richard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:43:15 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:

richard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 00:04:24 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:

Greegor wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:26 pm, radioguy wrote:
several states have now outlawed using ham radio while walking.
this is part of their ban on ALL electronic devices while walking
as a result of the lady who fell into a fountain while walking in
a mall. however, instead of outlawing only texting while walking,
the new laws
state using ANY electronic device while walking is against the
law and
violators will get fined over two hundred dollars for doing such.
And unlike the driving laws, there are NO exceptions for ham
radio or cbl radio in these states laws against using ANY and ALL
electronic devices while walking.

I'd like to see the text of such legal codes.
What states and where did you get this story?

It is ridiculous on the face of it. If your wris****ch is
electronic, you could get a $200 fine for checking the time while
walking.... Or, how about listening to a radio while jogging? Or
using a heart rate monitor while jogging?

It all boils down to people in the legislature who have nothing new
to write laws on. So they dream this **** up because of one person
got injured from it.

A couple of years ago Ohio passed a real doozie.
If you own a dog in ohio, you have to set up an escrow account for
the dog.

Ohio law: No train may pass until the other has.

Yes, but it all illustrates a basic problem with our government.
since the legislature is there to, "Paqss laws", they are not
considered to be doing anything unless laws are passed. So, they
busy themselves passing laws whether those laws are needed or not.
In fact, there are way too many laws on the books now, and what the
legislature should be doing is UN- passing laws, or getting rid of
them. We need a law that says the legislature can't pass any law
without first removing one of equal length first. And, they should
get as many brownie points for removing a law as they do for passing
a new one.

Ya know, I think I few western states still have on their books, that
gentlemen must check their guns upon entering a bar. Or some such
silly thing.
You might even find a law in a state that requires a vehicle being
propelled other than by horses, to have an escort on foot waving a
warning flag.

Well, these kinds of laws are quaint, and like artificts in a museum, do
little harm. The laws I am talking about are modern concoctions that juswt
restrict peoples liberties for no real reason, like the "cant walk with an
electronic device" law. Every time some new law is passed, someone's freedom
is restricted in some way. It the law also protects the freedoms of someone
else, then perhaps it is a good thing. But when the law doeswn't protect
anyones rights from transgressions by someone else, then I seriously
question its constitutionality. As a libertarian, I am generally against any
law that restricts one persons rights without protecdting those of someone
else. The motorcycle helmit law is a good example of this. If I get into an
accident with you, you are better off if I am not wearing a helmit. So whose
rights does such a law protect? Of what business is it of society to be
protecting my head? My head is my own business. If I want to break it, well
whose going to be hurt by that? There will just be a little more air and
water for the rest of the society. So, in general, I resent laws that
protect me, or purport to protect me from myself and my own foolishness.
That's not what I want my legislature to be doing. The ultimate, and obvious
endpoint of such laws is to put all of us in padded cells for, "our own
protection". That's why I call these kinds of laws, "Padded cell laws". IOW,
I think we should all have the right to harm ourselves, as long as in so
doing, we don't harm anyone else.