Prometheus98876 Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Most of us are aware of some of the stupid/pointless laws that result when the government has the legal power to pass laws over whateever aspect of our lives that they chose. That they will not just pass the laws that make sense (though most people assume they will, despite the evidence to the contrary and the fact they have no reason to assuem this whatsoever). But I want to point out some of the most insane laws that I could find that have been passed in various states of the USA. Most are legacy laws from long ago, such as one law taht states if you have more than 5 Native Americians on your land, you may shoot them. Some contradict other laws, like one in NY allowing women to go topless for non-business purposes (isnt there a public decency law against this among other things?), soem make no sense, not not being allowed to take a lion to the movies in Arizona (OK, who is going to try this, who has EVER tried this?) or banning hunting camels in Arizona... Go to this site if you want to see some of the stupid results of the governments power gone awry, and those skeptics tell me if some of the AS laws are so hard to beleive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Go to this site if you want to see some of the stupid results of the governments power gone awry, and those skeptics tell me if some of the AS laws are so hard to beleive...I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is an urban myth site. Quite a number of those "laws" don't actually exist. They have at least tuned up the page by throwing in a couple of supposed links to laws, but if you check the Ohio sample (and I did research ORC to check a lot of this), they aren't reading the laws right. The "Decoration Day" law actually prohibits spitting on the bus, the "mistreatment" example refers to vandalism, and the "arrest" example doesn't refer to ordinary criminal arrest, it refers to arresting a person under court order and hauling them to debtor's prison (maybe a strange thing to disallow on that day, but since arresting people to put them in debtor's prison is kind of un-American, it seems appropriate to disallow it on the 4th.) Can you locate the statute allowing you to shoot 5 Indians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 If anyone can cite the Federal statute that prohibits writing a check for less than $1.00, I'll give that person a cookie. And by 'give,' I mean 'type.' And by 'cookie,' I mean 'a brief thank you message.' -Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted March 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is an urban myth site. Quite a number of those "laws" don't actually exist. They have at least tuned up the page by throwing in a couple of supposed links to laws, but if you check the Ohio sample (and I did research ORC to check a lot of this), they aren't reading the laws right. The "Decoration Day" law actually prohibits spitting on the bus, the "mistreatment" example refers to vandalism, and the "arrest" example doesn't refer to ordinary criminal arrest, it refers to arresting a person under court order and hauling them to debtor's prison (maybe a strange thing to disallow on that day, but since arresting people to put them in debtor's prison is kind of un-American, it seems appropriate to disallow it on the 4th.) Can you locate the statute allowing you to shoot 5 Indians? Oh damn, I guess my radar was down on this one then. Still I guess its of comic value I guess. Can we change the point of this thread to which of these laws we can verify from more reliable sources then? I will see which I can do, like that one you asked me about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miseleigh Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) All right, here's a few for you: Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars. Link I had to check: Fornication.—Sexual intercourse between an unmarried male and an unmarried female. As defined in Chapter 277, Section 39. No person shall sell, offer for sale, barter, display or give away living rabbits, chickens, ducklings or other fowl which have been dyed, colored or otherwise treated so as to impart to them an artificial color. Link I guess I have to kill my pink rabbits and purple ducks before I can show them to anyone. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years. Link "Crime against nature" isn't specifically defined, but I think we all know what they meant. Whoever issues or passes a note, bill, order or check, other than the notes or bills of a bank incorporated under the authority of this commonwealth, of the United States or of some one of the United States, for an amount less than five dollars, or whereon a less amount than five dollars is due at the time of such issuing or passing thereof, with intent that the same shall be circulated as currency, shall be punished by a fine of fifty dollars. Link I think this says I can't write a check for less than $5. Well, that's what debit is for anyway And now for my personal favorite... Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior. Link Lovely, ain't it? So much for separation of church and state. [ed: fixed typo in link, DO] Edited March 28, 2007 by DavidOdden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Little Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Whoever issues or passes a note, bill, order or check, other than the notes or bills of a bank incorporated under the authority of this commonwealth, of the United States or of some one of the United States, for an amount less than five dollars, or whereon a less amount than five dollars is due at the time of such issuing or passing thereof, with intent that the same shall be circulated as currency, shall be punished by a fine of fifty dollars. The way I read this, it doesn't prohibit a check for less than $5, because there's no intent that a check will be circulated as currency. Basically it's saying you can't spend Monopoly money or something like that. (Still seems like a useless law; common sense should prevent the problem from arising in the first place.) What's weird is that this is section 22 of the chapter of the General Laws. Section 21 says the exact same thing but without the five-dollar proviso. The fine is the same, fifty dollars. So what was the point of section 22? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Legacy laws, you gotta love 'em. Note too the bit in sect. 21 about "or of any of the British provinces of North America". Which would be, uh, lessee, no... Also see sect 23 "Whoever receives or puts in circulation as currency a bank note or bill which is, or a part of which is, for any fractional part of a dollar shall be punished by a fine of twenty-five dollars". Yes, there is a serious problem with people creating paper dimes with the likeness of Bugs Bunny, and it must be stopped. I recall that Virginia -- yes, the commonwealth of Virginia, I wonder if there's something about being a commonwealth -- by tradition don't like to repeal laws, they revise and add on. So that resulted in a booboo where all businesses had to close down on Sunday, when they meant no businesses had to, and they lost tract of the nots and revisions. One suspects that the "British province" laws are a few years old, also the idea that you might have private money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoSmith23 Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 This one's my favorite: "Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business." For anyone who thinks that Rand exaggerated in regards to the world's prejudice and hatred of business, observe this discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benpercent Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 One day last week when I was munching on a donut and talking to my boss as how "custard filled" packis [punch-skees] taste and feel an awful lot like vanilla pudding, and he pointed out to me that it was indeed vanilla pudding, contrary to any "Barbvarian creme" labels on the box. Apparently custard has been outlawed, at least in that product, for having uncooked eggs in it. I then wondered if cookie dough ice cream has just slipped under the radar or something. And what about those cartoon shows about video game characters? Back a decade or so there used to be a fad where toys and greeting card characters would get their own TV show, both as an advertisement and a moneymaker in itself. A law was later passed to ban these types of shows from being made because "kids shouldn't be watching half-hour advertisements for toys." I'm not sure if the law has been nullified or what, but now they have "half-hour advertisements" for video games. Hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.