Apparently, there is still a law on the books in Minnesota that prohibits crossing the border into Wisconsin with a duck on one’s head. Does anyone by any chance know the origin of this rather odd law?
Thanks.
Why do you think there’s such a law on the books?
It appears in a frequently-circulated list of “stupid laws,” most of which are clearly made up.
In some versions, it’s a chicken.
What makes you think they are made up?
IMO, most “stupid laws” are not actually phrased the way they are presented.
For example, I’d venture a guess that if it WERE illegal to enter Wisconsin with a duck on your head, the actual statute would say something about “Hat of any kind” or “Hat made of any animal, bird, animal product or bird product” rather than “Duck”.
Haven’t seen that name in a while. Is he still around?
Because the lists are totally unattributed, never offer any specifics, and trying to find some corroboration of them never turns up any references other than the same widely-circulated list, posted on joke sites.
The same list that contains the duck/chicken law also claims that there’s a law on the books in Alabama against carrying an ice-cream cone in your back pocket, and that in Oklahoma has a law against opening a bottle of sodapop without having a “licensed engineer” present. Such claims tend to strain credulity.
Because a duck’s quack doesn’t echo, so people won’t know you’re coming.
:: Ducks and runs ::
Here are the Minnesota statutes. Click on “Search by key words or phrases.” You will find 13 references to “duck” the animal (3 to “duck” the canvas fabric). None has anything to do with wearing a duck on the head, or Wisconsin.
Try crossing into Wisconsin with a chicken and you’ll find out why a duck.
A lot of those stupid laws are just absurd examples of perfectly sensible laws. For example, if they say that “It is illegal to leave an alligator tied up to a parking meter in Fargo, North Dakota,” then what the law probably actually says is that it’s illegal to tie any animal up to a parking meter. Yes, this includes alligators, but it also includes nasty vicious dogs, which are what the lawmakers were concerned about when they passed the law.
Like groman says, the law in question (if it exists at all) is probably a ban on headgear that uses animal pelts. It sounds like the type of law a legislature might pass if they wanted to ban coon-skin caps.
Viaduct?
Vi-a-no-chicken?
(Somebody had to say it.)
I can’t be sure if it was Saturday Evening Post or Reader’s Digest or some other similar periodical, but there was a feature each issue of a 4-panel cartoon-style It’s The Law. Many items at least as weird as those cited thus far were included over the years I saw that feature. I wondered then if anybody ever checked them for validity, because some of them were really dumb.
Anybody else remember that feature? Which magazine was it?
Another reason that you get these silly-sounding laws is that many laws have laundry-list definitions that apply to entire sections of code. For example, during my long-ago undergrad days, the Code of Student Conduct at my university had a list of restricted weapons–stun guns, brass knuckles, rubber hoses, and so forth–and a long list of places on campus that you weren’t allowed to bring them. We’d amuse ourselves by picking out the silliest possible combination–“Holy crap, did you know we’re not allowed to wear brass knuckles to a theatrical performance?” Which was literally true. But taken out of context, it makes it sound as if the code writers were specifically concerned about brass-knuckle brawling at the Shakespeare fest, which wasn’t true.
I’ve read once a site that displayed this kind of silly laws along with, in many cases, the actual statute.
As many posters mentionned, generally speaking, the laws themselves aren’t as silly as they are presented. They’re generally creatively interpreted by the sites or documents presenting them. I don’t have any example in mind, but the example made up by ** diceman ** with the word “animal” being replaced by “alligator” would be quite representative of what I read.
I just thought about it. Such an enforceable law could not exist. Here’s why. The putative law above would make no sense unless ordinarily having a duck on ones head is legal in Minnesota. Otherwise, the Wisconson part is superfluous. However, is having a duck on ones head is legal in Minnesota, then as soon as I cross the border I am no longer subject to Minnesota law. Minnesota lacks jurisdiction to pass any law about what someone may do in Wisconsin. And Minnesota can’t pass laws about what I may transport out of the state. That would be preempted by the US Constitution, which gives the federal government the right to restrict interstate commerce.
The only law that Minnesota could pass would be to ban crossing into Minnesota from Wisconsin with a duck on one’s head.
(Of course, it is logically possible the Minnesota legislature could pass an unenforceable law. However, little reason for anyone to care about laws no court would enforce. And given that there are going to be representatives in any state legislature that are actual lawyers, unlikley that any blatantly unenforceable law like this would ever pass. Particularly a law this stupid.)
I’ve seen a couple. From http://www.dumblaws.com/, the biggest offender of the “creative interpretation” of law I’ve personally found, to http://www.stupidlaws.com which has far fewer entries, but tends to back them up better with links to the actual statutes. As an example, from DumbLaws we have, under the US -> Oklahoma section “Whaling is illegal.” At one point I looked at Oklahoma statutes with their search engine and found zero instances of the word “whale”. I can only assume they are working off of §29-6-303. which prohibits the taking of non-game fish from OK rivers.
Specifically making whaling illegal in a land-locked state would be pretty stupid. Restricting the species and manner of fishing is perfectly normal. The restrictions include bans on speargun fishing for most species, with only a handful of exceptions. Since there is really no way to take down a whale without spearguns I think this may be the origin of the claim that whaling is illegal. It is true that if there were a whale somewhere in Oklahoma then the methods necessary to kill it would be illegal under the fishing and game regulations.
On the other hand, from StupidLaws we find, under the Sex -> Is That a Bananna in Your Pocket?
StupidLaws.com screwed up here. The case, and the laws, were actually from Indiana, but that is a minor nitpick. From the case at the findlaw link we see(emphasis added)
It should be noted that current Indiana statutes continue this definition of “nudity” so having a boner under your tight jeans could get you arrested.
Enjoy,
Steven
On futher investigation I seem to have stumbled across the only page at the Stupid Laws site which actually has a cite. I must have been misremembering them as being less made up and unsupported than Dumb Laws. A fair number of the Dumb Laws entries also have cites to statutes. I would swear I found one of those sites at one point where all the entries I spot-checked checked out.
Grr.
On the actual topic, the Dumb Laws site has the “shall not cross state lines with a duck on their head” entry the OP mentioned. No cite however.
Enjoy,
Steven
He’s around on LiveJournal, but I don’t think he posts here much anymore.
Fake or misrepresented laws aside, the concept of Blue Laws is well known to many people (especially from the Northeast). AFAIU, Blue Laws are laws that are technically “still on the books”, perhaps from some point in the state’s puritanical history, that haven’t been removed, but (sometimes) aren’t enforced. For example in Boston, I believe that sexual positions other than the missionary are illegal, as well as various other silly things (sex between two men?). Of course things like not being able to buy liquor after 11pm or at all on Sundays are/were strickly enforced.
Anyone care to clarify (correct me)?