Law Questions and Answers
Posession of a silencer. are silencers legal? or is a fedral offense?
Answers: I believe they are criminal in most places.
I'm not sure how important the law is though, as silencers are moderately easily made.
Ditto, Mr/Ms Nightrider!
This is a Federal firepower offense, unless you have the appropriate charter.
Don't even think of playing w/this one unless you want to risk some time worse bad than Martha Stewart!
For those of you in the USA, Nightrider is entirely correct. I can append a bit more info. There are no federal laws that prohibit civilian silencer ownership, even in need a license. They are however strictly controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. If you want to import, making or deal contained by silencers (or machine guns) later you need a federal firearms license and earnings the special occupational rates (both add up to $1200). 35 states allow civilians to own silencers. Instead of getting a license or voucher, the easiest way to lawfully buy or make a silencer is to submit an ATF from 4 (buy) or ATF form 1 (make) along near your mug shots, fingerprint cards, a form attesting to US citizenship and a check for the $200 tax ( for respectively silencer). Approval is routine, takes 1-2 months and I enjoy never heard of anyone person denied as long as the paperwork was submitted properly. I enjoy had several ATF form 1’s approved surrounded by the last few years, it is highly easy.
The biggest snag other than living within one of the 35 states, is obtaining the local sheriff’s signature on the stern of the form. Some just junk to sign. In this case adjectives you need to do is form a corporation or trust surrounded by your name. A Corp. or trust does not call for the fingerprints, photos or sheriff’s signature, just the levy and other forms. If you intend to make a silencer, do not even start to generate parts until you have the approved form 1 within your hands. If you want to buy, the supplier will assist you through the steps.
Some people claim that buying a silencer allows the ATF to inspect your home at any time they want minus a warrant. This is untrue. Only licensed dealers are required to submit to a warrant smaller amount inspection once a year during business hours as part of the accord to get the license. People who own silencers registered on ATF forms 1 or 4’s do not forfeit their fourth amendment rights purely because they own a one. Committing a crime with a silencer add time to your jail time if convicted surrounded by federal court. That said, crimes committed with registered silencers are nearly non-existent.
Even though a silencer can lower thud by 20-30 decibels (100 to 1000 times), do not expect a good silencer to lower the muzzle blast thud below 115 decibels. While silencers work well on any gun, including elevated powered rifles shooting high speed ammo, they work best on lower powered rifles using subsonic ammo. They do zilch to lower noise from the conduct or bullet flight (sonic boom). Some silencers do not even lower noise plenty to shoot without audible range protection. Any good silencer does stifle the risk of hearing loss and rumpus pollution. Check out http://www.silencertests.com and
http://www.subguns.com for more info.
Ranb
I am on probation and have gotten 4 more violation. I am an english citizen. can i move bak to england?
i mean would they enjoy me serve my probation then when it is over move? i am on probation for possession and intent to distribute marijuana, i failed two drug test and have a moment ago gotton a dui.Answers: If you are an English citizen, then you can move support to England.
But if you have violated your probation, the state may require you to spend some time within jail (gaol to you) first.
If you are also a United States citizen, they cannot deport you. But, but for, and your charge is a felony they will. If your charge is a misdemeanour, you might not be deported.
You can express your intent to leave the U.S. and the court may agree on to waive any jail time since you are going to be gone. If they are smart they will do that --- save taxpayers' money that would be spent keeping you in detain.
I wish they would of late legalise marijuana and save the jail and courts for real criminals.
They can incarcerate you first and then deport you after you serve your time.
Did you forget that you already asked this give somebody the third degree and had a great deal of replies? Maybe it is time to give up the ganga.
No, if you return to England you won't own to serve out your probation there.
The US "may" desire your extradition, but it's very unlikely.
With a drug crime on your text as an alien, you're subject to mandatory deportation and exclusion from the US anyway, so you might as well shift home now as hang about to be deported.
Richard
Code of Hammurabi and the modern U.S. law system?
Tell me your evaluation of how you think The Code of Hammurabi and our modern U.S. tenet system is both similiar or different. please and thank you! if you can, please provide evidence,specific examples, to support an argument on how they are both similar and/or different.links to help:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Cod...
http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=U...
reply a.s.a.p, thank you.
Answers: The primary similarity is the concept of a fixed decree itself. In most cultures of the time the law be simply whatever the ruler said it be. Hammurabi set his laws down within stone for all to see, so that men could know what they be - or were not - allowed to do.
The other big difference, even from sooner written laws - be that Hammurabi's code for the first time included a civil aspect. There are older written decriminalized codes, but they were adjectives exclusively criminal in character. Even the 10 commandments are pretty much all "Thou shalt nots". Hammurabi's code, though, included guidelines for his bench to resolve civil disputes between citizens, and even established, for the first time, a law of contracts.
Richard
holly are you wanting your homework to be done for you? you'll hold to pay me for my time
There is a lot of motions that?
My attorney is not helping me at all! I know in that is alot of motions I can file pretaining to my shield. However, I do not know where to start, can you sustain me please.Answers: If you don't know where to start, how do you know near any any relevant motions?
Richard
You can always bring back another lawyer. What are the facts of your baggage? What motions do you wish to directory?
Suicide Bomber Cowards?
How are suicide bombers cowards? I keep audible range it on the news? Cowards are ones who are afraid to do something upon caprice and certain circumstances? It take a lot of ball to blow yourself up...wouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't it be brave (in a crazy Jihad-UnEthical way)?Answers: They are not cowards at adjectives but they are idiots
I think they're truism that they're cowards in a different sort of sense. Like someone else said, they aim at the innocent. There's without question they've got ball though, I know what you mean.
They still suck.
their death are quick and painless, but it cause pain towards the innocent close to the children of iraq
they have to suffer the internal bleeding, and amputations because of those stupid cowardly suicide bombers
Depends how you describe "coward" what many family don't realize is that quite repeatedly they are forced to do it or else facade the execution of their entire families.
There's plentifully of ignorance regarding such--it's not adjectives about religion.
They are cowards because they are afraid to apply logic, purpose, and compassion to their beliefs. They are afraid to question their beliefs and reject the hypothesis that it's okay to question confidence, no matter what religion you follow.
Faith is not following idealogy blindly. Faith is command that idealogy fills surrounded by the gaps that idea leaves unanswered.
It depends on one's panorama of death: for lots it is the greatest fear they enjoy so to die takes courage, others viewpoint it as a means to an run out (for example serial killers, soldier and/or police); and some a short time ago accept it as a continuation of vivacity; and the very few see vivacity is the death and extermination is the life.
Suicide is considered the rise of cowardness for it means that the entity is unwilling to face their enthusiasm and what they have brought to it. Psychologists include the evaluation the suicide is an expression of self-loathing. I agree with this and contained by the case of the suicide bomber where on earth the true goal is to snuff out others their death is an intense expression of self-loathing, for not solitary do they hate themselves but the strangers they intend to execute.
For me the true mark of braveness is to obverse one's self full on and know everything that happens surrounded by one's life is solely created by the self.
I have an idea that for most sences they are just plain wrong. They are not cowards.
"1. a personality who lacks courage in facing threat, difficulty, opposition, cramp, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated individual.
–adjective
2. lacking courage; fundamentally fearful or timid.
3. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry. "
One might utter that they are not "facing danger" because their own deaths are painless but this does not acknowledge the extream anxiety one must enevitably perceive the weeks prior to the explosion. One might also say that are an glibly "intimidated" person because they are recruit by leaders within the Jihad but this denies the certainty that they had agreed the mission at great cost with just a theological and idealogical reward.
What's the purpose of hate crime law?
A white woman was overcome by 9 black students on a Baltimore City bus on Dec. 4. The face of the casualty Sarah Kreager was gone broken, bruised, & swollen after the attack, & wounds on her head have to be stapled shut. She was call a white cracker & white motherf-cker while she was mortal beaten. But the 9 attackers aren't individual charged with repugnance crimes. People think it's a hatred crime to hang a rope from a tree, but crimes like this aren't abhorrence crimes. Stupid double standard. This is really disgusting. In the first article a parent of one of the teens said that the victim provoked the attack. How does 1 woman provoke an attack beside 9 teenagers? It doesnt matter if the teens be 'provoked' or not, it was a can`t bear crime.Answers: Apparently advocates of hate-crime legislation believe that individual white people are skilful of hate and they also believe that other race commit crimes for reasons bar hate.
I don't know if that stance is more insulting to whites or minorities. When you construe about it, what they are truism is that these young black teens are inherently uncontrolled and need no hate-based motive to commit such a crime.
That's a impeccable example of why hate crime legislation should be disbanded.
ALL legislation, adjectives laws for that business, are difficult to enforce fairly. Everyone have a different definition of "fairly". Hate crime legislation is even more difficult to enforce than most. Mainly because our police officers, prosecuting attornies, and magistrates have to desire what's "hateful" and what's not. What's prejudice, racist, bigoted or sexist to any of us and what's not???
It is extremely difficult to decide that. The grip you posted points out exactly why hate crime legislation is impossible to enforce honestly. Different races are going to own very different view about that specific satchel.
How can we fairly enforce a tenet when we can't even define what the directive is supposed to be enforcing?
okay i agree. it was unambiguously a hate crime, and totally unnecessary.
Racisim go both ways. And hate comes within all colours of skin, deplorably.
The purpose of hate crime law is to protect people (like the entity you mentioned) among others, from various attacks against them simply upon the starting place of skin colour, ethnicity or religion etc.
This was evidently a hate crime and should be prosecuted as such. The woman ought to achieve herself a decent attorney that will be willing to turn for fullest sentence against these individuals allowable by Law. 9 against 1 is unnecessary and ridiculous. And, i cannot stand racism in any form, regardless of who that racism is coming from: other white population to other races, OR other race towards white people. Hate and prejudice is ridiculous. And it disgusts me.
Sadly have this happended to any other race, you are correct that it would've in half a shake been see as a hate crime. There does seem to be to be a double-standard anymore, and a ton of people name-calling the 'race card' which seems to be the foremost problem. It is not all, but some. And that go for all race.
This attack was distinctly a hate crime, and unnecessary. Simply for the reality that 9 people belt up on 1 person. Even if the object were not white, it would still be see as a hate crime.
To me, it seem that the more people of ethnicity that right to be heard they are fighting for equality from prejudices they still believe exist (and within some cases do) they become guilty of doing the very entry they say they disgust and are 'fighting' against. Which is hyprocisy.
But as i said, racism and hate comes contained by all colours of skin, and adjectives ethnicities, which to me is very upset. I hate racism, regardless of who it is coming from.
This be most assuredly a hate crime; and the girl wishes to find a lawyer beside balls to prosecute it as such regardless, preferably one lacking a yellow string down his/her spine and the sychophant nature surrounded by trying to please everyone, and regardless of the attacks from racist groups that will play the race card and say-so the attack on her was valid. Everybody wants to be so 'politically correct' and not slight that the basic rights of individuals are trampled underfoot.
This girl requests a decent advocate, preferably one with a backbone; as this be obviously a detestation crime; and this poor girl had to suffer unnecessarily.
If it be an african-american (black) girl that were the martyr, i would offer matching opinion as very soon.
What the Eff is this world coming to? That hate crimes are tolerated and reasonable on the presumption of provocation? *sighs* Hate is always wrong. As is 9 citizens beating the living crap out of 1 entity, regardless of skin colour or ethnicity.
*edit* and oh yes. that one article is ridiculous. WTF is wrong with those prosecutors? They dropped aggrivated assault for unkind destruction and disorderly conduct? ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME? That attack is exactly aggrivated assault; and those prosecutors should be freaking disbared. That is a serious miscarriage of justice right at hand. *rolls eyes* they dropped aggrivated assault for malicious destruction and effing disorderly conduct? Are you... freaking serious next to that bulljive? *sighs* what a load of crap explicitly.
I'm also baffled. A simple theft or robbery of a stranger generally involves no hate. But if a attacker also hates rich Jews, how does that take home his crime worse?
I was once assaulted because I look middle class, and once because of my skin colour. What's the difference to me? We should not create an misdeed called 'hate crime' unless we apply it equally (including your example above).
The purpose of dislike intensely crime legislation is to overcome the shortcomings of a corrupt judicial system that fails to do its' errand.
its one way to allow for longer sentences thus bolstering the corrections/ legal/law enforcement industry.
But i did that and i did a darkslide down a 5 step and an anti casper to casper 180 heelflip back to anti cas
er THEY SAID I WAS TO LITTLE. IM FRICKIN 13 HAVENT THEY HEARD OF PG-13?Answers: And why are you not asking this within the "sports" section?
I'm sure they hold skateboard questions within --- or maybe even a clause just for skateboarding.
What's your opinion on the destruction penalty?
I'm doing an essay on how the release penalty shouldn't be legally recognized. So, what arguements should I put in? And, if you for it, report me why? Do you have a bias? What the point of have it around if murder rates are still high?Answers: lustful. you cant take away another person's duration. un-christianlike
too many relatives are killed that are innocent...i right to be heard kill the ones that are similar to " yes i did it and i'd do it again"
there any insane or betches...
The jail system does not restructuring criminals. Most come you worse than when they went surrounded by.
Also, give the departure penalty for more crimes, close to rape, and youll see the occurances of those crimes go down.
I'm not against it.
It is unacquainted in my state, but within places where it is used it is used too much.
This is an touching question.
The personality convicted of first degree murder should be given a sentence minus the possibility of parole.
That would allow for errors to be handled at a latter date if there be any.
Now, a convicted killer is released on parole surrounded by 7 to 12 years for good behavior surrounded by prison.
The family of the object has to suffer, for a duration ended to soon ,forever
The departure penalty have two major benefits:
1. It deal with undesirables within the best possible way: eliminate them.
2. It's cheaper than keeping them alive for 25 years, feeding them, clothing them, providing them next to supervision, etc.
It should be replaced by a life sentence of rock-hard labour.
I don't agree near killing nation for any reason, but I don't want criminals out dispossessed either.
ONE LESS MOUTH TO FEED...FOR US TAX PAYERS.
I'M FOR THE DEATH PENALTY...FOR THE ANIMALS THAT RAPE AND TORTURE.ANYONE, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN..THEY ROB STORES,OR BANKS THEY COME TO GET WHAT THEY CAME FOR AND STILL KILL THE CLERK...ETC... THAT SHITT IS JUST CRAZY!!
Kill them adjectives, let God sort them out.
Are you that credulous. If somebody kills your mother, should they be released and society blamed? God put aside us from left wing liberal wackos such as yourself.
i don't believe within it
why would you kill a individual who (for example) killed another personage to prove that murder is wrong
i am for it but not in adjectives cases there are sometimes cases that u really capture so disgusted that the person who did it is still alive also its a deterrent for others who might be thinking of doing something genuine bad
Nothing is ultimate, and while I do think it is inhumane. What type of inhumane exploit did the prisoner have to commit to receive a destruction sentence? I think it is important in some cases, but it have been used contained by the wrong cases before as very well.
i am not sure how i feel. if someone murdered someone contained by my family i would for sure want them punished. however is it right to take another energy? maybe only let them rot surrounded by prison and be someones b*tch! i think that would be a better punishment... run get em bubba!
I believe contained by the death cost for only the most heinous crimes, and with the sole purpose when the evidence is overwhelming. It prevents the guilty party from coming put money on into society and committing similar crimes.
Otherwise, they might be granted parole, when they are too dangerous to be part of a set of free society.
The fact is that murder rates are not as giant in states where on earth the death cost is legal. Here is a reality that you can't deny and/or debate. The new Iraqi Government believes within the death cost for mass murdering dictators and since that sentence was levy on Saddam Hussein for the evil which he perpetuated on society. Now he can NEVER put innocent men, women, and children in mass graves again! It works...
By the mode, don't forget to put this in your essay: There is a BIG difference between EVIL individuals who MURDER and good folks who TERMINATE and ERADICATE EVIL MURDERERS. Killing and Murder are two different things. Even GOD ordered good population to kill bleak people from time to time to maintain the peace.
Death, or the taking of someone's life is not rock-solid unless they have kill on numerous occassions. Rather than taking a person's life, why not resign from them on an island, and make them fend for themselves if they are so stern and dangerous, fairly than killing? Isn't that like peas in a pod thing? Why execute if it can be used in corruption?
I have five days departed to respond to a foreclosure place in my property. May I represent myself?
The certainty is I hired an attorney but I haven't received any copy of the response that he is suppose to sent to the court. I haven't been competent to reach him at his phone and I found out his organization is one of those virtual offices.I own 5 days left and I want to be sure we are responding to the sue.
Any suggestion will be enormously appreciated at this time.
Thanks
Answers: Attorneys don't always dispatch clients copies of all papers file with the Court. In this hours of daylight and age, a virtual office doesn't show much, although those attorneys that have them might be few and far between. I worked near at least one.
Show up at the audible range. If the attorney hasn't done his work, you may have more luck pursuing him than trying to prevent foreclosure.
** Note: This is a broad discussion of the subject matter of your give somebody the third degree and not legal suggestion. Local laws or your expert situation may change the common rules. For a specific answer to your question you should consult trial counsel with whom you can discuss adjectives the facts of your case. Answering this quiz does not indicate an attorney-client relationship. **
Sometimes you can work with your lender. They would a bit work with you most regularly instead of foreclose. The problem is that many mortgages enjoy been sold to unknown buyers. That make it more difficult.
Have you tried emailing your attorney?
Does this make any sense???
For a while my ex have custody of our kids and was on rule assistance for a couple years.Now I have full custody of the kids not her and I am have my paychecks garnished to retribution the state back for the time she be on welfare. Why?
She has a assignment making pretty ok money for where we live,shouldn't she be paying her own welfare spinal column?
I tried explaining to the idiot I spoke to on the phone that by taking my checks to pay for her welfare that its taking from my kids who the welfare be meant to assist.
She said the state requires the father of the kids to repay it,not the mother. (State:Missouri)
So am I seeing this wrong or does it really not make sense???
Answers: If you be paying your support as you say and in a minute have the kids and she is working. She manifestly has no kids living near her to support as you have them so I consider she should pay the system rear not you. These others on here are just idiots and would also hold a problem with it if they have to pay for some one elses welfare debt.
You don't describe us if you were paying support while she have the kids, so maybe that have something to do with it.
Given that, you should speak near your lawyer quickly. It doesn't make sense that MO still treats men and women differently.
That does appear kind of odd. I'd maybe invest within a lawyer to get sure you aren't getting the shaft.
As for whether or not you should get child support SOLELY base on custody I'm not sure. I thought that maybe the entity with custody's income matter. By that I mean if YOU engineer more than your wife, especially by a substantial amount then I didn't muse. If your incomes were a bit close to being impossible to tell apart then I could see her have to pay, and especially if you made smaller amount than here.
Once again that's something a lawyer could answer for you. I'd acquire in touch near one just to brand name sure you are getting a fair shake of things.
Generally speaking, household law contained by most states runs presumptively against the father.
See an attorney. I'm sure there is an answer to adjectives this and it will benefit you in the long run to enjoy things done right.
Good luck.
Several questions:
- They are taking rear the welfare they paid your ex because you be not paying your child support payments. Had you been making the required payments after you would not be in this bind. Once the money have been salaried, it is due by you.
- The money was intended to give a hand the children at the time it was compensated.
- If the state worker actually said that, she be mistaken. The parent that is required to clear child support payments is required to pay pay for the welfare payments. It is not based on the sex of the receiver or non-custodial parent. It is however most commonly the father that needs to take-home pay.
- If your ex does not have custody, you should establish a court writ for child support if you have not already done so. Child support should be ordered base on the state guidelines that factor your income, your ex's income and the custody arrangements such as how much time with respectively parent.
If you were paying support, afterwards one of these things happened:
1. You be paying less than the support guidelines require.
2. You be paying to her directly and she was not reporting this income to the welfare bureau. She could be charged with a crime if this is the casing.
3. You were supposed to remuneration to the welfare agency or the court and you paid her instead. Depending on how she reported the income (and if she did) she could be charged beside a crime as well.
If your children be being compensated taxpayer's money..then, you must money it back.
Welfare and assistance of that gentle is NOT government money - it is OUR money. When the parents are surrounded by a position to do it, the benefits must be paid wager on to US, the taxpayer.
More Questions and Answers:
[1902] - [772] - [1912] - [1793] - [2489] - [2202] - [1700] - [2271] - [2405] - [1813] - [1152] - [756] - [664] - [1161] - [1307] - [1852] - [2216] - [1713] - [825] - [2382]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: