Laserfiche WebLink
Lt <br /> l i Ai 3t <br /> 1 1 1 <br /> Common Council Memo <br /> August 24, 1987 <br /> Page 4 <br /> Over fifty (50) laws at the State and local level have been <br /> reviewed and studied in the preparation of Substitute Bill No. <br /> 74-87. Some of these laws included Senate Bill Nos. 269, 270 and <br /> 271 currently pending in the legislature for the State of <br /> Michigan; Ordinance No. 1004 from Cambridge, Massachusetts passed <br /> on April 23, 1984 ; Ordinance No. 32 passed on May 14, 1984 in <br /> Tijeras, New Mexico; Senate Bill No. 96 pending in the Ohio State <br /> Senate; Ordinance No. 967 passed on February 4, 1986 in Monmouth, <br /> Oregon ; Ordinance No . 437 passed on December 4 , 1985 in <br /> Louisburg, Kansas; Ordinance No. 1257 passed on May 21 , 1986 in <br /> Everett, Washington; Ordinance No. 1640 passed on October 9, 1985 <br /> in Blue Rapids, Kansas ; Ordinance No. 1269 passed on July 22 , <br /> 1985 in Wakeeney, Kansas ; Ordinance No. 2 passed on January 9 , <br /> 1984 in Walbridge, Ohio; Ordinance No. 1695 passed on September <br /> 23 , 1985 in Shawnee, Kansas ; House Bill 1500 pending in the <br /> General Assembly for the State of Illinois; and other ordinances <br /> from Cincinnati , Ohio ; Baldwin City, Kansas ; Perry , Kansas ; <br /> Bushton , Kansas ; Douglas County , Kansas ; Pomona , Kansas ; <br /> Maumelle, Arkansas; Buckley, Washington; Farmers Branch, Texas; <br /> Lynn, Massachusetts; Chester, Pennsylvania; Substitute Senate No. <br /> 5301 signed by the Governor of the State of Washington in April <br /> of 1987; and numerous other ordinances and state laws. It is my <br /> understanding from talking with John M. Rigby, City Attorney of <br /> Niles, Michigan, that the three (3) pending Michigan bills have <br /> been favorably voted out of committee by votes of 269-1, 270-0, <br /> and 270-0. <br /> Additionally, numerous cases involving potentially dangerous <br /> dog legislation have been carefully reviewed. It appears that <br /> those ordinances or state laws which have been struck down by <br /> courts of competent jurisdiction have been done so for one or <br /> more of the following reasons : <br /> 1) they specifically prohibited or totally banned such <br /> ownership within the jurisdiction; <br /> 2) they imposed unreasonable criminal sanctions; <br /> 3) the ordinances in question violated specific state laws <br /> within the jurisdiction ; and/or <br /> 4) parts of the proposed laws were constitutionally vague <br /> 3) National Statistics <br /> When considering legislation which would regulate conduct <br /> involving public health , safety and welfare concerns, it is <br />