Display of offensive objects or devices; prohibited on any vehicle. (HB1452)

Introduced By

Sen. Lionell Spruill (D-Chesapeake)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Display of objects or devices representing or resembling genitalia on motor vehicles. Prohibits display on or equipping of any motor vehicle with any object that depicts, represents, or resembles human genitalia. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/15/2008Presented and ordered printed 083504740
01/15/2008Referred to Committee on Transportation
02/12/2008Left in Transportation


Michael Perkins writes:

I wonder if Del. Spruill knows that the bill would be ineffective as proposed, since the "truck nuts" represent horse or bull testicles, not human testicles.

Adam B. writes:

These ornaments are in bad taste, but do we need to codify this?

James writes:

Here is another example of waisted tax dollars. The only thing that makes this more obscene is attracting this much attention to it. All Mr Spruill is trying to do is raise publicity for himself and not serve his constituents. Mr. Spruill are you planning on using tax dollars to purchase your example set to waive in front of the state government? I would be so!

Hober Mallow writes:

Now, if he adds a ban on those obscene decals of Calvin taking a whizz on various nascar logos, I'll be all for it.

Sue writes:

You have to be kidding. Is there tesitcle envy going on here? Does this guy not have some real issue to address? Is this really what he was elected to do?

Jeremy Beales writes:

He's not the first. A Maryland legislator introduced a bill to ban them in February. Apparently this idiocy is a mid-Atlantic phenomenon.

Tim McCormack writes:

@Michael Perkins: Shh! Don't tell Spruill!

I have a feeling that if this passes, it will be discovered 50 years later and marveled over as an example of how weird people used to be. :-)

Buddy writes:

We can laugh about the subject, and the fact that it has inspired legislation, all day long...

However, I think we should keep in mind that there is a mixed audience on our highways, and it is reasonable to put restrictions on such a crude display for the sake of children. None of us would want our kids to be victim of an indecent exposure -- so where does one draw the line?

That being said, it does seem that the legislation is flawed because it specifies human genitalia. Anyone could come to court and argue that their dangling object resembled genitalia of some animal.

Cross Creek writes:

Buddy writes: Anyone could come to court and argue that their dangling object resembled genitalia of some animal.

If so they would just add a class 6 felony on this type of bill.

Honestly, I feel this is a waste, there are so many bills already I don't see how they can actually deal with them all.

But I agree peeple should have enough respect for people that they don't put them on a vehichle. No need to make new laws on it.

Robert writes:

Why is no one holding the Delegate accountable for the remarks he made concerning Red Necks and good old boys or who ever they are.

If it were a white delegate that made a derogatory comment against Black people he would have been asked to resign, the news would have been all over his comments. But since the individual that made these comments is Black there is no repercussions to his statements. Kind of like when the mayor of New Orleans stated that he wanted his city to be a chocolate city.

There is a serous disconnect between what a white person is allowed to say and what a black person is allowed to say.

Where is Al Sharpton now?

Stephen Roane writes:

My children have seen these objects on trucks before and so far they haven't felt the need to comment on them. However, if they were to ask me about them I would simply explain that the drivers are trying to show how tough or fast their vehicle is, like a bull is strong or a horse is fast. And I'm sure that would be the end of the discussion. No one is emotionally damaged and we all move along with our lives.

I agree that these 'decorations' are crass and in bad taste but I don't believe they have crossed a line that requires the legislature to address them specifically. Frankly, having reviewed most of the bills presented to the General Assembly this year, I believe that there are more critical issues our representatives need to resolve.

Also if Mr. Spruill is genuinely concerned about the display of fabricated bovine or equine testicles on vehicles on public roads, how will he solve the 'problem' of real bovine and equine testicles being displayed on farm animals roaming in clear view of travellers in their vehicles? Should bills be introduced to construct fences that will block the scene or require that farm animals in pastures be adequately clothed?

I respect Mr. Spruill's concern over some people being offended by this but perhaps the best course of action, if you object to these displays, is to laugh at the individual using them and move on.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Also if Mr. Spruill is genuinely concerned about the display of fabricated bovine or equine testicles on vehicles on public roads, how will he solve the 'problem' of real bovine and equine testicles being displayed on farm animals roaming in clear view of travellers in their vehicles?

Brilliant question!

bubba hick writes:

good ole boys, rednecks? this is how he decribes people that display bumper nuts? Hmmm let me see if i can come up with words to decribe Mr Spruill,....nope i cant without Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton comming down on me,

Gary Hill writes:

Are there not enough serious issues to consider that thay would waste my tax dollars on this kind of tripe? I do not like the display of these things either but I just feel it reflects poorly on the person who bought them and they are just displaying their poor tast and ignorance- which each American has the right to do.

Terry Bartholomew writes:

On the plus side, as long as they are worried about this sort of thing, the less time they have to do some real damage to the public who elected them.

Gerbera writes:

There seem to be so many instances of people trying to outlaw bad taste these days (remember the attempt to ban low rise pants somewhere?). Ban this and there's another fad around the corner on which people with no taste will jump.

Alison Hymes writes:

If this is going to be a law, I think we should also outlaw possession of rulers by males under 15. :)

R P McMurphy writes:

Hey, with the writer's strike, Jay Leno needs fresh material!

Mike writes:

Every time someone wants to prohibit something obscene or offensive, whether on television, the radio, or plastered to vehicles...all sorts of moral relativists come out of the woodwork to mock and criticize. The excuses are always the same. If people want to worry about wasting tax dollars, why don't you worry about the waste of tax dollars that has gone into law after law about dog rights or pet rights? I could care less about everyone's love for their dog, and I think it's a waste of tax dollars to constantly invent new "rights" for pets - but it is NOT a waste of tax dollars to preserve some decency for our children. Every excuse we make to display low morals and low standards for our children results in more and more perverts, more molesters, and more violent criminals in the next generation. But while those numbers rise, you moral relativists will just wring your hands and ask "Why is this happening? It can't be because of us!" When every child grows up to have sex forced on them from television, movies, radio and magazines, are you surprised when there are more rapists around? But you would say they don't have to view that media. And they don't. But now people need to have genitalia plastered on their vehicle, which people can't avoid seeing? Those who think this is OK, and not only think it is OK, but mock efforts to stop it...those are the ones who are guilty for the next generation of perverts.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Think of the children! My God, won't somebody think of the children?

Tim McCormack writes:

@Mike: And what's worse, half of the population will grow up seeing testicles every day! The horror! We need to do something about that.

Cross Creek writes:

Cross Creek writes:But I agree peeple should have enough respect for people that they don't put them on a vehichle. No need to make new laws on it.

Heck if you want them on your vehichle put them on your gear shift. You get what you want and others don't have to be forced to see what you consider ok.

Respect, something America is loosing more of every day. Respect for our neighbors, respect for ones beliefs, respect for ones religion, respect for ones culture. Our country is imploding, as we are our own worst enemies at times. There should not have to be a law for people to respect what others such as children have to see. And there should not have to be all these new laws,if only us as Americans would repect each other to the point of not forcing anything in anothers face. If you believe in something keep it to yourself and respect the next person and thier beleifs. We are constantly forgetting morals and values we were taught by generations of our families.

CCGF writes:

There are things far worse on the both day time & definitly night time television that are worse than set of plastic bull balls hanging from the back of a truck. Will Del. Spruill go after, Jerry Springer Show, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.... next ? Most of the morals & values where lost several generations ago. Thats why the prison population in this country and especially this state is booming. Plus, if these things actually resembled humane genitalia hanging on someones bumper, in most cases - you could drive by and never take notice.

CCGF writes:


Check out the ones hanging from the armored vehicles in Iraq. Probably, the last thing them insurgents see as they roll over their mangled bodies. Maybe, they "might" not be so considered appropriate for our highways, but over there when the bullets are flying - having a set of balls would probably come in handy.

Tim McCormack writes:

I think everyone's in agreement on this one:
* The bill is unnecessary (and factually incorrect), and
* People should avoid hanging these on their bumpers, out of courtesy.

robert legge writes:

I could have done just fine in life having never known about this.

Bill Twine writes:

This "trivial" bill has certainly generated a lot of reaction. One would think Spruill is trying to subvert the 2nd ammendment.

Hey! There just might be a connection between the "gun-nuts" and "truck nuts."

I for one would welcome this bill's passage, eventhough it may be unconstitutional. BADTASTE!

robert legge writes:

Bet this comment section has been one of the busiest.

Charlie Jones writes:

Banning Our Nuts
Current mood: pissed off
Category: Nutty Life

Folks.... Stand Up For Your Rights!

Regardless of what you feel about our products, each of you should stand up for your rights. The biggest complaint I have heard from the legislators who want to ban these products (in Virginia and in Maryland) are that mom's and dad's don't want to have to explain to the kids "what those things are hanging from the back of that truck". The problem isn't what the kids are seeing, the real problem is this new era of parents who think they have to shelter their kids from everything, primarily because they are too damned lazy to be REAL PARENTS and explain to their children exactly what those things are. If you dont like them, then explain to your children that mom and dad dont necessarily agree with what that person is doing but this is AMERICA and they have their right to do it.

And to the parents who dont want to be real parents, then keep watching your Dr. Phil and Oprah shows and continue to blame everyone else for your lack of parenting skills!

vanderleun writes:

I vote we rename this lifestyle legislator Lionell "No Nutz" Spruill .