Bless the Bullys
Read on blog or Reader
Lawton, Oklahoma City Attorney Proposes ILLEGAL ban on “pit bulls”
By Bless the Bullys on January 30, 2025
During the Lawton, Oklahoma city council meeting on Tuesday, January 28, Assistant City Attorney Alan Rosenbaum, who is sworn to uphold the law and seek justice within the bounds of the law, gave a presentation regarding “dangerous dogs,” which included a proposal to ban “pit bulls” in the city.
Oklahoma state law PROHIBITS municipalities from enacting or enforcing any law that targets specific breeds of dogs.
In a 2005 legal opinion, then-Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson stated:
“Current state law, as passed by the Legislature, clearly prohibits breed-specific bans. This language was written into state law in Senate Bill 87 during the 1991 session.”
Attorney Rosenbaum admitted he was aware of the state prohibition. Despite this, however, he advised that he and City Attorney John Andrew have discussed the issue, and the two concluded “there may be some ways around [the prohibition].”
So much for the oath to uphold the law.
The council meeting was packed with residents, the majority of which did not approve of a breed-specific ban.
After the public voiced their concerns over the proposal, council members shared their views regarding the responsibilities of dog owners, reported dog incidents, and not wanting to ban one specific dog breed.
While city officials acknowledge a ban was not possible within the city, the issue of WHY a ban that violates state law was proposed by a city attorney in the first place was never addressed.
The council ended the discussion without taking any action.
A statement released by the mayor prior to the council meeting advised a “pit bull” ban was not being considered by the city despite the city attorney’s presentation.
While it seems very unlikely this issue will go any farther, Lawton residents SHOULD BE questioning WHY their city attorneys, the salaries for whom they pay, would even consider an action that violated state law, as well as contemplate ways to “get around” state law.
Undertaking a course of action that violates state law would put the city in line for a lawsuit, which is certainly not in the best interest of city residents or their pocketbooks, and residents most certainly should question the motives and acumen of their current city attorneys.
