Old laws should be looked at. Just because it is old doesn't mean it's still not law. Whether it should be or not, that is another story. If the pols want to do something productive they should look at these old laws...especially when they contradict new laws that are trying to get passed. Someone once made the suggestion of having to repeal 5 laws for every new one passed. It would probably help and update our system.

Why stop at the State level? The Constitution is pretty old - let's scrap that as suggested by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB&_r=0

This may add something to the discussion. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57562062/rape-conviction-tossed-because-of-arcane-law/

Describing some laws as "antiquated" suggests that a law that was good and useful in 1845 has become bad merely by the passage of time, as if laws are like fruits and vegetables and are only wholesome when they are fresh. Likewise, referring to the past as "a less tolerant time" suggests that truth and falsehood, and good and evil, change over time.

I doubt that the nineteenth century was truly a "less tolerant" time; society simply tolerated different things than it does now. Just because they lived two centuries earlier does not mean they were wrong and we are right.

If there are laws on the books which are unjust or unwise, by all means let the legislature repeal them -- no matter how old or new they may be.

I believe some of the old and antiquated laws should be repealed although I still find the "Do not scare pigeons" one on the books as pretty funny. I also feel they should take two laws off the books for every new one they want to add.

Not as funny as it is illegal for two men to carry a bath tub across the Boston Commons on a Sunday.

Its time to toss out the old and bring in the new. We are a far cry from being PURITANS anymore.

Many of our new laws and "regulations" that carry the force of law are not at all funny and are more dangerous than any of the old laws I've seen cited here. I don't find anything funny about the moral decay that has occured in the last 60 years.

I remember one law, it pertains to backing out of driveway into traffic, it is illegal for you to do so. That was put on the books during horse and buggy days. Horse and buggy were not allowed to back out. In the law it doesn't state, horse and buggy. I forget the Chapter and section but I used it one time and was thrown out of court.

The case in Essex County was more involved than the passing statement leads one to believe. There was something wrong with the young woman who induced the miscarriage and the state; the liberal state of Massachusetts, was trying to intervene to protect her from further harming herself.
This state has some of the most readily available services from both the Planned Parenthood side of the argument to the Pro Life side and the number of abortions have decreased since the passing of the state wide health care coverage plan (which by the way was signed in to law by that person the liberals seem to hate so much; Mitt Romney).
I have no idea why the legislature does not clean up outdated laws, but it could have to do with the fact that they leave it up to the Attorney Generals office to adjudicate the laws. And they seem to do okay leaving the ones alone that are obviously arcane - such as carrying a bathtub across the commons on a Sunday.

If the pigeons are coming, then I'll supply the bleu cheese dressing. Mike, can you bring the Buffalo sauce, please? Mr. Mokal....no buffalo wings for you, as I know most old people can't handle spicy food :)

To Daniel DeMaina, if those 'suggestions' are on a page PUBLISHED by the New York Times, then obviously The Times AGREES with Mr. Seidman. You and I both know the Times has historically been a left-wing rag slant.

Mr. Mokal is correct about tuberculosis, but incorrect on the manner in which it's transmitted. I work in healthcare in case you decide to dispute my remark :) TB is making a huge comeback in the U.S. I can't divulge how many positive results we get in our lab, but it's pretty high!

I read that Arlington once had a law regulating leaf blowers. That can't be true, can it?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Q: Are old laws funny or dangerous?
A: Sometimes.

What's the fine for omitting a comma?

Patch ate my first comment :(

Old laws are hilarious until they're used against you.

I heard there was a law that if your horse was spooked by a "horseless carriage", then the horse rider could order the carriage rider to dismantle and bury the carriage. Is that true? If yes, that would be a crazy one if still in effect.