Eamonn Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 The Louisiana House Criminal Justice Committee has approved House Bill 1626, also known as the "Baggy Pants Bill". The Bill states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to appear in public wearing his pants below his waist and thereby exposing his skin or intimate clothing." The Bill if passed would make the violator subject to three eight-hour days of community service and a fine of up to $175.00. Could this community service time be counted as Service Time? I was going to state that this posting was tongue in cheek - But we won't even go there. Still I kind of think that FOG might support this Bill? Eamonn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovetoCamp Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 This is going to cost FOG some serious money if he starts Plumbing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Another example of legislatures (legislators?) with too much time on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Wonder if this law will apply to Bourbon street and the French Quarter, I was in N'awlins sunday to wednesday of this week. With proper vigilance the whole state could be run off one night's escapades down there. Hey lady, how DID you get those beads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 At first I thought this was a joke. Then: http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=1850278 The nice legislators-with-nothing-to-do are puckered enough over this to be able to bite holes in their chairs, putting an 'end' to America's growing 'crack' problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
le Voyageur Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 This new law may seem to be a case of to much time on these lawmakers hands...however, consider the reason why this trend of very baggy clothing came about...it was a way for gang bangers to hide guns and drugs, and to circumvent probable cause for a search. However, gang bangers, not being too swift begin to give away the game when the various P.D.'s became aware of how they communicated on the streets by what they wore, or how they wore those baggy pants. For example, A Blood would advertise that he was carrying drugs by rolling up the right pants leg a bit, the other side was reserved for guns... Needless to say, back in my days when working Shore Patrol in a very large West Coast city whenever I saw someone in very baggy clothing wearing bright red or blue bandannas I was very glad that I had Mr Colt and a few of his buddies on my side should they be needed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 And here I was, thinking those were clown costumes. Edited part: Just a note, the new law doesn't forbid BAGGY pants, just those worn below the waist. Seems like concealment would still be available.(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twocubdad Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 I belive it was James Carville who said that anyone believes that the best government is local government has never seen the Louisiana State Legislature in session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FScouter Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Thanks be to goodness we don't have to worry about drugs or gangs anymore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamonn Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Maybe the ACLU will be so busy with the BPB (Baggy Pants Bill) They will give the BSA a rest. Eamonn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KA6BSA Posted May 15, 2004 Share Posted May 15, 2004 Interesting to see this won't affect the women wearing their pants too low showing their skin or intimate clothing. Those concerned legislators must have a good reason to discriminate on that... Are they ladies' thong watchers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Old Guy Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 "Interesting to see this won't affect the women wearing their pants too low showing their skin or intimate clothing." No? It says, "any person" and the last time that I checked women were considered people too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamonn Posted May 16, 2004 Author Share Posted May 16, 2004 If there is a job opening for a Ladies Thong Watcher, I will quit working for the Uniform Police and take up Thong Enforcement!! I was going to ask if it was an Undercover Job, but I thought that was just too easy. Of course if Her That Must Be Obeyed found out I don't think that I would last long. Eamonn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KA6BSA Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 Of course women are people, my wife makes sure I remember that! No need to check on that. I must have misunderstood because of the references to "his pants" and "his skin" that it was just for the men and boys. If these hard-working legislators are really trying to rule on womens clothing too, then they seriously need a reality check! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now