"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
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.
In California, Grand Theft, a felony, is defined in section 487 of the Penal
Code, as:
"(a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is
of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as
provided in subdivision (b).
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in
any of the following cases:
(1) (A) When domestic fowls, avocados, olives, citrus or deciduous
fruits, other fruits, vegetables, nuts, artichokes, or other farm
crops are taken of a value exceeding two hundred fifty dollars
($250)."
Until amended, it used to spell out a number of avocados, etc., regardless
of their value.
Why the special treatment for agriculture? The agriculture lobby.
AK