snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Legal Affairs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 11 August 2014, 01:15 PM
dewey dewey is offline
 
Join Date: 12 October 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,789
Default

I wonder if they realize that the Maryland law prohibiting "Disorderly Houses" referred to brothels, not messy houses. I believe it was a fairly common law at one time.

dewey
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11 August 2014, 11:45 PM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

Quote:
Washington:

Any door to a public building must open outwardly or the building owner will face a misdemeanor charge. (Source: Business Insider)
It may still be on the books, but I believe there are Federal building codes that require the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12 August 2014, 03:53 PM
BinaryHedgehog's Avatar
BinaryHedgehog BinaryHedgehog is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 March 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13
Default

It actually exists for a very good reason. In a fire, the first thing to do is get out, and many people are trying to meet that goal. However, if doors opened inward, it would push against the crowd of people, and that would mean an unnecessary amount of deaths. If doors open outward, people can get out. Doors that open inward are fire hazards!
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 14 August 2014, 06:44 AM
tantan68 tantan68 is offline
 
 
Join Date: 26 July 2014
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 1
Default

I belong to a Facebook group for owners of pet rats. Apparently in the city of Billings, Montana it is illegal to own a pet rat. of course some of the Montana members say it isn't enforced.

In Virginia with the exception of Northern Virginia ( The DC Suburbs ) and the southeastern "Hampton Roads" area city buses can not leave the city limits. I believe this is the result of Virginia's "Dillon Rule" that creates the cities of Virginia independent and not part of a surrounding county. Same rule also bans the cities of Virginia from annexing any part of the county though towns can still annex.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11 October 2015, 02:42 PM
Graham2001's Avatar
Graham2001 Graham2001 is offline
 
Join Date: 21 January 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 747
Default Weird laws from around the world

Courtesy of Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgS39T42QVE

Liked the one about the pig....
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 31 May 2016, 08:58 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,121
Default

Odd laws you may unknowingly break (BBC, 31st May 2016)

All from (parts of) the UK, and unusually, they're all real situations with the actual statute cited where applicable.

1. Carrying a plank on a pavement
2. Hanging out the washing
3. Lingering at a funeral
4. Handling a salmon in suspicious circumstances
5. Bringing Polish potatoes into England
6. Chatting about the weather/babies/holidays
7. Carrying an extra dog mess bag

They've still stretched the definition of "law" to include a council workplace rule (since changed), a housing association rule and a weird service charge that was inappropriately passed on to a customer, though.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 31 May 2016, 01:59 PM
firefighter_raven's Avatar
firefighter_raven firefighter_raven is offline
 
Join Date: 27 September 2008
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
Odd laws you may unknowingly break (BBC, 31st May 2016)

All from (parts of) the UK, and unusually, they're all real situations with the actual statute cited where applicable.

1. Carrying a plank on a pavement
2. Hanging out the washing
3. Lingering at a funeral
4. Handling a salmon in suspicious circumstances
5. Bringing Polish potatoes into England
6. Chatting about the weather/babies/holidays
7. Carrying an extra dog mess bag

They've still stretched the definition of "law" to include a council workplace rule (since changed), a housing association rule and a weird service charge that was inappropriately passed on to a customer, though.
Ok I am really really curious about the salmon one.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 31 May 2016, 02:08 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,239
Baseball

Here is an example:
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 31 May 2016, 03:48 PM
Keeper of the Mad Bunnies's Avatar
Keeper of the Mad Bunnies Keeper of the Mad Bunnies is offline
 
Join Date: 07 January 2003
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,251
Read This!

Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighter_raven View Post
Ok I am really really curious about the salmon one.
The link is in the original article:

Handling salmon in suspicious circumstances.

Section 32 of the Salmon Act of 1986

Basically - you are in trouble if you help in the "retention, removal or disposal" of a salmon that you believe (or should suspect) came from an illegal source.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 31 May 2016, 05:05 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,121
Default

The funny thing is that apparently that wording was chosen deliberately over the earlier, wider wording:

Quote:
A five-hour House of Lords debate about the issue in February 1986 decided the wording would protect unwitting people from the then-in-place wider law of "possessing salmon which have been illegally taken, killed or landed".
I guess they wanted to make sure that "end users" of the stolen salmon, who might have bought it from what they thought was a legitimate source, were protected, so it's only the people who are actually behaving suspiciously with the salmon who would be in trouble. (And it's a defence if the salmon turns out not to be a suspicious salmon after all, even if you were handling it suspiciously...)

I said the article was stretching the definition of "law" (although not in the salmon case; that's a proper law) but in fact that's only the headline. The article itself talks about "rules", and they are all rules.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 31 May 2016, 06:01 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,975
Default

If that was the reasoning, wouldn't it have been easier to just add "knowingly" to the beginning of the phrase?
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 31 May 2016, 06:16 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,516
Glasses

They might have thought "knowingly" wouldn't take care of the "or should suspect" aspect.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.