Is it more important to follow the law of the land imposed by government officials, or is it OK to break the laws if you know you’re not harming anyone and will probably never get caught?

Everyone breaks the law from time to time. The trouble is that we either don’t know we are breaking the law, or we don’t care because the law is pointless to begin with.

One obvious example of this is the fact that it is against the law to make a backup copy of a DVD that you own. This is, supposedly, due to the fact that you will share the material. Evidently, the lawmakers can read your mind…and know that you have the intent to share this material if you back it up.

The moment you crack DRM (Digital Rights Managemnt) to rip the DVD, you’ve violated Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 1201 prohibits circumvention of DRM .

As long as you don’t share the files, there is a very slim chance that you will get caught. But, that’s not the point. You don’t have to share the files for this action to be illegal.

Of course, like all legal issues these days, there is no straight answer regarding what exactly is illegal about it, what the exceptions are, and why it is illegal in the first place.  What is the point of an unenforceable law?

I discussed them in my book, but they’re coming up in the news again — regulations for yard sales.  The regulations discussed in this article are very similar to what I have already discussed, but I am glad to see that it is finally making news for people.  Remember it’s not the intent of the law that counts, it is how it is enforced.  With that in mind, consider the following regulations across the country regarding yard sales:

1. Restrictions on the number of sales you can have per year.
2. The requirement of a permit for your sale, including a fee for the permit (in “the land of the free” we have to ask permission and pay for a yard sale in many places)
3. Restrictions on where advertising signs for your sale can be placed.
4. A ban on the sale of glue to minors.
5. Requirements that garage sales be in the back yard.
6. A requirement in Louisiana to only take personal checks and to log IDs.

It’s yard sale season out there. Have fun, but try to stay out of jail.

I don’t know how this escaped my radar until now.  But, it did and one of my readers sent it to me.  Evidently, Michigan (one of the states I write about on a regular basis because I grew up there) is debating the idea of banning toy guns.  Well, that’s what this column would lead you to believe.  However, the actual bill, if it passes wouldn’t ban toy guns outright, it would increase the penalty for “removing, doctoring or concealing” the colored markings that distinguish a toy gun from a real one.  This would become a felony with a maximum sentence of 18 months behind bars.  According to what I’m reading, this penalty is independent of whether the altered toy was used in a crime or not.

This proposed law is a reaction to the fact that law enforcement has noticed an increase in crime using fake guns that are disguised to look like real ones.  So, let me get this straight.  The legislature in Michigan is assuming that, if we make it a felony to alter fake guns, people with criminal intent will no longer have criminal intent.  Interesting.  I think what will happen is that these people, bend on committing crime, will do it with a real gun, instead.  Meanwhile, kids who happen to have fake guns that have been altered will face potential legal troubles.

My husband and I own a replica peacemaker.  It looks quite real.  It wasn’t sold with any markings on it.  My husband ordered it from a catalog when he was a kid.  Sometimes, when we’re watching baseball, we pretend to shoot at the screen.  We theorize that it might distract the opposing team and cause them to make mistakes, which will allow our team to win.  No, it’s not very mature.  But, we’re not criminals…and certainly not felons.  Anyway, I don’t envision a lot of gangsters using Western-style cowboy guns.  But, I digress.

So, once again, we have a so-called “well-intentioned” possible law that will most-likely end up with serious repercussions for victimless crimes.  This is all done in the name of safety with no consideration for liberty.

When I lived in Kansas, it was against the law not to wear a seat belt.  Most people are familiar with this law since it is now applicable in 49 states.  In some states, these are primary laws, which means that no other offense needs to be committed in order for a police officer to pull you over for this infraction.  In other states, seat belt laws are secondary laws, which means that there has to be a different reason for the police to pull you over and cite you for a seat belt violation.

At the time I lived in Kansas, the state legislature made the transition from the seat belt law being secondary to primary.  As suspected, the reason for this was a financial one.  In 2009, several other states made the switch because it made them eligible for some federal money.  But, like usual, the states that made the changes cited more benevolent reasons for their decision.

This bill will save lives,” the governor said. “That’s what is important.”  (Florida’s governor)

Let’s examine this for a few moments.

• First off, it is nobody’s job but your own to protect yourself or your family.  If wearing seat belts is safe, people will be motivated to wear them without laws.  It’s very condescending of the government or public officials to tell you that they care about you enough to protect you from your own decisions.
• What’s the real difference between a primary and a secondary seat belt law?  On paper, a secondary law offers more liberty, but I don’t buy it.  Everyone knows that any police officer, if so inclined, can pull you over for not wearing a seat belt even in a state where this is a so-called secondary law.  They can easily follow you and wait for you to roll through a stop sign, claim you didn’t use your turn signal, notice a burned out tail light, wait for you to exceed the speed limit by 1 mph, etc.  The only way we will truly have freedom in this area is if there is no law on the books about it — primary or secondary.
• If “they” are so concerned about safety, why is there such a thing as a secondary law at all? If safety were the real motivation, all states would have primary seat belt laws. The only reason for this is because it is easier for the public to swallow the infringement of their freedoms a little at a time.  When a person supports the seat belt law as a secondary measure, they don’t realize the federal government would one day offer grants to states that switch to primary seat belt laws.  Then, now that they’ve gotten used to the idea, the switch isn’t a big deal. They never stop with making one law.  There’s always some loop hole in it that they need to fill.

Another safety issue that continues to result in more laws is distracted driving.  Of course, everyone who drives knows by now that there’s no such thing as distraction-free driving. But, for your own good, “they” see fit to continue to make laws to make sure you are safe.  Of course, these often result in victimless “crimes.”

In Michigan, the state legislature is having a hearing on banning cell phones for teen drivers.

The bill makes use of a cell phone by drivers on their probationary license a civil infraction. It makes cell phone use a secondary offense, meaning officers can only enforce it if the driver is pulled over for another violation or is in a crash.

Of course, I think it is a shame when anyone is injured or hurt in a crash.  Indeed, this is a topic close to my heart.  But, I have all of the same concerns that I always do when things like this are proposed:

• What stops the cops from pulling a teenager over when he/she sees them using a cell phone and making something up about why they were pulled over?   For that matter, what stops a cop from pulling over someone he/she thought was a teenager when they aren’t?
• Where does it stop?  Aren’t we distracted by listening to the radio or dealing with our kids or eating food?  Should all of these things be illegal, too?
• Why should this law only cover teens?  I’m guessing it’s because those teens will eventually be adults.  They will then be used to not having the option of talking on the phone while driving (not that I’m saying it’s a good idea), so they will accept it when there is an all-out ban for everyone.
• If someone is injured or killed as a result of anyone’s negligence, there are already laws that cover it.  There is no need for new ones.  People can already be charged with reckless driving or manslaughter.  What is the point of adding new laws?  The way I see it, it only serves to take common sense out of the equation.  The fact is that talking on the phone can be dangerous, but so can talking to a passenger or eating a hamburger.  And, some people are able to handle it better than others.  Simply banning activities for everyone’s supposed safety is unnecessary.

As I understand it, the Michigan bill is being supported by a woman whose daughter was killed in a cell-phone related crash.  My heart goes out to her.  It really does.  However, making a law will not (unfortunately) bring her daughter back.  It also doesn’t serve to keep people safer.  In fact, there are tons of unintended consequences of these cell phone laws.  Sometimes drivers pull off the side of the road in an unsafe manner in order to use their phones “legally.”  Sometimes people go ahead and answer the phone call just in case it is important (isn’t that why we have the phones in the first place?) and end up driving in a more distracted manner in order to hide the phone.

So, what are we doing in the land of the free today?  We’re discussing what to ban next.  Stay tuned…but not while driving.  That’s illegal.  Keep your eyes on the road.

In L.A. County, they have basically banned having fun on the beach. By now, most of you have probably heard about this.  I bookmarked it yesterday after a friend alerted me to it.  However, in the mean time, Fox News picked up the story this morning.  I don’t actually have cable, but I saw this in a segment while torturing myself on the elliptical machine at the gym this morning.

According to the article, people will be able to throw frisbees and footballs “with lifeguard permission.”  People who ignore the lifeguard’s orders will face a minimum of $100 fine and stiffer fines for multiple offenses.

I don’t really know what will change.  I can’t imagine that a ton of lifeguards will be like, “No, you can’t throw that.”  But, maybe I’m out of the loop. Maybe they’ve been telling people to tone down the frisbee throwing for a while and all of these wanton criminals just keep throwing them.  The hooligans!

Actually, that is true.  Evidently, frisbee throwing on the beach during the summer has actually been banned since 1970.  It’s just now making news because they have decided to change some of the wording.  County officials believe that the wording actually makes the law less restrictive.

Anyway, have a good Friday, everyone.  Be safe out there.  If you’re not entirely safe, you’re probably violating some law.  Toodles!

In Michigan, you have to notify the DNR if you hit a deer and decide to take it home.  I know this is probably the case in every state.  They like to monitor the population of certain animals.  I guess there’s probably some purpose or reason behind this — like knowing how many hunting permits to issue. But, that’s not the only issue.  If it were, they wouldn’t have a problem with you reporting it after the fact. But, the law states that you have to notify them before you take the carcass or risk a ticket from $50 to $500 or 90 days in jail.

To me, this is all about control. The issue here is that it is illegal to possess a deer without a permit.  Hunters have to get permits to hunt with bows and guns, so I guess drivers have to get permits if they want to enjoy the fruit of their labor, too.

When I lived in Illinois, an elderly family member told me that, when he was a boy growing up in Southern Illinois, there were no deer.  Over the years, it had gotten to the point where, in the same part of the country, he could watch deer grazing in his lawn in the morning…in town.  Maybe instead of regulating hunters so much, we should turn them loose and then people might not be hitting them so much on the roads.  Anyway, just another public service announcement here at TTI to inform you of the rules.  Have a safe and law-abiding day!

I’ve lived in several states.  My perpetual moving around is one of the reasons I had the idea to write my book.  I came to notice that a law-abiding citizen in one state isn’t a law-abiding citizen in another state. I’m OK with that because I think states should have the right to have different laws than one another (that doesn’t mean I agree with all of the laws, though).  Anyway, one of the most obvious ways in which citizens have different requirements from state to state is in the use of helmets on motorcycles.

This issue is very personal to me because my dad survived a motorcycle accident in 1995.  His accident was a really serious one, and most certainly would have resulted in death had he not been wearing a helmet.  Obviously, I’m glad he was wearing one, and I always wear one myself, but that doesn’t mean I believe this to be a matter for government involvement.

I remember talking about this issue with my husband one morning over breakfast at McDonald’s.  This was when we lived in Illinois (a state that does not require the use of helmets).  This was before we had kids, so we were just sitting around drinking coffee like good little graduate students.  We were talking about the idea of personal freedom and responsibility and government involvement in choices like this when this nasty old lady butted into our conversation with the condescending response that she pays taxes that pay the medical bills of stupid people not wearing helmets.  Then she stormed off with this look on her face like “stupid kids don’t know how the world works.”  If she had stayed around and finished what she started, I would have responded politely with a couple of points.

First of all, the fact that she pays taxes that support people’s medical bills, doesn’t mean that the solution is to regulate everyone’s behavior.  Where would that end up? She might not be able to enjoy a McDonald’s breakfast with supposedly disastrous cardiac results since she is presumably on medicare.  Secondly, helmets are often the factor that keeps someone alive and in the hospital longer.  My dad is an example of this.  If he hadn’t been wearing his helmet, he would have died on the scene — no medical intervention necessary.  But, since he didn’t, he was in the hospital for about three weeks, in physical therapy after that, and didn’t return to work for a good, long while.  Now, he wasn’t on medicare or medicaid, but this is just one example of how helmet use may actually add to medical costs.

Anyway, all of that brings us to today’s story.  I found out this morning that Michigan is attempting to repeal their helmet law (the link contains a video).  Yesterday, the bill passed the state house and is going to the state senate.  If it passes the senate, Governor Snyder has said he would sign it if it includes items about insurance reform…and that’s where this good news for liberty story turns a little south.

Even if this bill passes, it doesn’t mean that all riders will be allowed to ride without helmets in Michigan. The stipulations to the law include being 21 years old, having a certain amount of riding experience, and carrying a certain amount of insurance. Those things seem pretty unenforceable to me.  But, it’s just like lawmakers to tout freedom and liberty as their motivation for passing something while then maintaining as much control as possible.  I guess this law is a step in the right direction, but I’m not sure how effective it will be.

Don’t forget about my book giveaway.  You can enter to win until tomorrow morning.