M. Simon emailed me about an Oklahoma bill which would allow cities to ban pit bulls.

State Sen. Patrick Anderson, Enid, is behind the bill. He says he sponsored the effort after leaders in the Kay County city of Blackwell urged him to do so.

“You hear about dog attacks on occasion, so I’m sure there are other communities that have had this issue before,” Anderson said.

Anderson says all he wants to do is allow cities to control their own destinies. In the metro, there are city leaders who tell News 9 some breeds are just simply more dangerous than others.

No, some dogs are more dangerous than others. And some people are more dangerous than others. What this is about is cowardly government officials being empowered to come into your house with lethal force to kill your dog not because it has been shown to be dangerous but because they don’t like its genetic material.

Fortunately I don’t live in Oklahoma, so Coco is safe for now, but this is an ominous trend, and the same thing that already happens in other places could happen here.

I’m glad to see that Reason sounded the alarm on this disgraceful government attempt to have yet another excuse to invade homes and kill dogs.

Naturally, I was expecting State Senator Patrick Anderson to be a Democrat. Silly me. Because it turns out that he is not only a Republican, but one who claims to be a champion of private property rights! In fact, he feels so strongly about protecting private property that he introduced another bill to prohibit cities from belonging to Agenda 21 groups:

ENID, Okla. — An Enid legislator has penned a bill calling for a ban on memberships or affiliations connected to the United Nations’ Agenda 21 plan.

Sen. Patrick Anderson authored Senate Bill 23, prohibiting Oklahoma cities or other political subdivisions from being members of groups tied to Agenda 21 activities.

The controversial Agenda 21 plan aims to preserve the environment by means of local, national and global actions.

Hey, I’m about as strong a champion of private property rights as anyone. But how does the above square with his claim that “all he wants to do is allow cities to control their own destinies” by allowing them to confiscate and destroy dogs kept without incident on private property simply because they don’t like their genes?

Dogs are property, are they not? Please explain if you can, Mr. Anderson.

Anderson said the bill is about protecting the rights of landowners.

“I farm,” Anderson said. “As farmers, we’re seeing more and more proposals out there regarding farm use, what can and cannot be done on the farm.”

His primary concern is individual property rights, Anderson said.

Anderson said when he first started hearing about Agenda 21, he didn’t think it was any real threat to property owners, but the more he learned about it, the more real those concerns became.

“You hear about meetings to implement Agenda 21 initiatives across the country,” Anderson said. “You start hearing about controlling land use and sustainability more and more in our society.”

Anderson said he’s not opposed to efforts for sustainability of environment. The issue is when government entities start regulating what can be done on private land, he said.

I share his purported concern about the issue being “when government entities start regulating what can be done on private land.”

What I question is the man’s sincerity.

(But maybe he is sincere about his self contradicting hypocrisy.)