I think local bans are within the realm of Constitutionality — local self-government is fundamental to conservatism. If a locality deems pit bulls too dangerous to own, I have no problem with a locality banning the dogs ... the evidence seems to suggest they are prone to attacking people.
Pit bulls are not constitutionally protected, and are therefore free reign for local democratic governments. If they can ban ownership of tigers, they can ban ownership of pit bulls. If your locality bans them, and you disagree ... move to one that doesn’t.
Even if pit bulls are legal to own — I do believe owners should be held strictly liable for injury caused by that dog (as the legal owner of a wild animal would be).
SnakeDoc
sure... like gun bans... wait.. no they are not ... but a libtard would think otherwise.