States That Ban Legislation Defining A Breed As Vicious or Dangerous

California Food & Ag. Code Div. 14, Chpt 9, Art. 5 §31683 except see Cal Health & Saf Code §122331 which allows counties and cities to pass mandatory spay/neuter requirements for certain breeds.

Colorado §18-9-204.5(5)(b) except see the case of City & County of Denver v. State of Colorado, in which the Court ruled Denver ordinance, D.R.M.C. §8-552 which bans pit bulls was not pre-empted by §18-9-204.5(5(b) and is valid under the State Home Rule Amendment, Art. XX of the CO. Const.

Florida Chpt. 767.14 except Miami-Dade County

Illinois 510 ILCS 5/24

Maine Chpt. 725 §3950

Minnesota Chpt. 347.51 Subd.8

New Jersey S.A. 4:19-36. A court has struck down an Englewood, New Jersey breed specific ordinance banning Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, or any dogs of mixed breed which has the appearance or characteristics of being predominately of the breeds.

New York Ag. & Markets S. 107.5.

Oklahoma §4-46.B.

Pennsylvania §459.507-A(c

S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-710(C)

Texas Health & Safety Code §822.047

Virginia §3.1-796.93.1C)(2)

Nevada, N.R.S. 202.500 prohibits local governments from enacting or enforcing ordinances that would declare a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on breed and also prohibits any dog from being declared dangerous or vicious based solely on breed.

2 thoughts on “States That Ban Legislation Defining A Breed As Vicious or Dangerous”

  1. Don’t ban the dog. It’s not the dog’s fault if it turns vicious. It’s the owners. They are not born vicious, any dog. People make a dog vicious, not the dog itself.
    Banning a breed is one of the most insane things I have heard. People created the problem, not the dog. So why blame the dog?

Comments are closed.