25 Bizarre US Laws That Still Exist in 2025
Did you know weird laws in the US still prohibit citizens from driving blindfolded in Alabama or pushing live moose out of airplanes in Alaska? These aren’t jokes or urban myths.
In fact, across America, there’s a bewildering collection of strange laws in the US that continue to exist on the books. For instance, in Connecticut, a pickle isn’t legally considered a pickle unless it bounces, while in Georgia, it’s illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket. Meanwhile, Florida has made it illegal for unmarried women to parachute on Sundays.
While researching the weirdest laws in the US, I discovered that each state seems to have its own unique contribution to legal oddities. From Maine, where it’s illegal to park in front of Dunkin’ Donuts, to Louisiana, where sending surprise pizzas is against the law – the variety is truly astonishing.
Despite living in modern times, weird laws that still exist in the US range from the amusing to the downright puzzling. In this article, I’ll take you on a tour of 25 bizarre legal restrictions that have somehow survived into 2025, exploring their origins, reasons for existence, and whether they’re still enforced today.
Law origin in Georgia
According to Georgia legal lore, there exists a peculiar statute that forbids carrying ice cream cones in your back pocket specifically on Sundays [1]. This unusual restriction supposedly originated back when horseback transportation was common. However, when digging deeper into this law’s legitimacy, conflicting information emerges. Some legal experts suggest this isn’t actually codified in Georgia state law but rather persists as entertaining legal folklore [2].
Surprisingly, similar ice cream pocket prohibitions have been reported in Alabama and Kentucky, suggesting this might be a regional legal curiosity rather than isolated to Georgia [3].
Why it exists
The backstory behind this strange law is actually quite clever. Horse thieves reportedly used this sweet-smelling tactic as a sneaky method of stealing horses without technically “stealing” them. They would place ice cream cones in their back pockets and stroll past horses, particularly on Sundays when owners might be attending church services.
The horses, drawn to the sweet scent, would follow the person with the treat. If caught with someone else’s horse, the thief could claim innocence – after all, they never physically took the horse; it simply followed them home [2]. This created a legal loophole that apparently frustrated horse owners enough to inspire legislation.
Is it still enforced?
As for enforcement in 2025, you needn’t worry about ice cream-related arrests in Georgia. This law, if it ever truly existed, remains unenforced. Professor Charles Bullock of the University of Georgia has noted that such antiquated laws typically remain on the books until specifically challenged in court [1].
Additionally, when researching Georgia’s actual legal code, no mention of ice cream cones and pockets appears. The only legitimate ice cream regulations in Georgia concern health standards and prohibit selling “adulterated ice cream” or products that aren’t “pure and fresh and handled with clean utensils”.
Essentially, this ice cream pocket prohibition represents a perfect example of how weird laws in America persist in popular culture regardless of their actual validity.
Law origin in Arizona
The story goes that this peculiar statute originated in 1924, when legislators supposedly made it illegal for donkeys to sleep in bathtubs. This law has been widely circulated in compilations of strange laws in the US. Interestingly, the law specifically prohibits “allowing your donkey to sleep in a bathtub,” suggesting it was targeted at irresponsible animal owners rather than the donkeys themselves.
Why it exists
The backstory behind this law involves a merchant who routinely allowed his donkey to sleep in an old bathtub. As the tale goes, a catastrophic event occurred when a local dam broke, causing a flood that washed the bathtub-sleeping donkey a mile down the valley. Miraculously, the donkey survived this unexpected journey, floating in its makeshift boat.
Following this incident, townspeople reportedly spent considerable time and resources rescuing the stranded donkey from the middle of a lake. Frustrated by this avoidable situation, the town allegedly passed this regulation shortly afterward to prevent similar scenarios. The law represents a classic example of reactionary legislation, where officials responded to a singular unusual event with permanent regulation.
Is it still enforced?
Upon closer examination, the legitimacy of this law becomes questionable. Although frequently cited in “weird laws” compilations, several reliable sources have debunked this as legal myth rather than reality. Notably, when consulting Arizona’s actual legal code, no mention of donkeys in bathtubs appears.
Legal experts from the University of Arizona point out that many supposed strange laws are often misquoted, taken out of context, or simply fabricated. Furthermore, some sources explicitly state that “it’s not illegal” and “numerous sources debunk this myth.”
This donkey bathtub prohibition exemplifies how weird laws that still exist in the US can sometimes be more urban legend than actual legislation. The persistence of such myths demonstrates our collective fascination with odd legal trivia, regardless of factual accuracy.
Pickles Must Bounce to Be Legal (Connecticut)
Image Source: Reddit
Connecticut’s legendary pickle bouncing regulation represents one of the most frequently cited strange laws in America, though its actual existence is more complicated than most realize.
Law origin in Connecticut
The famous pickle bounce “law” isn’t actually a law at all. This peculiar legal misconception traces back to a specific incident in 1948, not to any formal legislation. During this time, two pickle packers were arrested for selling pickles that were deemed unfit for human consumption – they were reportedly decomposing and maggot-infested. This case involved a genuine violation of Connecticut’s food safety regulations, yet the resulting folklore has persisted for over 75 years.
Why it exists
The confusion stems from a statement made by Connecticut’s Food and Drug Commissioner Frederick Holbrook. While discussing the case, he mentioned that a good way to test a pickle’s quality was to drop it from a height of one foot [7]. A proper pickle would bounce, whereas the substandard ones would splatter. This simple quality control test, mentioned casually by a state official, was subsequently misinterpreted as an actual legal requirement.
Interestingly, there is scientific basis behind this test. Pickles contain pectin, which helps them maintain firmness and crispness. Properly preserved pickles retain their structure, whereas improperly processed ones become soft due to changes in pectin levels. Therefore, although not a legal standard, the bounce test does offer a practical method for assessing pickle quality.
Is it still enforced?
Given that no such law exists, enforcement is impossible. The Connecticut State Library has received so many inquiries about this supposed legislation that they’ve created a dedicated research guide clarifying the situation. A thorough examination of Connecticut’s General Statutes reveals no mention of bouncing pickles.
Nevertheless, the myth has become so ingrained in Connecticut’s cultural identity that the Hartford Yard Goats, a minor league baseball team, temporarily changed their name to the “Bouncing Pickles” for a game. Modern Connecticut food regulations simply fall under the state’s Uniform Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which covers all food products including pickles.
This enduring legal legend illustrates how easily misunderstandings can transform into “weird laws in the US” that continue to fascinate and perplex Americans today.
No Driving Blindfolded (Alabama)
Image Source: Car and Driver
Among Alabama’s collection of peculiar restrictions, the law against driving while blindfolded appears bizarrely obvious yet somehow necessary enough to codify.
Law origin in Alabama
The origins of this eyebrow-raising regulation stem from Alabama’s broader traffic safety codes rather than being a standalone statute. Specifically, this prohibition is considered part of Alabama Code Title 32, Section 32-5A-53, which addresses “Obstruction to Driver’s View or Driving Mechanism” . The actual legal text doesn’t explicitly mention blindfolds but instead states that “No person shall drive a vehicle when it is loaded, or when there are in the front seat such a number of persons as to obstruct the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle.”
Indeed, there’s debate among legal experts regarding whether a specific “no blindfold” law exists. Some sources clearly state that Alabama “has the peculiar distinction of having a law on the books that makes it illegal to drive with a blindfold“. Conversely, others argue this is merely covered under general reckless driving statutes applicable across all states.
Why it exists
Obviously, the reasoning behind such a regulation seems self-evident – driving without vision poses catastrophic safety risks. Yet, the question remains: why create a law for something so patently dangerous?
The regulation exists primarily as part of a comprehensive set of visibility requirements ensuring drivers maintain clear sightlines. According to legal analysis, the law aims to prevent any obstruction “whether it’s a blindfold, a passenger, or another object” that could interfere with a driver’s view.
Naturally, one wonders if someone actually attempted this dangerous feat, prompting legislative action. As one source speculates, “Someone in Alabama probably tried driving with his sight obscured, and hence the authorities had to come up with such a law”.
Is it still enforced?
Altogether, the enforcement of this weird law in America presents an interesting case. Since it falls under broader traffic safety regulations, it remains technically enforceable. Any driver caught operating a vehicle blindfolded would certainly face consequences under either this specific provision or general reckless driving statutes.
Certainly, as the Montgomery Advertiser noted, “in case anyone needs clarification, yes, an actual law bans driving while blindfolded”. Even with this confirmation, enforcement cases remain virtually nonexistent because, as one commentator aptly put it, “no one in their right mind does that”.
No Whispering While Moose Hunting (Alaska)
Image Source: The Alaska Frontier
Alaska’s prohibition against whispering during moose hunting captures the essence of how practical concerns can evolve into seemingly bizarre regulations.
Law origin in Alaska
This unusual regulation has been widely cited as being codified under Alaska Statute 11.46.484, supposedly classifying whispering in someone’s ear during moose hunting as a class C felony. Primarily, this statute has been referenced across numerous “weird laws” compilations and websites that catalog strange American legislation. Interestingly, upon closer inspection, the cited statute mentions nothing about whispering or hunting regulations whatsoever. In reality, the actual text of Alaska Statute 11.46.484 relates to criminal mischief, not hunting practices.
Why it exists
Regardless of its questionable legal status, the reasoning behind this supposed restriction makes practical sense. Moose hunting naturally involves inherent dangers, as these large, powerful animals require hunters to exercise extreme caution. The fundamental concern is that whispering could lead to critical miscommunication between hunters. Clearly, whispered messages might be misinterpreted or entirely missed by someone handling a firearm, especially when focused on a potential target or in less-than-ideal conditions.
The rationale centers on safety—loud, clear communication is essential when multiple hunters coordinate during large game hunts. Moreover, miscommunication could potentially:
- Create dangerous situations with firearms
- Lead to accidents between hunters
- Result in improper handling of a wounded moose, which can be extremely dangerous
Is it still enforced?
Currently, there’s significant doubt about whether this law truly exists in Alaska’s legal code. A reliable source explicitly states, “The statute mentions nothing of the kind” regarding whispers during moose hunting. Equally important, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game makes no mention of such restrictions in their official hunting regulations.
What does exist are general safety guidelines that promote clear communication between hunters. The prohibition against whispering, like many weird laws that still exist in the US, appears to be more legal folklore than enforceable statute. Ultimately, the principle behind the supposed law—maintaining clear communication for safety—remains sound hunting advice, even if not legally mandated.
No High Heels in Carmel (California)
Image Source: Time Out
The picturesque coastal town of Carmel-by-the-Sea boasts one of the most peculiar weird laws in the US—a prohibition against wearing high heels without a special permit.
Law origin in California
Initially enacted in 1963, this distinctive regulation was proposed by the city attorney of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The law specifically prohibits “wearing shoes with heels which measure more than two inches in height and less than one square inch of bearing surface upon the public streets and sidewalks of the City” without first obtaining a permit [3]. Correspondingly, this peculiar ordinance (Ordinance No. 87) has remained officially on the books for over six decades.
Why it exists
Primarily, this law exists not to dictate fashion choices but to shield the city from potential lawsuits. Carmel’s charming appeal comes from its “urban forest character,” featuring Monterey pine, oak, and other native trees throughout the city [3]. These trees create undeniably beautiful surroundings but also cause sidewalks and streets to become distorted and uneven as their roots grow.
To clarify, city officials faced a dilemma: either undergo costly street renovations that would alter Carmel’s distinctive appearance or create a legal safeguard. They opted for the latter, introducing this liability waiver disguised as a heel permit. In light of the town’s hilly terrain and irregular pavement, officials recognized that high heels presented genuine hazards, especially for visitors unfamiliar with the landscape.
Is it still enforced?
Presently, the law remains technically valid but functions more as a quirky souvenir opportunity than an enforced regulation. The permits are free and require only presenting a photo ID. According to Nova Romero, City Clerk of Carmel-by-the-Sea, “To our knowledge, since the ordinance was adopted in 1963, no citations have ever been issued under this ordinance”.
Interestingly, obtaining a high-heel permit has become a popular tourist activity. The permits serve their intended purpose—acknowledging that wearers understand the risks and releasing the city from liability for any resulting falls or injuries [3]. As Romero notes, “For many visitors, getting a high-heel permit has become a quirky, light-hearted souvenir from their trip to Carmel-by-the-Sea”.
No Black Cars on Sundays (Colorado)
Image Source: Uncover Colorado
Colorado’s alleged restriction on black cars represents one of the most widely circulated myths among weird laws in the US, offering fascinating insights into how legal urban legends spread.
Law origin in Colorado
In contrast to popular belief, there is no actual law prohibiting black cars on Sundays in Colorado. Despite numerous websites and articles claiming “it is illegal to drive a black car in Denver, Colorado on Sundays,” thorough research by journalists and legal experts reveals this regulation never existed. After extensive investigation including searching original Denver municipal traffic codes dating back to the 1930s, no evidence of this supposed law has been found.
Interestingly, the myth likely originated from Colorado’s legitimate “Blue Laws” – restrictions based on religious or moral principles that limited certain activities on Sundays [2]. Some sources incorrectly continue to propagate this urban legend, claiming it remains “a legal requirement” though “no longer enforced” [1].
Why it exists
The confusion stems from a real and still-enforced Colorado law: the prohibition on car sales on Sundays. This authentic statute, initially enacted in 1955, makes it illegal for any dealership to sell vehicles on the first day of the week.
As a result of this misunderstanding, the mythical black car ban has been perpetuated across various publications and websites. The actual Sunday car sales prohibition serves a practical purpose – providing dealership employees with a guaranteed day off work. Car salespeople typically work long hours, thus the Sunday closure ensures they get family time.
Is it still enforced?
While the black car prohibition never existed, Colorado’s Sunday car sales ban remains actively enforced. Violators face serious consequences including fines up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to six months, and potential revocation of their dealership license.
Currently, Colorado is among seventeen states maintaining this restriction. Dealerships have argued that operating seven days would increase vehicle prices by 10-15%. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld this law in 1957 (Mosko v. Dunbar), determining it benefited public welfare.
This peculiar case demonstrates how distinguishing between actual weird laws that still exist in the US and colorful legal mythology requires careful research and verification.
No Eating While Swimming (Maryland)
Maryland’s unusual regulation against aquatic dining stands as a perfect example of how weird laws in the US can regulate even the most unexpected activities.
Law origin in Maryland
This peculiar prohibition dates back to the early 1900s . Primarily focused on ocean swimmers, the law specifically forbids eating while swimming in Maryland’s coastal waters. According to Annapolis-based defense attorney Drew Cochran, this restriction remains officially on the books . Interestingly, the legal definition extends beyond just traditional swimming strokes – “swimming” includes wading and even using inner tubes or beach-type swimming aids. Unlike some other strange laws in America that apply only on specific days, this restriction apparently applies throughout the week.
Why it exists
Oddly enough, the exact reasoning behind this peculiar regulation remains shrouded in mystery. None of the available sources definitively explain why Maryland legislators felt compelled to separate dining from swimming. Fundamentally, one might speculate about potential safety concerns – perhaps preventing choking hazards or reducing litter on beaches. Some legal experts suggest it might have been motivated by public health considerations or beach cleanliness initiatives common in coastal regulations from that era.
Is it still enforced?
At the present time, enforcement of this weird law in America appears minimal to non-existent. Drew Cochran acknowledges that while technically enforceable, the law, like many outdated regulations, “is not readily enforced”. Conceivably, an overzealous police officer could theoretically cite someone for an ocean snack, but documented cases are exceedingly rare.
For cautious beachgoers concerned about legal compliance while enjoying Maryland’s shoreline, legal experts jokingly suggest a simple workaround – trying beaches in neighboring Virginia or Delaware instead, as they don’t appear to have similar food restrictions for beachgoers. Alternatively, the practical solution is simply finishing your meal before entering the water.
No Parachuting for Unmarried Women on Sundays (Florida)
Image Source: Skydive Key West
Florida’s outdated prohibition on female skydivers represents a fascinating glimpse into the evolution of gendered legislation throughout American history.
Law origin in Florida
This curious restriction allegedly made it illegal for unmarried women to parachute on Sundays in Florida. Historically, reports suggest this regulation dates back to an era when society imposed much stricter limitations on women’s behavior. The exact origin year remains undocumented in available sources, making it difficult to pinpoint precisely when Florida first enacted this peculiar constraint.
Interestingly, the law appears to have been part of a broader category of outdated morality laws that once regulated various aspects of public behavior, particularly for women. Formerly common throughout America, such gender-specific prohibitions gradually disappeared as social attitudes evolved.
Why it exists
The reasoning behind this specific restriction remains somewhat mysterious. Strikingly, even legal experts admit “our best guess is that this extinct law originated in a time when it was cool to prohibit women from being awesome”. Some theorists speculate it was designed to discourage “reckless” behavior among unmarried women.
Alternatively, others believe it may have fallen under general Sunday restrictions (often called “blue laws”) that limited various recreational activities on the traditional day of rest. Fundamentally, such laws reflected earlier societal expectations about appropriate female conduct.
Is it still enforced?
Prior to 2005, although the law technically existed, sources confirm it “obviously wasn’t observed”. Subsequently, Florida officially struck down this anachronistic regulation in 2005.
Notwithstanding its elimination, some sources incorrectly continue claiming the law remains in effect, suggesting violators “risk being fined, arrested, or even jailed”. On balance, more reliable sources clarify that “not only can a single woman skydive in Florida on Sunday, but there is nothing women are not allowed to do on Sundays in Florida”. The law’s removal effectively ended any question about enforcement, allowing female skydivers complete freedom regardless of marital status or day of the week.
No Coins in Ears (Hawaii)
Image Source: Ke Alakai – BYU–Hawaii
Hawaii’s coin-in-ear ban represents yet another entry in the catalog of weird laws in the US that make ordinary citizens do a double-take when first hearing about them.
Law origin in Hawaii
The prohibition on placing coins in one’s ears in Hawaii has a fascinating backstory dating to the early 20th century. Primarily, this law was introduced to combat the defacement of currency, a practice that had become somewhat common during that era. Some lower-reliability sources incorrectly claim the law was established in 1847 by King Kamehameha , while others suggest it emerged around 1900 when Hawaii officially joined the United States.
Upon examining the most reliable information available, the regulation appears to have been created as part of broader efforts to preserve currency integrity. At that time, many individuals were modifying coins for artistic or novelty purposes, sometimes even embedding them in various objects or their own bodies.
Why it exists
Beyond the obvious strangeness, this peculiar regulation serves several practical purposes:
- Currency Preservation: First and foremost, the law aims to protect the integrity of currency. Defacing or altering coins could potentially devalue them and disrupt the monetary system.
- Preventing Misuse: Even seemingly harmless actions like placing coins in ears fell under the broader goal of discouraging any form of currency tampering.
- Symbolic Importance: On top of that, the law symbolizes Hawaii’s commitment to upholding the value and sanctity of its currency.
Less reliable sources suggest alternative explanations, including claims that coins in ears indicated drug dealing or that people were hiding Hawaiian coins from destruction orders.
Is it still enforced?
As with many weird laws that still exist in the US, enforcement of Hawaii’s coin-in-ear prohibition remains practically nonexistent. The law generally elicits amusement rather than compliance, with both residents and tourists finding it a quirky aspect of Hawaii’s legal landscape.
Evidently, the regulation has become something of a tourist attraction itself, with visitors incorporating it into their Hawaii experience as an amusing anecdote to share. At the same time, there have been occasional anecdotal stories of individuals unintentionally breaking this law, resulting in humorous encounters with local authorities.
No Riding Merry-Go-Rounds on Sundays (Idaho)
Few weird laws in America capture the spirit of early 20th century religious restrictions quite like Idaho’s former ban on Sunday carousel rides.
Law origin in Idaho
In 1907, Idaho legislators passed what became known as the “Sunday Rest law” as part of Title 18: Crimes & Punishments, Chapter 62: Religious Meetings – Sunday Rest. This legislation explicitly made riding merry-go-rounds on Sundays illegal. The prohibition was just one component of broader restrictions designed to enforce a mandatory day of rest from secular activities. Interestingly, the law remained difficult to verify for many years as it was never uploaded to Idaho’s digital legislative archives.
Why it exists
The primary motivation behind this peculiar regulation was religious in nature. The law aimed to codify the observance of the Sabbath as a day dedicated to rest and religious worship. By restricting entertainment venues like merry-go-rounds, legislators sought to limit secular leisure activities that might distract citizens from spiritual matters. In addition to carousels, the original law also prohibited several other entertainment options on Sundays, including theaters, dance houses, racetracks, circuses, billiard rooms, bowling alleys, and various shows.
Violators of this strange law faced serious consequences – a $50 fine (substantial for the time) plus 10 days in jail. Such harsh penalties underscored how seriously authorities viewed these Sabbath transgressions.
Is it still enforced?
As times changed, enforcement of the Sunday Rest law gradually declined. The carousel prohibition was officially repealed in 1936 according to some sources , while others cite 1939 as the year it was removed from the books. Regardless of the exact repeal date, this weird law no longer exists in Idaho’s legal code.
Unlike some other weird laws that still exist in the US, this carousel prohibition represents a bygone era when religious principles directly shaped legislation. Even though some websites incorrectly claim the law remains “technically on the books”, reliable sources confirm its repeal occurred over 80 years ago.
No Sleeping in Cheese Factories (Illinois)
Image Source: RunSensible
Illinois takes food safety to unexpected extremes with its prohibition against sleeping in cheese factories—a regulation that perfectly exemplifies strange laws in the US that make practical sense once examined closely.
Law origin in Illinois
The sleeping prohibition originates from Illinois’ Sanitary Food Preparation Act, specifically Section 9, which states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to sleep, or to allow or permit any person to sleep in any work room of a bake shop, kitchen, dining room, confectionery, creamery, cheese factory, or any place where food is prepared for sale, served or sold, unless all foods therein handled are at all times in hermetically sealed packages”. Contrary to popular misconception, this law extends beyond just cheese factories, encompassing all food preparation facilities throughout the state.
Various websites and legal compilations frequently cite this regulation as one of the weirdest laws in each state, sometimes exaggerating its specificity. As one source humorously puts it, “Plan your naps carefully in Illinois, lest you fall asleep in a cheese shop and break the law whilst not even being awake to remember it”.
Why it exists
Beneath its quirky surface, this regulation serves an essential public health purpose. Primarily, the law was established to ensure high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in food production facilities and to protect consumers from foodborne illnesses.
The rationale focuses less on the act of napping itself and more on maintaining sanitary conditions in areas where food is prepared. Someone sleeping in a food preparation area could potentially contaminate surfaces or food products, posing health risks to consumers. Ultimately, the regulation represents an early attempt at comprehensive food safety standards.
Is it still enforced?
Currently, as with many weird laws that still exist in the US, enforcement appears minimal. Nevertheless, this regulation technically remains active on Illinois’ books. Food production facilities, including cheese factories, must comply with modern food safety regulations that have largely superseded this specific provision yet maintain its fundamental principles.
Throughout Illinois, chefs and food workers often joke about this law, with some quipping, “I guess no sleeping on the job for chefs”.
No Catching Fish with Firearms (Indiana)
Image Source: Journal & Courier
Indiana’s fishing regulations feature one of the most logical yet simultaneously bizarre prohibitions among weird laws in the US – the explicit ban on using firearms to catch fish.
Law origin in Indiana
Indiana’s unusual fishing restriction is officially codified in the state’s Natural and Cultural Resources Code, specifically Section 14-22-9-1. First of all, the law explicitly states: “It is illegal to use the following devices to take fish from public waters: a weir, electric current, dynamite or other explosive, a firearm, hands alone, or any substance that may weaken or poison fish”. This regulation applies to all waters containing state-owned fish, waters of the state, and boundary waters.
Interestingly, the firearm prohibition exists alongside several other unconventional fishing methods. In fact, Indiana law also forbids fishing with your bare hands, which some might find equally perplexing. Granted, traditional fishing with line and hook remains perfectly legal, as the state primarily targets unconventional and potentially harmful fishing practices.
Why it exists
The reasoning behind this peculiar restriction stems primarily from conservation and safety concerns. In particular, using firearms or explosives for fishing represents an indiscriminate harvesting method that can damage aquatic ecosystems and harm non-target species. Under these circumstances, the law protects fish populations from excessive or unnecessary harm.
This regulation appears to be part of Indiana’s broader conservation efforts dating back to the early 1900s. At that time, game laws were strengthened considerably, including restrictions on fishing methods. The comprehensive approach sought to preserve natural resources for future generations.
Is it still enforced?
At present, this odd-sounding regulation remains fully enforceable in Indiana. Unlike some outdated laws that exist merely as curiosities, this prohibition serves a practical conservation purpose. Ordinarily, violators could face significant penalties since this falls under active wildlife protection statutes.
Local legal experts confirm this unusual restriction continues to be recognized within Indiana’s current fishing regulations framework. For anglers visiting the Hoosier State, the message is clear – stick to traditional fishing methods and leave the firearms at home.
No Screeching Tires (Kansas)
Kansas drivers beware—revving your engine and spinning your tires could land you in legal trouble thanks to one of the weirder traffic laws that still exist in the US.
Law origin in Kansas
Kansas statute 8-1547 primarily addresses “Starting parked vehicle,” stating that “No person shall start a vehicle which is stopped, standing or parked unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety”. Beyond this basic provision, many Kansas municipalities have enacted more specific ordinances. For instance, Derby, Kansas explicitly prohibits “unnecessary rapid acceleration, unnecessary tire squeal, skid, smoke, or slide upon acceleration or stopping including the casting of tread, gravel, dirt or other road surface materials from the tires”. First of all, the law also forbids activities that “simulate a temporary race,” with violations potentially resulting in fines up to $500 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.
Why it exists
The rationale behind this law centers primarily on public safety and noise concerns. Granted, tire screeching often indicates reckless driving behavior that could endanger others. Under these circumstances, law enforcement needed clearer definitions after a 2022 Kansas Court of Appeals case (Garner v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue) ruled that “revving engine coupled with squealing and spinning tires does not violate statute without a showing of specific facts or circumstances demonstrating acceleration without reasonable safety”. In response, Kansas legislators advanced a more explicit wheel spinning ban in 2018 to close this legal loophole.
Is it still enforced?
Ordinarily, this law remains actively enforced throughout Kansas. In 2018, the Kansas House passed a bill prohibiting wheel spinning in an 82-40 vote. The legislation set a $100 fine for violations, applying to both moving and stationary vehicles under normal road conditions. Law enforcement officers continue to issue citations for these violations, typically writing them “under exhibition and acceleration when somebody’s power braking, when they stomp on the brake and slowly accelerate until the wheels spin”. Greg Smith from the Johnson County sheriff’s office emphasized that such clarification helps officers properly enforce traffic laws.
No Blue Ducklings for Sale (Kentucky)
Image Source: WBKR
Kentucky’s ban on colorful poultry stands among the most misunderstood weird laws in America, often inaccurately described as simply prohibiting “blue ducklings.”
Law origin in Kentucky
Kentucky’s regulation against dyed animals is officially codified as KRS 436.600, created in 1966 and subsequently amended in 1972. Contrary to popular summaries, the law comprehensively prohibits “selling, exchanging, offering to sell or exchange, displaying or possessing living baby chicks, ducklings, or other fowl or rabbits which have been dyed or colored”. Beyond this, the statute also forbids the actual dyeing process itself, regardless of color chosen.
The law further restricts selling baby fowl or rabbits under two months old in quantities fewer than six, with a specific exception for rabbits weighing three pounds or more, which may be sold at six weeks. Originally, many people mistakenly believe this restriction only applies to blue-colored ducklings, as certain unreliable sources have mischaracterized it.
Why it exists
Primarily, this legislation aims to protect animal welfare by preventing the commercialization of dyed animals as novelty items, especially around holidays like Easter. As attorney Alan Simpson explains, “Most of these crazy laws were probably the result of some newsworthy or notorious event”.
Before this regulation, sellers would dye ducklings and chicks vibrant colors to attract children and boost sales. Unfortunately, the dye process often harmed the animals, sometimes fatally. Additionally, the law discourages impulse purchases of baby animals that often ended up abandoned or neglected after holidays.
Is it still enforced?
Currently, this strange law in the US remains actively enforced with significant penalties. Violators face fines ranging from $100 to $500. As recently as 2024, the statute continues to appear in Kentucky’s official legal code under “Offenses against morality”.
For merchants selling livestock in Kentucky, the message remains clear – natural-colored animals only, and no splitting up young animals into small quantities. As local attorney Simpson cautions, “When Easter comes around this next year, don’t dye any baby ducklings because there is a fine involved”.
No Surprise Pizzas (Louisiana)
Image Source: GoCo
Louisiana’s unexpected food delivery law stands as one of the weirdest legal restrictions that carry surprisingly steep penalties for what seems like a harmless prank.
Law origin in Louisiana
Louisiana’s prohibition against surprise pizzas is officially codified as RS 14:68.6 in the state’s legal system. First and foremost, this statute makes it illegal to “intentionally place an order for any goods or services to be supplied or delivered to another person” under specific conditions. These conditions include: the recipient hasn’t authorized the order, doesn’t live with the person placing it, isn’t receiving it as a gift, would be required to pay (either in advance or upon delivery), and the sender’s intent is to “harass or annoy”. Primarily, while often nicknamed the “Pizza Law,” this regulation applies to all goods and services, not just pizza deliveries.
Why it exists
The reasoning behind this strange law in the US stems from practical concerns about harassment and business protection. Fundamentally, the law was created to combat prank deliveries that had become a genuine nuisance. These pranks negatively impacted not just recipients but also businesses, particularly restaurants operating on tight margins where fake orders resulted in wasted food, time, and money . The state implemented this regulation to deter such disruptive behavior and maintain order within communities. Penalties for violations can be severe—a fine of up to USD 500.00, imprisonment for up to six months, or both . Offenders may also be required to make restitution to victims for any losses.
Is it still enforced?
Currently, enforcement of this weird law in America appears limited. Oddly enough, there are few documented cases of active prosecution . Granted, enforcement typically occurs only when businesses or individuals file formal complaints about repeated unwanted deliveries . Many restaurants have adapted by implementing protective measures, especially requiring upfront payment for deliveries, which naturally reduces the likelihood of prank orders . Digital ordering systems and caller ID tracking have similarly diminished the feasibility of such pranks . Nevertheless, this regulation remains active in Louisiana’s legal code, serving as a reminder that even sending a seemingly innocent Valentine’s Day pizza surprise without consent could technically land you in legal trouble .
No Parking in Front of Dunkin’ Donuts (Maine)
Image Source: Noelle Neff
South Berwick’s municipal code contains one of the most location-specific weird laws in the US – a prohibition explicitly forbidding parking “in front of Dunkin’ Donuts.”
Law origin in Maine
The parking prohibition in South Berwick, Maine, specifically targets the town’s Dunkin’ Donuts establishment located at 175 Main Street . Unlike many legal urban legends, this regulation genuinely exists in the town’s official ordinances. The municipal code clearly states: “No person shall park a vehicle at any time upon any of the streets or parts of streets described: Main St. (West) In front of Dunkin Donuts to a point 25 feet south” . Primarily, this makes it the only business specifically named in the town’s parking restrictions, giving it a unique distinction among weird laws in each state.
Why it exists
The rationale behind this peculiar regulation stems from practical traffic management concerns. The South Berwick Dunkin’ Donuts sits at a busy intersection of Main and Academy streets where space is limited . With this in mind, the small store frequently experienced congestion during peak coffee hours as customers would park directly in front, temporarily abandoning their vehicles to grab their morning caffeine fix . On account of the narrow roadway, these impromptu parking situations created significant traffic disruptions. As a matter of fact, examining Google Street View images of the location reveals exactly why officials felt compelled to enact such a specific ordinance.
Is it still enforced?
Granted, unlike some merely amusing weird laws that still exist in the US, this regulation carries real consequences. Violators face potential fines up to $175 and, surprisingly, could theoretically receive jail time of up to 30 days . Ultimately, local authorities continue to enforce this regulation to maintain traffic flow in the busy area. The ordinance differs from many obsolete strange laws in America by serving a genuine current purpose – preventing drivers from creating traffic hazards while satisfying their donut cravings. Under these circumstances, the South Berwick Dunkin’ Donuts parking ban remains actively enforced in 2025, making it one of the few named-business restrictions with practical application in modern America.
No Throwing Balls at Heads for Fun (New York)
Image Source: Fox News
New York’s peculiar prohibition against recreational ball-throwing targets an oddly specific form of entertainment that many wouldn’t even consider attempting.
Law origin in New York
The Empire State’s legal code contains a curious provision under the classification of “offensive exhibition.” Primarily, New York Penal Law § 245.05 states that a person is guilty of this violation when they knowingly participate in or manage “an exhibition in the nature of public entertainment” where “a person is held up to ridicule or contempt by voluntarily submitting to indignities such as the throwing of balls or other articles at his head or body” [52]. The statute’s specific mention of throwing objects at someone’s head clearly targets carnival-style games once common at fairs and entertainment venues [6].
Why it exists
Fundamentally, this strange law in America wasn’t created to stop friendly games of catch or snowball fights. Its origins appear designed to protect carnival workers from exploitative practices . Historically, some carnival attractions featured employees who voluntarily became targets for ball-throwing customers seeking entertainment. These human targets were often individuals with limited employment options who submitted to these “indignities” out of economic necessity.
The law is surprisingly comprehensive, addressing other concerning practices beyond just ball throwing. Curiously, it also prohibits making someone “compete continuously without respite for a period of more than eight consecutive hours in a dance contest, bicycle race or other contest involving physical endurance” and forbids exhibitions where “a firearm is discharged or a knife, arrow or other sharp or dangerous instrument is thrown” at a person .
Is it still enforced?
Officially, this regulation remains classified as a “violation” under New York law [52]. Naturally, the practical enforcement appears minimal in modern times . Technically, someone operating an entertainment venue featuring ball-throwing at participants could face legal consequences, though documented cases are extremely rare. The statute remains primarily a legal curiosity rather than an actively prosecuted offense in contemporary New York.
Comparison Table
| Law Description | State | Origin Year | Current Status | Reason for Existence | Penalties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Ice Cream in Back Pocket | Georgia | N/A | Not enforced | Prevent horse theft by preventing thieves from luring horses with ice cream | Not mentioned |
| Donkeys Can’t Sleep in Bathtubs | Arizona | 1924 | Debunked as myth | Response to incident where flooding washed away a bathtub-sleeping donkey | Not mentioned |
| Pickles Must Bounce | Connecticut | 1948 | Not a law | Quality control test for proper preservation | Not mentioned |
| No Driving Blindfolded | Alabama | N/A | Enforceable | Traffic safety regulation | Not mentioned |
| No Whispering While Moose Hunting | Alaska | N/A | Questionable existence | Safety concerns during hunting | Not mentioned |
| No High Heels in Carmel | California | 1963 | Active but unenforced | Protect city from liability due to uneven pavements | Free permit required |
| No Black Cars on Sundays | Colorado | N/A | Never existed | Confused with Sunday car sales ban | N/A |
| No Eating While Swimming | Maryland | Early 1900s | Not actively enforced | Not definitively explained | Not mentioned |
| No Parachuting for Unmarried Women on Sundays | Florida | N/A | Repealed in 2005 | Gender-specific morality regulation | Not mentioned |
| No Coins in Ears | Hawaii | Early 20th century | Not actively enforced | Protect currency integrity | Not mentioned |
| No Riding Merry-Go-Rounds on Sundays | Idaho | 1907 | Repealed 1936/1939 | Religious observation of Sabbath | $50 fine + 10 days jail |
| No Sleeping in Cheese Factories | Illinois | N/A | Active | Food safety and hygiene | Not mentioned |
| No Catching Fish with Firearms | Indiana | N/A | Actively enforced | Conservation and safety concerns | Not mentioned |
| No Screeching Tires | Kansas | 2018 | Actively enforced | Public safety and noise concerns | $100 fine |
| No Blue Ducklings for Sale | Kentucky | 1966 | Actively enforced | Protect animals from harmful dye practices | $100-$500 fine |
| No Surprise Pizzas | Louisiana | N/A | Limited enforcement | Prevent harassment and protect businesses | Up to $500 fine and/or 6 months jail |
| No Parking in Front of Dunkin’ Donuts | Maine | N/A | Actively enforced | Traffic management | Up to $175 fine and/or 30 days jail |
| No Throwing Balls at Heads for Fun | New York | N/A | Minimal enforcement | Protect carnival workers from exploitation | Not mentioned |
Conclusion
Examining these 25 bizarre US laws reveals a fascinating tapestry of American legal curiosities that range from the genuinely enforced to the purely mythical. Throughout my research, I discovered that while some laws like Kentucky’s ban on dyed ducklings and Kansas’ prohibition against screeching tires remain actively enforced, others like Colorado’s supposed “no black cars on Sundays” never actually existed.
What stands out most notably about these strange regulations is how they reflect the specific concerns and values of their times. Earlier laws often stemmed from religious considerations, such as Idaho’s former ban on Sunday merry-go-round rides. Additionally, many regulations addressed practical issues – Carmel’s high heel permits protect the city from liability, while Indiana’s ban on fishing with firearms serves legitimate conservation purposes.
Consequently, these laws offer us a unique window into American history. The prohibition against unmarried women parachuting on Sundays in Florida (finally repealed in 2005) reflects outdated gender norms, whereas Louisiana’s “surprise pizza” law addresses modern harassment concerns. Undoubtedly, each strange statute tells its own story about the community that created it.
The persistence of these regulations also reveals something significant about our legal system. Laws often remain on the books long after their original purpose becomes obsolete. For instance, Connecticut’s pickle bounce “requirement” was never actually a law but rather a food inspector’s casual comment that transformed into legal folklore.
Last but certainly not least, these bizarre regulations remind us that law-making is fundamentally human. Behind every strange prohibition lies a specific incident, concern, or cultural value that prompted its creation. Whether it’s protecting horses from ice cream pocket thieves in Georgia or preventing bath-taking donkeys from floating away in Arizona, these peculiar legal responses to unique situations showcase American creativity at its most unusual.
Though I might never place coins in my ears while visiting Hawaii or park in front of that specific Dunkin’ Donuts in Maine, learning about these weird laws that still exist in 2025 has given me a newfound appreciation for the quirky legal landscape that shapes American life. After all, these strange statutes prove that sometimes truth truly is stranger than fiction.
FAQs
Q1. Are these bizarre laws actually enforced in the United States? While many of these unusual laws remain on the books, enforcement varies widely. Some, like Kentucky’s ban on dyed ducklings, are actively enforced with fines. Others, like Connecticut’s pickle bounce “law,” are legal myths that were never actual regulations. Many fall somewhere in between – technically valid but rarely if ever enforced in modern times.
Q2. Why do these strange laws exist in the first place? Most of these laws were created to address specific issues of their time. Some stemmed from religious considerations, others from public safety concerns, and some from unique local incidents. For example, the high heel permit requirement in Carmel, California exists to protect the city from liability due to uneven sidewalks caused by tree roots.
Q3. Can I really get in trouble for eating while swimming in Maryland? While this law technically exists, it’s not actively enforced in modern times. The exact reasoning behind the regulation is unclear, but it likely stemmed from early 20th century public health concerns. Today, you’re unlikely to face any consequences for snacking while taking a dip in Maryland waters.
Q4. Is it true that unmarried women can’t parachute on Sundays in Florida? This law was actually repealed in 2005. It was an example of outdated gender-specific legislation that restricted women’s activities, particularly on Sundays. Such laws were once common but have largely been removed from the books as societal attitudes evolved.
Q5. How do these laws impact daily life for Americans? For the most part, these unusual laws have minimal impact on daily life. Many are unenforced relics or local ordinances that most people aren’t aware of. However, some, like Kansas’ ban on tire screeching or Maine’s specific parking restriction, can result in fines if violated. Generally, these laws serve more as interesting trivia than practical restrictions for most Americans.
References
[1] – https://www.foxnews.com/auto/the-worlds-most-bizarre-traffic-laws-revealed
[2] – https://enviroliteracy.org/why-cant-you-drive-a-black-car-on-sunday-in-denver/
[3] – https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/CarmelbytheSea/html/Carmel08/Carmel0844.html