The state legislature is debating a measure that would greatly broaden the state's definition as to what constitutes "vicious". In what is apparently a sad irony, HB 1982 (for any non-lawyers reading, some of the strongest laws protecting civil rights in this country are labeled 1981 - 1983), would define vicious based on a dog's "physical nature and vicious propensity", rather than solely upon a dog's actual conduct.
According to "Dallas Animal Law Attorney Yolanda Eisenstein... HB 1982 is far too vague and maybe unconstitutional. Yolanda Eisenstein says, 'I don't know what a vicious dog is by reading this and I think that's where the trouble comes in.'"
Click here for the rest of Shana Franklin's KDAF-TV story...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment