I don't know why stories like this always seem to hit the press on Fridays, but the forces of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom have struck again. Working through State Senator Jackie Speier (who, BTW, has been trying to ban gun shows for years) he's trying to get state law changed to allow San Francisco to enact breed-specific legislation against pit bulls:

This week, state Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, introduced a bill that would change state law to allow local governments to enact animal-control laws directed at specific breeds. Speier's bill doesn't mention pit bulls explicitly, but given the recent attacks in the Bay Area involving the breed, most people see it as aimed at the squat, square-faced animals.

``Clearly, there has to be a response,'' said Richard Steffen, Speier's staff director. ``There has been a rash of attacks lately.''

Under the proposed SB 861, a city could decide whether it wanted to force pit bulls to wear muzzles or be neutered, or ensure that Rottweiler owners carry liability insurance. A hearing on the bill has been set before the Assembly Local Government Committee on Wednesday.

Historically, courts around the country have struck down breed-specific animal-control laws, saying they violate due-process and equal-protection guarantees for dog owners. But supporters are heartened by a court decision in Colorado last month that upheld breed-specific legislation.

So far, Speier's bill has been met with cautious enthusiasm by several Bay Area city leaders and some skepticism from those who believe that legislation is ineffective. The real solution, they say, is encouraging dog owners to voluntarily take steps to curb their pets' behavior.

The biggest support for Speier's proposal comes from San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom asked the senator to craft legislation to make the streets safer from aggressive dogs, and Concord, where in March an 11-year-old boy was seriously injured by a pit bull. On Thursday, San Jose Councilwoman Linda LeZotte said she will ask the full council to support Speier's legislation.

Meanwhile, the incredibly stupid woman I discussed twice has been indicted for felony child abuse. Predictably, people are seeing her as innocent, and the dogs as evil creatures which must be banned:

Faibish, 39, was arrested Thursday at San Francisco police headquarters and remained in custody in lieu of $75,000 bail. If convicted, she faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. This would be longer than the usual two- to six-year sentence on these charges because the endangerment resulted in death, Harris said. The district attorney said she ruled out a manslaughter charge.

Calling it ``a tragic case,'' Harris said in a statement that there ``is clear evidence that the defendant knew her child faced serious danger when she left the home.''

The Faibish family could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Raisa Akinshin, a neighbor who called 911 after seeing Nicholas' bloody body through her window the afternoon of the attack, said she was outraged by Harris' decision.

``She's a good mother. We all were naive. I used to play with the dogs,'' Akinshin said. ``It's the dogs' fault, not the mother's fault.''

Akinshin said she believes the intense media coverage of the tragedy was ``enough to send a message'' about the dangers of pit bulls and a trial is not necessary, especially because Maureen Faibish still mourns deeply.

This moronic woman (who says it was her son's "time" to die) was simply incompetent to own dogs, much less kids. To blame the dogs (when she knew she had a bad dog which had earlier bitten her son) makes about as much sense as it would to blame her car if she got drunk and plowed into someone. Once a dog -- or any animal -- has shown itself to be dangerous as hers had, there's a duty as a parent to do something about it. Had this woman owned a rattlesnake, and had she not been able to keep her son away from it, would we blame the snake?

What makes even less sense than blaming a dog for a bad owner who let it get out of hand is to blame other dogs which had absolutely nothing to do with it. Blaming dog B for the action of Dog A is about as logical as blaming person B for the action of person A.

Yet this is exactly what they are doing. A bunch of emotionally driven politicians and bureaucrats would make me into a criminal for owning my dear departed dog Puff, and my puppy Coco. All because someone else couldn't manage her dog.

They've also trotted out a seven-year-old CDC study claiming that "pit bulls" (a term impossible to define) are the number one dog problem, even though a more recent study contradicted the CDC and said that Rottweillers surpassed them. Never mind that the odds of being struck by lightning are five times greater than being killed by all dog breeds combined.

Why couldn't the founders have given us the right to own dogs?

I'm sorry but I'm very emotional about this, having recently lost Puff. I've tried to avoid making any hyperbolic comparisons, but I will say this: Breed specific legislation is evil, as all dogs are members of the same species -- Canis familiaris -- and the human counterpart of such legislation would never be countenanced by the people who are proposing to go after innocent dogs which have never harmed anyone, and the responsible pet owners who love them.

Bastards.

MORE: Here's Gavin Newsom, pontificating pompously about how he'd like to reach out and regulate my dogs:

I, for one, have had enough. I think it's time we get serious about pit bulls in this city, we get serious about pit bulls in this state, get serious about pit bulls across the United States of America.

Get serious?

He's picking on my dogs.

Some things are more serious than differences of opinion.