can dream up.

    That, for those who care to listen, is their ultimate motive.

  4. Disappointed to see Larry Pittmans name attached to this. I’ll be calling his office tomorrow.

  5. Yep…this is completely asinine! As an owner of two Pit Bull type dogs myself, I’ve been waiting for this to come around, and dreading the day that it does. You hear about it so many other places, and just hope that it never hits home. I will never understand the logic behind BSL. All animals have the ability to bite and to be aggressive, not just the ones that politicians decide to target. If this bill passes, our euthanasia rates are going to skyrocket. As if they aren’t already high enough. Shelters don’t have the time or resourses to hold these types of dogs for a potential adopter to get an “all clear” from the damn government to adopt a dog. I volunteer extensively at a no-kill shelter and train dogs. I always take extra time to work with these “special case” dogs when they come into our shelter, just to help ensure that they don’t become “lifers.” These “aggressive breeds” are scrutinized and judged by the public enough as it is. The government doesn’t need to step in and make the situation worse. Anyone that truly thinks that these dogs are horrible monsters, really should start spending more time with them. Seriously. They’ll learn that they, just like people, aren’t all bad. It has everything to do with the owner and how the dog has been treated, and nothing to do with the breed.

  6. Now folks; This is just a benign attempt to regulate “Assault Dogs”, after all , any reasonable person can see the merit of regulating “Those” dogs

  7. Actually, I think that people who favor aggressive dogs should be napalmed. Malevolence is not a good thing. And of course you can’t deal with malevolent people, because they’re just going to be malevolent.

  8. That’s a pretty malevolent comment there, Alan. Seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black. You don’t like people that favor “aggressive” dogs…so you want to naplm them?? Puts you right there in the same category as the “aggressive” dogs.

    Please be more specific as to exactly what you’re referring to when you say aggressive dogs. Do you mean….ACTUALLY aggressive dogs….or just the breeds that are said to be?

  9. Alan: So my wife, who rescued a rottweiler and would like to have another, should be napalmed?

  10. Pingback: Here's the Facebook page about the coming NC Dog Ban - An NC Gun Blog

  11. oh lets see…its called taking responsibility for owning a dog that can kill..my
    friend was murdered by a pit bull because some knucklehead did not take responsiblity and have dog papers,or on a leash….so if you are wondering why these laws happen..its because of idiots who dont honor animals and train or handle them correctly.sick of belligerant pitbull owners who have small penises and need a dog to show that they are tough,,,sick of pitbull owners who defend their dogs over people and children.my pool guys grandson just got his ear bit off by idiot pitbull and pitbull owner who had no
    papers,no insurnace…and a criminal background….so …well…thank the idiots who made these laws happen.and yes..take responsibility for your actions of buying a vicious animal.grow up.