Dobermann Legal En France

Legal challenges to race-specific laws on constitutional grounds have been largely unsuccessful. Dana M. Campbell summarized the July 2009 court challenges and court findings: If you buy veterinary drugs for your pets in Sweden, it is not a problem to import them in France if you are accompanied by pets under medical treatment. You will need the prescription that proves that a veterinarian prescribed the drug to your pet and that you bought it legally. You must travel with all the necessary papers (prescription) that justify the purchase of veterinary drugs. It is advisable to keep receipts for veterinary drugs. In American Canine Federation and Florence Vianzon v. City of Aurora, Colorado, 618 F.Supp.2d 1271 (2009), the plaintiffs filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to prevent Aurora, Colorado from enforcing a pit bull ban, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague, that the law constituted an abuse of the city`s police power, and that the prohibition constituted an unconstitutional expropriation of property. The court dismissed each of these claims on the basis of existing legal precedents and upheld the city`s order. [109] It is true that under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deprive a person of his or her life, liberty, or property without due process, but in deciding what constitutes due process, we are required to take into account the nature of the property, the necessity of his or her sacrifice, and the extent to which it has so far been considered to fall within the power of the police.

to be taken into account. Insofar as a property is harmless or harmless, it may be condemned or destroyed only by legal proceedings with legal notice to the owner; However, in so far as it is dangerous to the safety or health of the Community, due process may permit its summary destruction. Although dogs are generally harmless, they retain some of their hereditary wolf instincts, which sometimes erupt in the destruction of sheep and other defenseless animals. Others, too small to attack these animals, are simply malicious, noisy and epidemic. Since their looting is often committed at night, it is usually impossible to identify the dog or transfer responsibility to the owner, who is also likely to be financially irresponsible [not responsible for financial compensation]. In short, damage is usually that which is beyond the reach of a court case, and drastic legislation is needed to protect individuals and property from destruction and trouble. Such legislation clearly lies in the police power of the state. It usually takes the form of a license fee and the identification of the dog by a collar and a brand, on which sometimes the name of the owner must be engraved, but other remedies are not uncommon. [106] In State of Florida v. Peters, 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App.

3 Dist. Use of this website is subject to these terms and conditions. By using the Website, you confirm that you have read and accepted these Terms. These may be changed at any time without notice by the company. The breeding can in no way be held responsible for any misuse of the service. About 550 jurisdictions in the United States have passed breed-specific laws in response to a number of high-profile incidents involving pit bull dogs, and some government organizations such as the U.S. Military[14] and Marine Corps[15] have also taken administrative action. These measures range from a complete ban on the possession of pit bull dogs to restrictions and conditions on the possession of pit bulls.

They often justify the legal presumption that a pit bull dog is prima facie a legally «dangerous» or «malicious» dog. [16] In response, 16 states in the United States have banned or restricted the ability of local governments in those states to issue BSLs, although these restrictions do not affect military installations in the states. [17] In the United Kingdom, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is the main piece of legislation that makes it illegal to possess «specially controlled dogs» without specific exception from a court. Dogs must wear a muzzle in public and be kept on a leash, they must be registered and insured, neutered, tattooed and receive microchip implants. The law also prohibits the breeding, sale and exchange of these dogs, even if they are listed on the «index of released dogs». [57] Dogs of these breeds that are legally kept must also be microchipped. [71] Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a type of law that prohibits or restricts certain breeds or types of dogs. [1] These laws range from a complete ban on the possession of these dogs to restrictions and conditions of possession and often give rise to the legal presumption that these dogs are dangerous or malicious. Some jurisdictions have passed breed-specific laws in response to a series of deaths or mutilations involving pit bull dogs or other dog breeds commonly used in dog fighting, and some government organizations such as the U.S. Army[2][3] and marine corps[4] have also taken administrative action.