Sign to stop Unconstitutional Pet limits -- By September 20th

Dear Village of Waunakee:

     We, the undersigned, hereby formally request that the Waunakee City Ordinance, Sec14-13 limiting households pets to three (3) be changed, as we believe that the ordinance is unconstitutional.  The United States Constitution promises all of us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and protections from wrongful seizures of personal property. For many Americans, companion animals are a very personal form of happiness. In fact many of us feel our pet companions are like our children.  Arbitrary removal of a family animal from a loving home for no logical reason, and then subjecting the same animal to diseases, including but not limited to, kennel cough, mental duress, emotional distress and/ or euthanasia at an animal shelter, can be construed to be in violation of our personal rights, thus justifying further damages in a court of law.
 
      Furthermore, the First Amendment protects all individuals' right to religious liberty.  In the case of Robyn Lebron, who is the wife of an Episcopal Minister in Janesville, WI, feels that it is immoral to take her animals and put them in an unhealthy situation. She believes that she has a personal obligation and a responsibility from her God to help, protect and respect  these animals and is prepared to take it to a higher court if necessary.
     The US Supreme Court and many State courts have ruled pet limits to be in violation of the United States Constitution for many of the reasons listed above:
 
%u2022 In Louisiana, a judge ruled that "the ordinance violates residents' property rights",

%u2022 The US Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions over the last several years that, taken as a whole, have elevated the rights of property owners to a limited degree versus State or city power. 
 
%u2022 District Court Judge Thomas P. Knapp in Minnesota ruled, "The court finds that ownership of dogs and other pets is a property right which is protected by the Constitution,%u201D He said that the city failed to provide relevant evidence that the laws were needed. The plaintiffs are not required to comply with unconstitutional laws and thus were not obliged to obtain the unanimous approval of neighbors before keeping their dogs. Furthermore, the judge found that the Constitution does protect pet ownership. He declared the laws unconstitutional and enjoined the city from enforcement. (Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids, 1997).

%u2022 In Pennsylvania an ordinance that limited residents to five pets was also ruled against. The judge quoted from Kadash v. City of Williamsport, 1975: "What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited. Even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can otherwise be more reasonably achieved." This was later supported by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. the following statute was cited: Municipal Corporations 589 268k589
"In reviewing law enacted pursuant to municipality's police power, court must determine that goal sought to be achieved is legitimate and that means used to achieve that goal are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive." (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Creighton, 1994)

     Therefore, we respectfully request that immediate actions are taken to uphold the federally protected rights of Robyn Lebron, by not enforcing the pet limit ordinance, Code of Ordinances, Sec14-13, and for the Village of Waunakee, WI to consider the new evidence to support the remanding of the ordinance that limits the number of family pets to three (3).

     Furthermore, in this time of economic hardship, we object to the continued use of Taxpayer Revenue being wasted on litigation or enforcement of Ordinance, Sec14-13, which would save tax dollars from having to shelter, feed, and provide veterinary services to the animal(s) and allow more attention to ending chronic abuse and neglect in the Village of Waunakee, for which the tax funds are primarily intended.

     We appreciate your prompt attention to this urgent matter and for your interest in preserving the Constitutional rights of Robyn Lebron and for all other residents in the Village of Waunakee, thus following the footsteps of more progressive cities such as Madison and Milwaukee, WI.