Articles Posted in Weird Laws

You live in Pennsylvania, and you just want to pick up a six-pack of beer and be on your way. So you head down to the Sheetz convenience store, which has a license to sell beer. But, under Pennsylvania law, because Sheetz wouldn’t allow folks to drink on the premises, they’re not allowed to sell beer at all! Say what? Sheetz took this absurd law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and … lost. Per The Daily Review: …

…state law allows stores to sell six-packs only if consumers also may consume beer on the premises.

The Sheetz store in question didn’t want to accommodate beer-drinking in the store, prompting the court to rule that state law then prohibited it from selling beer for takeout.

It all makes sense, right? We want people to drink, then drive, instead of going home and drinking! Brilliant!

Tumid? Seriously, does anyone know what “tumid” means? Some legislators did, because they put it in Section 3303.14 of the Columbus (Ohio) Code:

“Nude” or “state of nudity” means a state of dress or undress that exposes to view: …

2. Human male genitals in a discernibly tumid state, even with a complete and opaque covering, or

3. A covering or device that when worn, depicts, represents, or simulates human female genitals, human female areolae or nipples, or human male genitals in a discernibly tumid state.

(Emphasis added by the Juice.) As you may have guessed, “tumid” means “erect” or “stiff” or “rigid.” Now, was that so hard? (Sorry!)

Seriously, you banned karaoke, Lilburn, Georgia? And it lasted 2 years? I’m guessing those lawmakers must have hated “Footloose.” All that dancing and music … As reported in The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Sing your hearts out, Lilburn. Now, it’s allowed. Two years after the city put the kibosh on karaoke in an effort to curtail crime, leaders have relaxed their liquor law to permit karaoke and other forms of “interactive” entertainment, including trivia, darts and pool, at restaurants that sell alcohol.

Why the change in tune? [Ouch.] To attract and keep businesses and young adults.

“Lilburn has matured, and we want to keep it vibrant,” said Mayor Diana Preston. “Our focus is keeping our business community strong and that means a diversity of businesses.”

And, she said, Lilburn — which bans bars — wants to accommodate its young adults, who enjoy pub atmospheres.

Lilburn officials had tightened up its alcohol ordinance in 2007 amid controversy over Sports Fan Bar and Grill. The City Council had argued that crime follows bars, and they believed Sports Fan was a bar masquerading as a restaurant.

So leaders clamped down on common bar activities such as karaoke. The action stirred debate, with some accusing Lilburn of closing the tap on good times. Sports Fan shut down last year.

The City Council approved the ordinance revisions Monday night. Lilburn’s liquor laws now compare to Gwinnett County’s.

Thor Johnson, president of the Lilburn Business Association, said the change has been a long time coming. “Chain restaurants will not move into a community like this because restrictions we’ve had in the past,” Johnson said.

But what about crime? Preston said that’s no longer a concern given the number of police officers and the creation of the alcohol review board.

City Clerk Kathy Maner acknowledges that Lilburn officials are “walking a fine line. [Leaders] want to make Lilburn a business-friendly city as well as make sure their citizens are protected.”

Oyster Barn Grill & Bar had pulled its pool tables and video games during the 2007 clamp down. New owner Bob Carmen said he’s indifferent to the revisions and doesn’t plan to add entertainment options. “We frankly found the law to be provincial, but our objective is to be a good popular restaurant,” he said.

I guess, once upon a time (and still? – okay, let me have it, Tremontonians), certain animal behavior was popular in Tremonton, Utah. From the Tremonton City Ordinances:

13-221. Unlawful Acts. It shall be unlawful for any person to … (4) … let any male animal to any female animal for the purpose of providing entertainment or viewing to any person.

Zoinks! Here’s a link to the Ordinances.

If you’re scheduled to work on Sunday in South Carolina, how about this little ditty from the South Carolina Code:

Any employee of any business which operates on Sunday under the provisions of this section has the option of refusing to work in accordance with Section 53-1-100. Any employer who dismisses or demotes an employee because he is a conscientious objector to Sunday work is subject to a civil penalty of treble the damages found by the court or the jury plus court costs and the employee’s attorney’s fees. The court may order the employer to rehire or reinstate the employee in the same position he was in prior to dismissal or demotion without forfeiture of compensation, rank, or grade.

No doubt invoking this statute will put you on a path straight to the top.

Sure, it’s not a frontal attack on Christmas. Nevertheless, municipalities are chipping away at old St. Nick. As reported by The Telegraph:

[crossing guard] Kevin Simpson has decorated his lollipop [crossing sign] each year for Christmas to spread some festive cheer among the children arriving at Berrywood Primary School in Hedge End, Southampton. But this year, after he placed extra tinsel around the edge of the circular sign, an anonymous member of the public complained to his employers, Hampshire County Council. Despite protests from parents council officers banned father-of-two Mr Simpson from using the tinsel.

Other than being a spineless, anonymous weasel, what kind of person would complain about tinsel? Probably the same kind of folks who were behind these measures:

Westminster council banned Debenhams from playing Christmas carols at its store in Oxford Street, west London, over fears of “noise pollution”.

Carol-singing Brownies and Guides were banned from the Marlowes shopping centre in Hemel Hempstead, Herts because of fears the girls would obstruct fire escape routes.

Last month, Wimborne council in Dorset threatened to ban the town’s 400-year-old Christmas custom of firing muskets into the sky because of fears the noise would scare children. The custom dating back to the 17th century however was allowed to take place however following publicy outcry.

Plans for Christmas trees in the streets of Llandovery, Carmarthenshire, were also cancelled, after volunteers were told they risked breaking health and safety rules if they climbed ladders to put them up.

What’s next, banning Festivus celebrations? Here’s the source.

Things are crazy in the Hoosier state, where Ms. Liz Ferris got the vanity plate “BE GODS” nine years ago. Because she let the renewal lapse, she had to reapply. Her application was rejected! Why? Per The Indy Channel:

“We do not permit personalized license plates with references to deity,” said BMV [Bureau of Motor Vehicles] spokesman Dennis Rosebrough.

Well, somebody might want to explain to Ms. Ferris (who filed suit after her renewal was rejected) how this makes any sense since the STATE OF INDIANA is issuing license plates that read …In God We Trust! Yup, and the Indiana Court of Appeals just ruled that the plates are constitutional.

“Er, hello, is Ms. Ferris home? Uh, ma’am, we’ve reconsidered your renewal application, and you can go ahead and get your “BE GODS” license plates again. How can we do that with our new “no deity” rule? Well, we’ll just grandfather you in ’cause you had it before the rule. Everybody okay?” Nope.

Ferris said she intends to move forward with the lawsuit in hopes the policy will be changed.

“You can develop a system that can monitor and … be fair to all parties and yet still allow reference to deity,” Ferris said.

Ferris said she isn’t seeking monetary damages from the BMV.

You can read more about Ms. Ferris and her case here, and about the “In God We Trust” case here.

How appropriate that I stumbled across this law the same day I saw our first snowflakes here in Washington, DC. Now, imagine – if you can – a law that both Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann would agree goes too far. That law outlaws throwing snowballs! And the offending municipality is … Grand Forks, North Dakota. Here’s the law:

9-0123. Throwing rocks, snowballs, and other objects.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to throw or cast, or encourage, aid or assist others in throwing or casting any rock, stone, snowball, or other object into, upon, against, or at any building, structure, automobile street, alley, or other public or private property.

(2) It is unlawful for any person to throw or cast, or encourage, aid or assist others in throwing or casting any rock, stone, snowball, or other object upon or at any person or persons. (Ord. No. 4125, § XIX, 3-20-06)

They have outlawed snowball fights! And even throwing a snowball at ANYTHING! Absurd.

And what about this: you would also technically be breaking the law if you skipped a stone (or a rock!) in a creek. Check it out:

It is unlawful for any person to throw … any rock, stone … into …any … public or private property.

Well done! A beautifully crafted law. Click here (click on Chapter IX, and scroll down to 9-0123) to see this wacky law.

Not only is it illegal for men to go topless in Easton, Maryland, it’s illegal for “any person.” What about babies? What about boys? Here’s the law:

Sec. 18-9. Required dress, upper torso, penalty.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, whether male or female, to appear upon the streets, sidewalks and highways, or in any public building of the Town of Easton unless he or she is wearing a shirt, blouse or similar article of wearing apparel designed to cover the upper torso of said person.

Should spitting really be criminalized? “Yes,” said the powers that be in Cincinnati. Here’s a law that was passed in 2006 as part of the “Neighborhood Quality of Life Unified Code”

Sec. 1601-27. Spitting in a Public Place.

No person shall spit upon any sidewalk, street, highway, alley, the floor of any bus used for public transportation, theater, railway or public transportation depot or platform or the floor of any school house, church or public building of any kind.

Whoever violates this section is guilty of spitting in a public place, a minor misdemeanor.

Is it ever enforced? At least once, anyway. As reported by kypost.com, a Ms. Davis was busted for “flipping the bird” and spitting on the sidewalk. But that’s not why she was put in jail.

Police also found Davis had two outstanding warrants.

Oops.