Land of the free is ambiguous and restrictive. Land of the free does not = same-sex marriage? Try to reconcile that. Free speech does not = hate speech? Reconcile that. Freedom of religion and shall make no law affecting the establishment of a religion does not = Peyote and Native American traditions? Reconcile that.

The Constitution is sometimes not meant to be taken completely literally.

BSL is the least of the Supreme Court's worries, honestly. Don't mean to sound pessimistic, but a dog is a person's property and they don't have Constitutional rights. You could perhaps use a right to property argument, but then you'd have to deal with the "clear and present" danger of owning such property.

Law is abstruse. I don't think BSL will go away until we hit it at the core: education.