Articles Posted in Weird Laws

Regular readers know that The Juice is not a big fan of Big Brother. Like-minded Juicegoers probably won’t be too fond of this proposed ordinance now pending in Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina:

Sec. 14-15G. Yelling, shouting, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any person to yell, shout, hoot, whistle, or sing on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time or place so as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort, or repose of persons in any office, or in any dwelling, or other type of residence, or of any persons in the vicinity.

Really? You’re actually considering passing this? No offense to whoever drafted this, but The Juice really hopes he/she/they did not go to law school because this absurd ordinance sets a new standard for vagueness. What a hoot! Good luck enforcing it! Here’s a link to the proposed ordinance on the town’s website.

Keep in mind that this is the same town, Kure Beach, North Carolina, that outlawed thong bathing suits. Anyway, way back when (way pre-thong), someone must have been playing the piccolo really loud. Why would the Juice hazard this guess? This is from the Kure Beach nuisance laws:

Sec. 11-31. Certain noises prohibited.

(a) The creation and continuation of any loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in the town is hereby prohibited…

(b) The following acts, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing, annoying and unnecessary noises in violation of this section …

(2) Radios, phonographs, etc. The playing of any radio, phonograph, piccolo or any musical instrument in such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb any person, or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of any person in any dwelling, hotel or other residence. (emphasis added)

Picking on the piccolo? Not cool. Here’s the source. (Click on Chapter 11, then Article III.)

True. Kids can legally drink at bars in Wisconsin and Texas if a parent buys them the drinks. That may be about to change in Wisconsin, as reported by Jason Stein of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

Parents at a bar or restaurant could buy alcoholic drinks for children who are 18 years of age or older – but not those younger than that, as now allowed – under a bill passed 56-41 by the Assembly. The bill now heads to the Senate.

Under current law, patrons must be 21 to buy a drink but parents can buy drinks for their children of any age. Wisconsin and Texas are the only two states to do so. Under the bill, which is supported by the Tavern League of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Medical Society, children under 18 can still go into bars if accompanied by a parent.

Here’s the source.

Yes, sir. They’re tackling the big problems in Victoria, Australia. Here are a few recently enacted laws:

In Bass Coast shire, families were shocked to learn they needed a $100 permit for children to camp in their own back yards.

Geelong residents can be fined for feeding ducks or throwing stones into a public lake.

In Whittlesea, garage sales can’t be advertised until the day of the sale and if the signs aren’t removed by the end of the day the seller would get a $234 fine for each sign.

Pigeon keeper Frank de Pasqvale said new times for exercising pigeons in Wyndham would make the birds easy targets for eagles. He said it also would be difficult for owners who had work and personal commitments during those hours.

Controversy surrounding the exercising of pigeons? Who knew. Here’s the source, The Herald Sun.

Who do you think would be the last group of folks to tell the government that they are subversives? Maybe subversives? Well sir, the legislature in South Carolina was of a different mind, because they enacted the “Subversive Activities Registration Act.” Honestly. Per the act:

For the purposes of this chapter the following words, phrases and terms are defined as follows:

(1) “Subversive organization” means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means;

What’s worse than getting bitten by a rabid bat? Having to pay for all of the treatment out of your own pocket. Fortunately for David Froelich of Delaware County, Ohio, he only got bitten once. As reported by the Columbus Dispatch:

A little-known Ohio law allows a person bitten or injured by a rabid animal to ask county commissioners to reimburse up to $1,500 for medical treatment. The request must be made within four months of the bite, and a doctor must verify the treatment.

The debate came when Froehlich, 61, asked the county commissioners to help cover his $5,000 hospital bill for a series of rabies-vaccine shots.

… the commissioners unanimously agreed to pay Froehlich the maximum reimbursement allowed under the law. Commissioners weren’t obligated to fulfill Froehlich’s request, because it was made two days after the four-month window had closed.

Fortunately for Mr. Froelich …

… a 1928 state attorney general’s opinion grants commissioners discretion when considering such claims, so waiving the timeline is within the law.

Think this happens often? Nope.

Brad Cole, managing director for research at the County Commissioners’ Association of Ohio, said he knew of no other such rabies-bite reimbursements.

Whew, and ..

Cole said the reimbursement law was revised in 2000 to increase the payment amount from $200 to $1,500, which was the estimated cost of treatment at the time.

Whew. You can read more here.

I know lots of states still have stupid laws criminalizing premarital sex. But the Juice found this Minnesota law to be particularly amusing.

609.34 Fornication.

When any man and single woman have sexual intercourse with each other, each is guilty of fornication, which is a misdemeanor.

Now I understand the backstory for Minnesota’s state slogan: “Minnesota – Three’s Not A Crowd.” Here’s the statute.

Here’s a wacky current Minnesota law I stumbled upon:

609.294 Bestiality.

Whoever carnally knows a dead body or an animal or bird is guilty of bestiality, which is a misdemeanor. If knowingly done in the presence of another the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000 or both.

I have several questions. Exactly why would would having sex with a dead PERSON fall under the bestiality law? What kind of mind would conceive of a person having sex with a bird? Is this even possible? (Please, don’t answer that.) The Juice is at a loss. Here’s a link to the statute.

Is there really a law that forbids you from tipping someone for good service? Yup. (Okay, technically it’s a by-law that applies to city-owned cemeteries.) In Hamilton, Ontario, you are forbidden from tipping a cemetery worker! Really. Props to The Hamilton Spectator for digging this up (sorry!). Here it is:

24. No tips or gratuities are to be given to cemetery workers by visitors or Rights Holders, nor shall any be accepted by any cemetery worker.

Oftentimes, some things you just have to live with, like, say, smells you don’t like. Actually, if a proposed Honolulu bill passes, you might not, at least in Honolulu. The question is, how does one determine if an odor “unreasonably disturb[s] others or interfere[s] with their use of the transit system?” Hey, Axe disturbs me. I think that’s reasonable. The stench of stilton cheese disturbs me. Is that “reasonable?” If this law passes, and I’m driving the bus, ain’t gonna be any Axe-wearing, stilton-toting passengers on board.

Here are the relevant portions of this idiotic proposed law:

SECTION 5. Chapter 13, Article 3, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu 1990, is amended by adding a new Section 13-3.1 to read as follows:

Sec. 13-3.1 Activities prohibited on transit property.

(b) The following actions are prohibited in, on or in relation to, all transit properties. … a person who commits one of the following acts in, on or in relation to transit property is in violation of this section and subject to the penalties listed in Section 13-3.3(b).

(13) Bringing onto transit property odors that unreasonably disturb others or interfere with their use of the transit system, whether such odors arise from one’s person, clothes, articles, accompanying animal or any other source.[emphasis added]

The penalty?

Any person violating Section … 13-3.1(b), or aiding, abetting, or assisting in any manner whatsoever another person to violate any of such provisions shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in an amount not exceeding $500.00 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding six months or be both so fined and imprisoned.

Know what “disturbs” the Juice? This ridiculous, ultra-vague proposed law. Here’s a link to the Bill.