[ SHOWGSD-L ] SB411 one more wrinkle-keep calling
- From: Mary Tripp <mary@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: show gsd <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GSDC of Austin":;
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:43:45 -0500
From RPOA
>I know you are sick of these emails and I am so tired of asking, but we
>are in the final days and they are the most crucial. Here is what happened:
>
>The Senate debated SB411 Thursday. Senator Duncan (Lubbock) spoke out
>against the bill. Apparently many of his constituents were worried that as
>small dog owners they could become felons. Then he indicated that if the
>bill targeted certain breeds, he might support it. Bad idea, and not what
>the author intended. See letter.
>
>Please FAX & CALL your Texas Senators and let them know that YOU OPPOSED
>TO SB411 AS WRITTEN AND DO NOT WANT IT TO CONTAIN ANY LANGUAGE THAT IS BREED
>SPECIFIC.
>Be sure to stress the part about NO BSL!
>THANKS! Z
>
>http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/Members.htm#FYI
>
>Dear Hon. Senator_________
>FAX (512)
>
>How Do You Prevent Owners of Little Dogs from Becoming Felons Under SB 411?
>Simple: Use the Correct Penal Code Definition of Serious Bodily Injury.
>
>There has been an outcry from concerned Texans who own little dogs that
>they run the risk of becoming felons if their dogs bite. Under the civil
>definition contained in the Health and Safety Code ("severe bite wounds"
>and/or "ripping and tearing of muscle" that requires medical treatment and
>hospitalization) that could happen. I have represented small dog owners
>whose dogs have inflicted these kinds of wounds, even though they were not
>life threatening. If the correct Penal Code definition is used ("creates a
>substantial risk of death"), then owners of small dogs have nothing to fear.
>
>Representative Gattis made a Statement of Legislative Intent (April 24,
>2007) during the second reading of HB1355 stating he was intending those
>kinds of dog attacks that can "seriously maim or kill somebody" or cause
>them to "potentially face death." His intent indicates the Penal Code
>definition which is the proper definition for crimes. Under this
>definition, only those dogs large enough to inflict bite wounds that "create a
>substantial risk of death" would be targeted. It is virtually impossible
>for a small dog to inflict life threatening injuries, so SB 411 would not put
>owners of little dogs at risk.
>
>How Do You Make SB 411 Fairly Target Only Those Dogs Capable of Causing Life
>Threatening Injuries Without Singling Out Certain Breeds?
>
>Simple: Use the Correct Penal Code Definition of Serious Bodily Injury.
>Using the correct Penal Code definition of "serious bodily injury" targets
>only those dogs that indeed do cause life threatening injuries regardless
>of breed. All dogs are treated the same even though it is highly unlikely
>that a tiny dog would ever be capable of causing wounds that would
>potentially make the person face death. While larger dogs can be capable
>of inflicting such wounds, only the owners of dogs that actually are
>involved in such incidents would be affected. Owners of large dogs that
>have nice, human
>friendly dogs would not be unfairly targeted, ensuring fairness to all
>dogs and dog owners regardless of size of dog or breed of dog.
>
>Once again, the legislative intent of this bill as stated by
>Representative Gattis was that HB 1355 /SB 411 would not be breed
>specific. On April 4, 2007, Representative Gattis testified at the Public
>Hearing on HB 1355 and explained that he is a hunter and has owned three
>Rhodesian Ridgebacks that are used to hunt lions in Africa and that if
>they are raised, trained and treated appropriately they are not a danger.
>Representative Gattis did not want any unintended consequences of his bill
>and testified as follows:
>
>"This Bill is not Breed Specific for a purpose, for a purpose. There are
>owners of pit bull dogs, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Rottweilers and every other
>dog that is considered to be dangerous in a lot of people's minds that are
>responsible in how they raise, how they train, how they treat and how they
>retain and keep those dogs and we should not put an extra burden on them.
>The burden should be on those not responsible."
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release
Date: 4/25/2007
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 4/25/2007
Mary Tripp Mary@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.tripphill.com TRIPPHILL
KENNELS, H 512-267-2104
Home of Naked Care! www.makitnmetal.com Custom metal art for the dog
fancy
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 4/25/2007
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
