Minneapolis is set to end ban on felons from owning potentially dangerous large dogs after unveiling shamefully woke new term for criminals
Minneapolis City Council is due to vote on removing a rule that requires some people with past felony convictions to obtain a permit before owning larger or potentially dangerous animals. Supporters say the policy is unnecessarily restrictive and can hinder people rebuilding their lives after prison, while the city would retain powers to restrict ownership where there are safety or welfare concerns.
Since 2008, the ordinance has required people convicted of drug, murder, assault or burglary offences to pay $250 for a permit to own an animal over 20lb or deemed potentially dangerous. The proposed “Bark Down Barriers” amendment would remove this requirement for “justice-impacted” residents, but would allow refusals for animal-cruelty convictions or crimes involving animals; of 18 applications since 2020, 11 were approved and seven denied. If approved by the full council on 27 August, the change would take effect almost immediately.
- Minneapolis may remove a pet-permit rule for some former offenders.
- Safety restrictions for animal cruelty and misuse would remain.
- Eleven of 18 permit applications were approved since 2020.
New here? Start with this
Minneapolis has rules on who can keep certain animals, including larger dogs and animals judged potentially dangerous. These rules are intended to give the city a way to consider public safety and animal welfare.
A felony is a serious criminal conviction under US law. Under the existing local rule, some people with specified past convictions must apply and pay for permission before owning an animal above a set weight.
The proposed change uses the term “justice-impacted” for people affected by the criminal justice system. It would remove the automatic permit requirement for many former offenders, while keeping separate restrictions where an offence involved animal cruelty or animals.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that a blanket permit requirement tied to past convictions, including offences unrelated to animals, imposes an enduring penalty on people who have served their sentences and are trying to rebuild stable lives. They contend that pet ownership can provide companionship, routine and responsibility, while the city would still be able to intervene where an individual has animal-related convictions or demonstrable safety or welfare concerns.
The case against
Opponents argue that ownership of large or potentially dangerous animals can carry serious risks for neighbours, other animals and the owner, and that an additional screening mechanism is a prudent safeguard. They may say that convictions for violent, burglary or drug offences can reasonably justify closer assessment before granting access to animals capable of causing harm, particularly when the existing process has resulted in some applications being refused.