If you want to get “Lucky” bring a photo ID.

Those racists at the Atlanta Humane Society are requiring a photo ID to adopt a dog. Oh the humanity! Will the hatred never end?

Finding a new home for Lucky, a recovering pit bull, takes on a bit of a reality-show aura this week.

The Atlanta Humane Society, whose staff has cared for the animal since she arrived this month with a knife in her head, will take applications from potential adoptive families from 1 to 3 p.m. today. Would-be owners must come in person, fill out forms and provide photo identification and proof of address. Folks living in rental housing must be able to show that pets are allowed in their homes.

The staff will review the applications to decide who would provide the best home for the dog, then interview the winning candidate and visit his or her home before turning Lucky over.

Thanks to a reader for the tip.

Powered by ScribeFire.


  1. Rusty says:

    Must still be a slow news cycle, as you’re the second person I’ve read before 10 a.m. who has tried to push this meme. This is a non sequiter, and a pitifully weak attempt at topical humor.

  2. CHelf says:

    Yes, voting and owning a dog are a little outside the bounds of comparisons. I think Iraqis even have ink-stained fingers for dog ownership that was revoked under Saddam as well.

  3. Decaturguy says:

    Lets get this straight once and for all. It is really not that hard. Buying beer is not a constitutional right. Buying a dog is not a constitutional right. Voting is. Therefore, a government should not unduly resrict voting rights. A private company or organization can do whatever it pleases.

  4. Perhaps my favorite irony is the old Republican line that “you can’t open a bank account without an ID…”.

    The same crowd that says Who Doesn’t Have a Bank Account? then tries to liberalize payday lending restrictions. Seems like quite a few Georgians don’t have bank accounts or there wouldn’t be a payday lending industry (or check cashers) eager to get into the state.

  5. ChuckEaton says:

    I think it’s fairly self-evident, through the extreme trouble in finding plantiffs for the case, that the photo ID bill does not unduly restrict voting rights.

    I read in the paper where one of the new plantiffs, the previous one was removed, hasn’t even voted since 1980.

  6. Eugene says:

    Decatur guy, I think you’re mistaken in your assertion that there exists a constitutional right to vote. From the website of Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. :

    Most Americans believe that the “legal right to vote” in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides explicitly for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively.

    Even though the “vote of the people” is perceived as supreme in our democracy – because voting rights are protective of all other rights – Justice Scalia in Bush v. Gore constantly reminded Al Gore’s lawyers that there is no explicit or fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution. The Supreme Court majority concluded: “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000))

    LINK: http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingAmendment.htm

    So, at least on the federal level, there seems to be no such right.

  7. ARBY says:

    I don’t think this is much of a problem as long as the dog plans to vote absentee :>)

    And—voting is only a right for qualified electors. You are qualified based on your age, identity and residency. A state issued photo ID should settle that nicely.

  8. DG and Chris-
    “Enshrined in the Constitution,” and “Constitutional right,” are rhetorical turns of phrase that oversimplify the debate, wouldn’t you say? My copy of the Constitution says that as long as states don’t restrict voting by age (as long as the voter is over 18) (26th Amendment), race (15th), Gender (19th), or failure to pay poll tax (24th), that the states can decide themselves who is and is not a qualified voter under Article 1, section 2.

    Even if the right to vote were explicit in the Constitution, (as say, the right to speech, or to keep and bear arms) wouldn’t you say that such a right needs as much or more protection than the processes of buying beer, opening a bank account or adopting a dog?

  9. Mike, sure I would if proponents of voter ID could point to a history of election abuse where requiring an ID would have prevented it.

    The truth is, 99% (if not more) of voter fraud is by corrupt local election officials or through absentee ballot fraud, which an ID requirement will do nothing to stop.

    I’ve been on the record in the past as saying that a phased in voter ID requirement, like over a 3 election cycle would be fine with me. It would give election officials plenty of time to see who doesn’t have one, propose a fix, model the likelihood of certain voters to be in that situation, etc…

    You have to question the motives of a group that wants to “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist immediately though, don’t you think?

  10. Decaturguy says:


    Are you seriously trying to argue that the right to vote is not a Constitutional right?

    And what do you mean by the “protection” of the right to vote? I would argue that the ID requirement restricts the right to vote in certain populations and, thus, it does anything but “protect” the right to vote, rather it is an attempt to restrict it. Because buying beer, adopting a dog, or opening a bank account are not constitutional rights (or even governmental acts), I believe that voting is something that we ought to make sure that everyone who is entitled to do so can do so without unneccesary restricitons.

  11. Sure, questioning motives is a great idea. How about the motives behind that Motor Voter debacle from the mid-90s?

    Voter ID prevents election-day fraud at the polling place (or is designed to), and doesn’t address absentee issues. So gimme your proposal for fixing both…

  12. Federalist says:

    Photo id requirements also prevent eligible voters from casting ballots. This voter fraud garbage will continue as long as there are electronic voting machines that do not provide a hard copy, paper receipt.

  13. Harry says:

    So I shouldn’t have to show a photo ID when voting because voting is a constitutional right? Does that mean I don’t have to show a photo ID when I go to get a gun permit?

  14. DG, I’m not saying that the right to vote is not protected by the constitution -I’m saying it’s not spelled out as explicitly as some other rights are. (Like ferinstance, the right to keep and bear arms.)

    And you and I agree more than we disagree: “voting is something that we ought to make sure that everyone who is entitled to do so can do so without unneccesary restricitons.”

    We’re only arguing about two things: 1) Who is entitled and 2) what’s an ‘unnecessary’ restriction.

    Harry raises an interesting point: Could we all agree to apply all the rules and regulations governing a handgun purchase to the right to vote?

  15. ChuckEaton says:

    It’s a great point Harry, since the right to bear arms seems to be more specifically “enshrined” than the right to vote.

  16. Mike, motor voter tried to register unregistered people who also happen to drive a car. I used motor voter in 2003 when I renewed my license at a new address to also re-register at the same time.

    Motor voter has also not done that much to increase election participation among those it was aimed at. Though I certainly won’t complain as it took a 2 step process when I moved (new license + registering) and made it into 1.

    Voter ID might prevent fraud on election day if no identification were currently required, but it already is. Right now, in order to vote illegally you’d have to fabricate or steal one of those other forms of ID. Now, if this kind of fraud is really going on that means someone either on a campaign or in an elections office is complicit in either stealing these documents or creating forgeries.

    Seems like if I were in charge, I’d rather root out those people that are doing that than just make it harder for them to do it.

    Mike, I don’t know how much more obvious the logic can be. If election officials are complicit in voter fraud, it is going to happen with a voter ID too. You’re trusting the same people to verify those ID’s that are currently (alleged by you and others) perpetrating fraud right now.

    You have to have an ID that says you are 21 to drink in a bar in Athens, but has that cut underage drinking or admittance into bars by those under 21? Same logic would apply to the polls. Those who are fraudulent are still going to commit fraud, and actually maybe easier if everyone else is resting easier under the false pretense of tougher election scrutiny because of the IDs.

    Now, what’s the difference between underage drinking in bars in Athens and voter ID fraud in Georgia polls? One (underage drinking) actually happens. So why aren’t we rushing to solve that real problem with the same urgency we’re giving to the fabricated one?

  17. Chris, you can’t be serious.
    1. Motor voter was passed to increase registration among unregistered people who were getting drivers’ licenses, or applying for public assistance, or getting any public service (like library cards) or using state offices for assistance with disabilities. Democrats pushed it because they thought it bring them more votes, and Republicans opposed it because they thought it bring Democrats more votes. They were both wrong -it has increased turnout much at all, though 20% more people are registered now than before.

    2. “Seems like if I were in charge, I

  18. Typo alert:
    Democrats pushed it because they thought it WOULD bring them more votes, and Republicans opposed it because they thought it WOULD bring Democrats more votes. They were both wrong -it has NOT increased turnout much at all, though 20% more people are registered now than before.

    Sorry about that.

  19. Federalist says:

    Also “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” does not mean that anyone can own a firearm. This can be interpreted a number of ways. Sure guns are fun, but this looks like the founders wanted members of the militia to be the ones that owned firearms…not the general public. It seems as if this statement (the 2nd amendment) is an incentive for people to be members of a militia and take an active part in protecting their life, liberty, and property. Not stocking up for the next Waco incident or scaring off would-be thiefs (though Locke would argue differently on the grounds of natural law)…our society does not approve of this behavior. We have a system of justice…not revenge. Back to voter id…voter id’s are not bad. They do legimate elections a bit more, and this is important after that 2000 election scandal. The previous law was sufficient, I hope somebody disagrees and tells me why because there has not been a fraudulent vote cast since when?! This law requiring a photo id is overkill though.

    Quick though…supporters of the “patriot” act would support this too…the DMV (sorry DDS) has that little finger print scanner that you place your index finger on to get your permit/license…rather than having a photo id or id period…why not use that thing? Then stolen ids will not matter, fake ids will not matter. I doubt somebody will cut off my index finger to defraud a vote anyways.

  20. joe says:

    “The Congress shall have the power to…declare War, grant Letters of Marque…”

    Now why would congress want to grant a Letter of Marque? They would grant it because they expected citizens to own WMD. The WMD of the day was a big cannon. Yes, The Constitution is in simple language, is easy to understand, and does recognize everyone’s right to own a firearm.

  21. Mike,

    To be clear, I am saying that voter ID will not root out any fraud because the kind of fraud it is intended to hamper out does not exist (99% of my reasoning) and/or would continue on in another form because the person who would be checking the ID is likely complicit so they’ll just find a new way to lie.

    So this is how I roll: If there is an equal or greater chance that a law will disenfranchise more people than it prevents from committing fraud, I’m against it. Since I personally do not think this type of fraud is being committed (the election fraud I’m talking about existed is not related to voter ID) and there is at least a chance that some otherwise legal people would not be able to vote without it, then I err on the side of those legal people’s rights.

    Like I said previously though, I’m all for a phased in ID requirement. I just have to question the rush to get it done right away by the Republicans when they can’t even show proof (even anecdotally) of the problem it is alleged to fix.

    Even the proof that they do allege to show (like absentee ballot fraud in Chattooga county) has nothing to do with Voter ID.

  22. Federalist says:

    Joe, you say simple language…but it is difficult for anyone to deceifer the language without having read the influence put into it. These privateers you speak of…where they not militias? How many individuals could commendeer a ship by their lonesome? I am not so certain the constituion recognizes every individuals right to own a firearm though. In a time of war, perhaps… but as part of a militia. Tough the exact language was not provided. Pick and choose…that is the conservative way. Why bother questioning the living consitution? (I am laying the sarcasm on think) And yes…for all intensive purposes, we have a “living” consitution. There are hundreds of policies, liberal and conservative, that attest to the fact…i.e. all welfare (economic security) and all the new electronic and communication surveillance (because there was no internet/electricity/tele communication, etc).

  23. Federalist says:

    Fact is, Joe, you have one thing to rely on. I personally do not believe the Columbine gunmen and the VT gunman should have had the right to own a firearm…but you apparently would prefer their rights over innocent life. How many hundreds of papers and journals have been written showing that there is a difference between responsible constituional interpretation and single interest tyranny?

  24. Federalist says:

    Harry, that is a very immature and irresponsible statement. The problem may be lessened…but certainly lawsuits would follow.

  25. joe says:

    No, the actual truth is the opposite. In th early 90’s, a lunatic drove his truck through the front window of a Luby’s cafeteria in Kileen TX, and shot and killed several people. Texas promptly changed the law allowing citizens to carry a weapon into such places. No lawsuits, and crime rates went down.

    Talk out of a different orifice.

  26. Federalist says:

    How many people have caused wrongful deaths by firing upon and murdering such criminals, in turn denying them their right to life and due process? Additionally, and I always get a kick out of these cause and effect relationships that gun advocates make up when discussing gun ownership to crime rate…(I must admit that I have not yet looked at the crime rates of the town you are using in you example)…but there is typically no correlation. Kennesaw is often cited because of their firearm ordinance. With the little bit of data available the Kennesaw gun ordinance did absolutely nothing to dangerous/violent crimes (including property crimes such as home burglary and the crimes that the policy was intended to curb).

  27. Harry says:

    That’s not the way I heard it about Kennesaw.

    And concerning “wrongful deaths”, seems there were quite a few of those at Columbine and VT. I rather see a criminal experience wrongful death than his victim.

  28. Federalist says:

    I agree. Those were wrongful deaths…perhaps rather than holding the individuals responsible, or arming teachers, or any of those other radical ideas….we should hold the firearm industry responsible, and gun shows. Perhaps even create new rules governing the issuance of firearm permits. There is a cross-roads approached with all of these proposals though. Denying former criminals and mentally unstable people the right to a firearm is denying them one of the last remaining defenses for their life and property, but can these individuals be “trusted” to weild such force? Furthermore regarding the decreases in crime rates and the presence of the various firearm policies: for one, the Kennesaw thing is reletively true. In the past year Kennesaw has seen more armed robberies, home break-ins and murders than any year before or after the city ordinance requiring gun ownership (given the exemptions). The law, however, had only one logical goal: stop home burglary and breakins that could result in violent crime. Kennesaw did not issue concealed weapons permits to everybody, the city only asked that everyone keep a firearm in their home. Onto the question of causality though. This is important. There have been significant drops in crime in many parts (even whole) cities over the past two decades…and not because of firearm ownership ordinances. Even those cities and townships that passed similar laws to those in Kennesaw and in Kileen…even opposite laws banning hand-gun ownership within city limits that “resulted” in lower crime rates. The problem with advocates is that they do not analyze. Increased police presence, bigger budgets, the formation of neighborhood watches, rezoning, etc. all have a profound impact on the crime rates of cities and various sections of cities. Take Buckhead for example, I am making this prediction because of what I witnessed in a town that I grew up in in South Florida. On your typical Weekend, even on some week days, a bunch of poor people from south atlanta and Georgia State take Marta to buckhead and blow there pay checks at clubs and bars. The excesive drinking and lack of propriety of these individuals inexorably has led to violence, afterall that is how these individuals deal with everyday confrontation/dispute…they fist fight and shoot each other. Now with the renovations occuring what do you think will happen? Certainly these disrespectful, low class (SES) people will no longer be granted admittance or even be capable of affording a presence at this new Buckhead. Crime rates will drop at an extreme rate, all without making it a law that people can carry a firearm, or requiring every household to carry a firearm. Kennesaw saw many changes following the passage of their gun ordinance, including an increased police presence from the county and the city, the increasing property value and the mass transplant to metro atlanta all had a profound impact on the demographics of that city. Was the gun ordinace the cause of the relative and temporary drop in the crime rates, or was it a culmination of socio-economic factors?

  29. Bill Simon says:

    I want my right to carry a gun to a voting poll reinstated. That way, I can exercise as many rights at once.

    ‘Cause, as everyone well knows, if you don’t exercise things with enough frequency, you lose the ability and the skills you once had…

  30. Bill Simon says:


    Regarding your statement that “lawsuits would ensue” if high school teachers were allowed to pack guns, Dude…what part of “kill all the lawyers first” did you not get in your Shakespeare literature class? 🙂

  31. Federalist says:

    I love lawyers, so should you. They “can steal more money with a brief case than a thousand bandits with guns.”

  32. Federalist says:

    But really. My mother died of lung cancer that could have been detected very early if the doctor did his job and conducted the chest x-rays that the insurance company was paying for as part of her quarterly physical check ups. Fortunately there are attorneys that hold these crock doctors responsible for pinching pennies and allowing the loved ones of others die long painful deaths. If my son were (reason forbid) a shooter at a school, and a teacher fired upon him…that teach, school, schoolsystem, county, state, etc would be sued for denying my son due process and for wrongful death.

  33. Federalist says:

    How about stirring things up on this forum…more effective than gun ownership laws, abortion. Abortion is a better deterrent to crime than gun advocacy.

Comments are closed.