Can the judge reword the phrase “includes” to “means” or “includes only” without substantially altering the legislatures original objective?
Both sides did well. I really liked some of Clayton Ruby’s arguments that I had not thought of before, particularly the idea that throwing out “pit bull terrier” might be throwing out 99% of the dogs responsible for bites. I recognize, as does he, that pit bull bites are not significant in this province when placed in context with other breeds or types of dogs, but that was not what was at issue here today. Mr. Ruby had to act within the findings of the judge in her original decision. So, even though he may not personally believe that all generic “pit bulls” are dangerous, he had to work within the judge’s findings that pit bull bites were significant enough that the government appeared to have reason to target them. So rather than repeating his original argument from the main case that generic “pit bulls” weren’t dangerous, he argued instead that removing “pit bull terrier” from the list may indeed be removing a substantial number of dogs that may have originally the main objective of
