Dumb Laws and Legal Rulings

Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections: Legal Musings: Dumb Laws and Legal Rulings
By William Berry on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 12:42 pm:

This is from a trivia e-mail I get

Watch it

These laws were once actually on the books (and may still be):

You can't even look at a moose from an airplane in Alaska.

If you live in Idaho, you can't give any other citizen of that state a candy bar weighing more than 50 pounds.

Residents of Kentucky must bathe at least once a year.

You can't shoot a rabbit from a moving trolley in New York.

Source: 2201 FASCINATING FACTS


By Elmer Fudd on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 12:51 pm:

-You can't shoot a rabbit from a moving trolley in New York.-

Oh Wats! And I just know I was going to get that Wascawwy Wabbit this time.


By Electron on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 1:07 pm:

If you want the ultimate experience got to Google and search for "stupid laws". As Kirk would say - "Oh my..."

DumbLaws.com for example gives me the following English law:
Placing a postage stamp that bears the Queen (or King) upside down is considered treason.

Or the evil French:
No pig may be addressed as Napoleon by its owner.

Those Swiss laws can cause lots of pain:
It is illegal to flush the toilet after 10 P.M. if you live in an apartment.
A man may not relieve himself while standing up, after 10 P.M.


By MarkN (Markn) on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 10:14 pm:

Hey, Fitzgerald, my town's mentioned, too, but on dumblaws.com. Where I live: Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine.


By ScottN (Scottn) on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 12:51 am:

Awww. And I sooooo wanted to nuke Chico!


By Electron (Electron) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 5:13 pm:

Kentucky Legislature: Encourage the purchase of a submarine to patrol the waters of the Commonwealth and search and destroy all casino riverboats.

Read the whole document HR 256. It seems the era of the shotgun is finally over...


By ScottN (Scottn) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 7:47 pm:

Yep, they want a Los Angeles class (688) attack sub to attack riverboat gambling.


By Matt_Patterson (Matt_Patterson) on Monday, April 01, 2002 - 11:33 pm:

Go for it! Though I think Louisiana should have it first.


By ScottN (Scottn) on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 12:55 am:

Just out of curiosity, is the Ohio deep enough in the area of Kentucky to handle a 688 class sub?


By Berry (Berry) on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 2:40 am:

Noting the dates of the posts, does Kentucky have a lottery? Will they hire the mob "persuade" other forms of competition to get out of the business or will they throw competitors off of the tower of commerce?


By Electron (Electron) on Tuesday, April 02, 2002 - 5:31 am:

Snopes has more, with Fox News as the source.


By William Berry on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 3:34 pm:

A State Law

Florida:

1. Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner.

2. A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.

3. If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.

4. It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.

5. Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.


By Charles Cabe (Ccabe) on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 4:21 pm:

I found a great dumb law at dumblaws.com . In North Carolina it is illegal to sing off key. It gets stranger when you consider this: Barney Fife is a deputy in Mayberry, North Carolina, (and later works for the Raleigh Police Department). He likes to sing, but habitually sings off key. Which means he would have to arrest himself anytime he sang.

This replaced Kentucky's (my home state's*) annual bathing law, as my favorite bizarre law.


By Sophie Hawksworth on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 9:31 am:

Here's a bizarre law:

Many years ago in England, when divorce was only available to the wealthy, a town clerk had the task of drafting a bill on waterworks.

The bill became law without anyone questioning the clause which read: and the Town Clerk's marriage is hereby annulled.


By Blue Berry on Tuesday, October 15, 2002 - 2:26 pm:

I remember more being here, oh well.

Reposted from off topic board:

It is not my place to question Mama state when she decides things in my best interest, but perhaps someone can explain two things to me.

On October 13, 2002 the Greenbay Packers played the New England Patriots in the Patriots new outdoor stadium. The New England Revolution major league soccer team also plays there. On October 12th the Revolution hosted somebody in a major playoff game. The gridiron had to come off for the soccer lines. It was drizzly all week and getting them off was no problem. The state of

Massachusetts, here in after called MA, has decided against lime or that white powdery stuff. Also all sorts of paints were ruled out. Instead a water-based paint was used.

Fortunately Greenbay left no doubt based on the goal line we could not really make out, and no one watched the important soccer game.

My questions are:
1) why water based paint in the rain? I mean there I can see why not lead paint, but lime? that talcomy based stuff the use as an alternate to lime? bone meal? or latex paint?
2)Are you ready to vote Libertarian yet?


By Blue Berry on Sunday, October 20, 2002 - 8:21 am:

I went to a candidate’s night in Bridgewater (a city near where I live). Among the candidates was a State Rep. Incumbent. (She was a Democrat, of course. [Hey, I live in Massachusetts.:)])
We have a full time legislature in Massachusetts. She bragged about 204 new laws. Keep in mind this isn't commendations or declaring the official state legume. Unfortunately I don't know what the laws are. Assuming they are in session all year long that is 52 weeks that is 3.92307692307692307692307692307692 laws a week. Let's round that to 4.:) Armed robbery and murder are already on the books. What percentage of that 204 will be seen in 50 years to be as ridiculous as not tying you giraffe to a lamppost?

Remember, ignorance is no excuse! At 0.784615384615384615384615384615385 new laws a day I have some reading to do.:)


By Sophie on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 7:15 am:

And what percentage of that 204 will criminalise people who are doing no harm. :(


By Blue Berry on Monday, October 21, 2002 - 1:53 pm:

Sophie,

My geuss is none. We have those already. :):(


By TomM (Tom_M) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 12:52 pm:

Authorities in Moscow are close to passing two laws that together make no sense.

They are planning to lower the age requirement for marriage to 14, and also raise the age of consent to 16. If both laws are adopted, you will be able to marry a 14 year old bride, but if you don't wait 2 years to consummate the marriage, you can be convicted of statutory rape.

Details here


By Matt Pesti on Saturday, November 02, 2002 - 4:41 pm:

That exists in several parts of the US too, where the Age of Marriage (With parental approval) is 16, but the age of consent is 18. The Age of consent is a mythical number, it's not something like how many people can occuply a room and still escape in the fire codes. It's completely arbitary.


By Hannah F., West Wing Moderator (Cynicalchick) on Saturday, November 02, 2002 - 7:42 pm:

Matt,

The reason it's 16 to marry is because of all the teenagers that get knocked up.

Their parents, church (and a conservative government, IMHO) don't want the shame of an unwed mother.

So, of course...

*rolls eyes*

--Cynicalchick, living up to her user name


By Blue Berry on Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 7:50 am:

I believe we should have a law mandating all women get married when they are 8 years old. If women are married during their teen years then there will not be a teen pregnancy problem since there will be no one having sex.

:)


By Hannah F., West Wing Moderator (Cynicalchick) on Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 9:09 pm:

ROFLMAO.


By Biggy on Monday, November 04, 2002 - 7:22 am:

There's no such thing as shame anymore, particularly with unwed mothers. Getting knocked up is a status symbol. There was a time when it was looked down upon, but now, it's just so common, nobody bats an eye at it.


By Blue Berry on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 2:56 am:

In Massachusetts in some nearby towns (I don't have the newspaper) the local police are getting funding for the "click it or ticket" program. If at 5 am when I am delivering newspapers and go at about 10 mph around three blocks and quickly park, get out, and run down a street throwing papers on porches if I don't have my seat belt fastened I can be ticketed. If I don't pay the ticket, I can't renew my license. If I drive without a license men with guns will put me in prison. In prison I'll be raped and by Bubba's female dog for my own good. Isn't great to have people far away from you decide what is best for you? Thank God, for the state legislature making sure I buckle up.:)

In other news, New York City is considering a fine for leaving a cell phone during a movie or play. Yeah, that is annoying, but should guys with guns enforcing manners? Miss Manners with a revolver saying if you don't extend your pinkie she'll shoot for your own good.:) (My mistake, she'd put you in prison where you can be Bubba's female dog for because you disturbed the crowd watching the movie.:))


By Blue Berry on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 2:59 am:

I have been accused of not offering "proof". With that in mind I'll provide a link

http://home.earthlink.net/~castlelong

That is me next a real urinal where I work. Yes, there is a reason it is so low. Unfortunately I can't find it. I took the word of the guy who installed it that ADA regulations required it that way. To be fair:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pubs/mythfct.txt

Maybe this is proof a plumber screwing up and blaming the government. If that's true he screwed up or at least two different occasions.

And it is a common misconception. I've seen "midget" urinals next to "regular" urinals at McDonalds and the movies. In public places I assumed they were for kids.

There are no kids where I work. (Child labor laws, you know.:))

Do you know what this means? There is a guy (or gal) at the ADA who has to prove his (/or her) value to his (/or her) boss. (Sorry, "supervisor". Gotta get the right euphamisms here.:)) To make it appear he (/or she) is needed he (/or she) wrote a report titled something like "The Evils of Urinal Discrimination". (The US government, providing safe bathroom fixtures for ten years!:))

I assume there must be some sort of enforcement. The ADA inspector first checks the wheelchair ramp into the grease factory. Then he (or she) checks to see if the phones have that increased volume feature for hard of hearing people. Then they ask where the men's room is so they can measure the urinal height.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find that thought hilarious.


By Blue Berry on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 3:12 am:

I didn't search hard enough:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/kauaihi.htm

Scroll way down to the changes they make to the mens home side bathroom of Vidinha Stadium.

BTW, some of the changes are reasonable. Coat hooks 5'7" high can be a pain for short people.


By Blue Berry on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 1:45 pm:

I have no idea where to put this. On NPR this morning some guy was proposing a cabinet level post for a department of peace. He was serious. "Helllloooo what does the state department do?:)" I yelled. Of course he has a better chance of being listened to than me.:) (Invade Iraq, start the Peace Department. Hey everybody it's George W. Bush the peace guy!:))

BTW, how insensitive of me above. They are not "short" they are "differently heightted.":)


By MarkN on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 2:47 am:

Funny what you can learn about on a gaming forum. Mark Morgan and MJ, are you two aware of this Oregon law, since you live there? I also considered putting this on the Constitution board, but it seems to be such an unconstitutional law that I figured it fits better here.


By TomM on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 3:19 pm:

In Germany a Thai man who married a German man while pretending to be a woman has filed for an annulment. He has been turned away by the court because since Germany does not recognize same-sex marriage, it can't acknowledge the marriage to annul it. They continue to be leagally man and wife, however.


Read the story.


By Brian Webber on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:16 pm:

I know Luigi doesn't want me swearing, but when you read something like this, red dotted words are, for most people the first things that come to mind, if not out of your mouth.

http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/legislative_sen.html


By TomM on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:45 pm:

There must be something in the water in Virginia. Cosgrove is not the only Virginia legislator proposing a strange law just to prove he's in the pocket of the so-called "Religious Right." But at least Representative Scott Limgamfelter's law is more loopy than Machiavellian.

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.
--Albert Einstein


By Brian Webber on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 6:53 am:

Have I mentioned yet tonight how much I hate thsese people?


By MikeC on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:00 am:

http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/eternal_vigilan.html

Cosgrove explains himself.


By Brian Webber on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:28 am:

Mike: Doesn't make it any less of a stupid idea. Did you read the whole thing, or just the alledgedly moral reaonsing behind invasion of privacy and borderline harrasment of women who've just been through a trauma? And while you're hetre, can you tell exactly what it is the so-claled Christian Right has against women?


By Brian Webber, Foot in Mouth on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:29 am:

Um, strike that. I didn't realzie it was aseperate link. Sorry.


By Brian Webber on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:32 am:

OK, now that I've read it, I'm really emabarrased about what I said. :(


By Mark Morgan-Roving Mod (Mmorgan) on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:48 am:


Quote:

I know Luigi doesn't want me swearing


. Nor does The Chief nitpicker, Brian. It's not Luigi's personal policy, it applies to the whole board.


By Derrick Vargo on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:42 am:

Yeah, just what do those christian righties think about women, why do we hate them so darned much. I mean come on, no one is more harsh on women than christians other than, Muslims, Arabs, The Chinese, Indian's (from india), People from african nations, and the list goes on and on. Yup, not wanting our women folk to kill babies is sure a crime...


By MikeC on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:57 am:

The obtrusive aspect of the law is actually not so much against "killing babies" but the fact that miscarriages must be reported as if they are some sort of crime. This is rightfully protested. Cosgrove explained himself and admitted as I suspected, that he was intending to stop abandonment of babies and he drafted the proposal too broadly. I don't understand how Christianity connects to it.


By Adam Bomb on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 8:41 am:

If some of you guys donated sperm during your college days, to make a quick 50 or so bucks, you just might be on the hook for child support if your sperm was used to conceive a child. Some courts have ruled that "contracts" that remove a man's obligation to support a child are null and void. Some European countries have removed sperm donor's anonymity, and it's probably only a matter of time before American courts do likewise. So, think twice before you go for the quick 50. That could possibly result in an 18 to 21 year obligation that you did not foresee.


By Benn on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 2:07 am:

For more info, may I direct y'all to this Straight Dope article?


By Dumb Laws on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 3:10 pm:

Once, in the 70s, we got a ticket for being too slow on a two -lane highway!

we were 30ish in a 65 mph zone , when the Sherriff got us. Shouldn't they be getting the slowpoke one up front, who was 12 cars ahead of us? My dad and I were not speeding!,( and we didn't have the mandatory driving class.

Teacher: Why are you here?)


By LUIGI NOVI (Lnovi) on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 11:50 pm:

Rape victim jailed.


By David (Guardian) on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 11:52 pm:

Librarian loses her job after ratting out a guy.

Quick Summary: A librarian discovered that a guy was downloading child pornograpny on one of the library's computers. She asked her supervisor if she should report it to the police. The supervisor said no, just give him a warning. She went to the police. Two days later, she lost her job. Her superiors say that she was let go for other reasons. She's suing.

Regardless of whether she lost her job for ratting out the guy, I wonder if the supervisor could be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal? Obstructon of justice?


By ! on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 7:55 pm:

A 12 year old girl got sick and was going home on the school bus when the driver got ill or something. He was swerving and she went to help and stomped on the brakes. For that action, she saved 40 other kids lives and ends up in detention!

local news.She should be awarded the Christopher Pike medal of Honor!


By Luigi Novi (Luigi_novi) on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 9:07 am:

Homeless Man Ordered to Pay Child Support and Lose Inheritance, even though he's not the kid's father.


By Brian FitzGerald (Brifitz1980) on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 12:04 pm:

Unfortunately continuity of fatherhood laws are still common in many states. Often that means that once a man is named as the child's father (even if he's not and had no clue about any of it) it's it's a very hard bell to un-ring. Part of that is because the government doesn't want to make it easier to fix cases of paternity fraud because if you can't hang a child support order on some guy (even if it's not his) than it's the state that ends up supporting the child in the form of foodstamps & other social welfare programs. I believe that in some cases the state can actually back charge "deadbeat Dads" for money that has given under such programs to the single mother of their child. So that's not much incentive for them to fix the system.


By Luigi Novi (Luigi_novi) on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 9:59 pm:

Ah, but read the story, Brian. He not only isn't the kid's father, he never acted as the kid's father either.


By Adam Bomb (Abomb) on Sunday, March 03, 2024 - 7:09 pm:

Apparently a deadbeat squatter has more rights than an honest, rent paying tenant. A couple bought a $2 million house in Douglaston, New York, only to discover a freeloading squatter residing there. Not only won't the deadbeat leave, he won't allow the rightful owners in (to the house they own). To add insult to injury, the squatter has listed rooms in the house (he doesn't own) for rent. More on this awful situation here.


By Tim McCree (Tim_m) on Tuesday, March 05, 2024 - 5:20 am:

They can't have the cops remove said squatter?


By Adam Bomb (Abomb) on Wednesday, March 06, 2024 - 11:34 am:

Here's an explanation regarding how difficult it can be to kick a squatter out of your property.
A question. Didn't the buyers check the house out in person before plunking down $2 million on a house which they now can't occupy? Or, did they just scope out real estate sites (Zillow, Trulia} and put their money down, sight unseen?


By Francois Lacombe (Franc0is) on Wednesday, March 06, 2024 - 12:40 pm:

They may have known the squatter was there, and thought it would be a simple matter to kick him out.


By Tim McCree (Tim_m) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 5:06 am:

They should be able to kick him out.

They bought the house, they own it.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password: