http://www.westword.com/2009-09-24/news/for-two-decades-pit-bulls-have-been-public-enemy-1-in-denver-but-maybe-it-s-time-for-a-recount/full/ This is from 2009 and not that much has changed. Sonia Dias’ case was eventually dropped due to lack of funding.
…..”A group of animal organizations led by the Colorado Dog Fanciers did their best, filing suit against the city. But in 1992, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that Denver had a rational basis for outlawing pit bulls. The decision focused on the city’s argument that the characteristics bred into the animals by dog fighters — characteristics such as strength, tenacity and a certain unpredictability in their signs of aggression — meant that pit bull attacks had the potential to be “more severe and more likely to result in fatalities.”
This ruling encouraged other municipalities to enact laws of their own regulating or prohibiting the possession of certain breeds, almost always in the wake of a headline-grabbing dog mauling. A website that maintains a state-by-state directory of such laws lists 415 cities and counties that today have some type of prohibition aimed at a specific breed of dog. But while a wide variety of breeds are involved in dog attacks, the vast majority of these laws — which range from requiring owners to carry insurance to mandates that dogs attend obedience training — target pit bulls.
The above link chronicles the history of BSL in Denver and some other cities nearby. Federal Judge Wiley Daniel still found some kind of rational basis for breed bans in Aurora, around 2008, DESPITE evidence from the Animal Control stats themselves, that such banned breeds did NOT cause severe or more harm to any humans via dog bites.
The evidence was not even considered because Judge used rational basis standard, which is the lowest form of scrutiny, which had nothing to do with dog bite or dog harm. Rather the court claimed that other effects such as pitbull type dogs took up too much room in shelters and displaced other dogs was a rationale, or that pallets would be chewed more by “pitbulls” and other rather nonsensical crappola. Such “rationale” was also employed in the Louisville Metro AC extensive AR laws, wherein going on vacation forces an owner to notify AC. Or in Albuquerque, not being on leash is ANIMAL ABUSE.
Or in CA, showing, displaying or giving away an animal outside on certain public ground including but not limited to parking areas, [think state fair grounds, and the like], public areas [rest stops used by rescue transports for example] or even the parking area of any IHOP, Denny’s or a 24hr restaurant, for safely meeting up with someone who wants to meet in a public area, or even a dog park [also considered illegal] or a ranch open to the public would be illegal. And by that we mean “illegal” as in it constitutes “ANIMAL ABUSE” under CA law. BUT NOT IF A “NON PROFIT” DOES IT. That is not legal in our book.