# Why a duck? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 15, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324 "2005-06-15T03:15:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mrklutz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ebca7d/32.png) [@mrklutz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrklutz)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/1 "2005-06-15T03:15:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/2 "2005-06-15T03:38:59Z")
Why do you think there’s such a law on the books? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/3 "2005-06-15T03:43:16Z")
It appears in a frequently-circulated list of “stupid laws,” most of which are clearly made up. In some versions, it’s a chicken. ---
**Author:** ![Imasquare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Imasquare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Imasquare)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/4 "2005-06-15T04:18:42Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/5 "2005-06-15T04:20:53Z")
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”. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/6 "2005-06-15T04:33:22Z")
Haven’t seen that name in a while. Is he still around? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/7 "2005-06-15T05:00:24Z")
> [@Imasquare](#): > > What makes you think they are made up? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/8 "2005-06-15T05:09:59Z")
> [@mrklutz](#): > > 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. Because a duck’s quack doesn’t echo, so people won’t know you’re coming. :: Ducks and runs :: ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/9 "2005-06-15T06:39:28Z")
Here are the [Minnesota statutes](http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/statutes.asp). 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. ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/10 "2005-06-15T10:55:07Z")
Try crossing into Wisconsin with a chicken and you’ll find out why a duck. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/11 "2005-06-15T11:30:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/12 "2005-06-15T11:36:11Z")
Viaduct? Vi-a-no-chicken? (_Somebody_ had to say it.) ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/13 "2005-06-15T12:01:37Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/14 "2005-06-15T14:13:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/15 "2005-06-15T14:22:19Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/16 "2005-06-15T15:12:35Z")
> [@mrklutz](#): > > 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. 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/17 "2005-06-15T15:35:10Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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’ve seen a couple. From [http://www.dumblaws.com/](http://www.dumblaws.com/), the biggest offender of the “creative interpretation” of law I’ve personally found, to [http://www.stupidlaws.com](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.”](http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=laws&cid=184®ion=36) At one point I looked at [Oklahoma statutes with their search engine](http://oklegal.onenet.net/statutes.basic.html) and found zero instances of the word “whale”. I can only assume they are working off of [§29-6-303.](http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/ifetch?Oklahoma_Statutes.99+1228120480819+F) 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?](http://www.stupidlaws.com/sex/ill_erect.html) > [@](#): > > There is in fact an Illinois law that prohibits a number of things, one of which is a public erection, and another one of which is nude dancing. The prohibition against the public erection has never been challenged in the Supreme Court, but the prohibition against nude dancing has. > > If you want to read more, you can view the case for the second instance above. The URL is: [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=501&page=560](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=501&page=560) [StupidLaws.com](http://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) > [@](#): > > [Footnote 2] Indiana Code 35-451 (1988) provides: > > "Public Indecency; indecent exposure > > "Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place: > > "(1) engages in sexual intercourse; > > "(2) engages in deviate sexual conduct; > > "(3) appears in a state of nudity; or > > "(4) fondles the genitals of himself or another person; commits public indecency, a Class A misdemeanor. > > “(b) `Nudity’ means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or **the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state**.” It should be noted that [current Indiana statutes continue this definition of “nudity”](http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar49/ch1.html) so having a boner under your tight jeans could get you arrested. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/18 "2005-06-15T15:42:25Z")
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”](http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=laws&cid=184®ion=23) entry the OP mentioned. No cite however. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![scout1222](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/34f0e0/32.png) [@scout1222](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scout1222)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/19 "2005-06-15T15:47:06Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > Haven’t seen that name in a while. Is he still around? He’s around on LiveJournal, but I don’t think he posts here much anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Jayrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Jayrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayrot)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324/20 "2005-06-15T16:56:08Z")
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)? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-duck/308324.md?page=2)