|
Skunkduster posted:That seems kind of disproportionate to me. Failing to report income from tips, smuggling birds across the border in your pants, letting your livestock graze on federal land. All felonies that I can see and they have nothing to do with guns or violence. As lawyers, what are your thoughts on stripping 2A rights for non-violent crimes? Wait till you see all the crimes that definitely should be misdos but the state legislature decided passing misdo crimes was for pussies so everything's a felony. Any marijuana possession, $0.14 in property damage, "entering a building with the intent to shoplift a candy bar," speeding 15mph over is felony reckless driving in some states. In Washington it's a felony to harass bigfoot. In Alaska, any misdo can be a felony if three or more people do it together! Group fishing with illegal hooks (bonus: that's called molestation of fish!) is a felony, group illegal practice of dentistry, group getting drunk in a bar and staying on the premises. And Alaska is a fairly progressive state when it comes to criminal laws. God knows what Mississippi has on the books for felonies so they can keep black people locked up for life for stealing a slice of pizza
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
Skunkduster posted:That seems kind of disproportionate to me. Many legislators view this as a feature and not as a bug. Can't be "tough on crime" if you vote for legislation that helps people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 01:25
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Many legislators view this as a feature and not as a bug. Can't be "tough on crime" if you vote for legislation that helps people. I've seen this disconnect in real life recently. I was talking with a coworker the other day about the rights of felons and she was adamant that felons should not be allowed to vote. I was on the side that every American citizen, even incarcerated felons, should have a right to vote. Then I brought up her past history of cocaine use and told her the only difference between her and most of the felons in prison is that she didn't get caught. She failed to see the logic in that argument and said, "Yeah, but they are convicted felons, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote. I haven't been convicted of a felony." It just help cement my belief that this country has been steadily going down the toilet and it isn't getting any better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Wait till you see all the crimes that definitely should be misdos but the state legislature decided passing misdo crimes was for pussies so everything's a felony. Any marijuana possession, $0.14 in property damage, "entering a building with the intent to shoplift a candy bar," speeding 15mph over is felony reckless driving in some states. In Washington it's a felony to harass bigfoot. In Alaska, any misdo can be a felony if three or more people do it together! Group fishing with illegal hooks (bonus: that's called molestation of fish!) is a felony, group illegal practice of dentistry, group getting drunk in a bar and staying on the premises. And Alaska is a fairly progressive state when it comes to criminal laws. God knows what Mississippi has on the books for felonies so they can keep black people locked up for life for stealing a slice of pizza My state also has "three year misdemeanors" that are classed as misdemeanor state offenses but carry aax of up to three years. I used to know how that impacted federal gun possession but I've already forgotten.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 02:05
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:I've seen this disconnect in real life recently. I was talking with a coworker the other day about the rights of felons and she was adamant that felons should not be allowed to vote. I was on the side that every American citizen, even incarcerated felons, should have a right to vote. Then I brought up her past history of cocaine use and told her the only difference between her and most of the felons in prison is that she didn't get caught. She failed to see the logic in that argument and said, "Yeah, but they are convicted felons, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote. I haven't been convicted of a felony." It just help cement my belief that this country has been steadily going down the toilet and it isn't getting any better. For a *lot* of people, "criminal" and "felon" are like "woke" or "democrat": in their heads, when they say it, what they're thinking is "n*****r."
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 02:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My state also has "three year misdemeanors" that are classed as misdemeanor state offenses but carry aax of up to three years. I used to know how that impacted federal gun possession but I've already forgotten. 18 USC 922(g)(1) triggers on crimes that are punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, it doesn't ask whether the state calls it a misdemeanor or a felony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 03:25
|
|
|
The idea of "violent" crime is also very subjective. A lot of people seem to consider even breaking and entering or robbery non-violent as long as there is no physical contact and I vehemently disagree. Just because you're not in physical contact doesn't mean that you're not endangering someone else's life for your own personal gain.
Leviathan Song fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Apr 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 03:45
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:That seems kind of disproportionate to me. Failing to report income from tips, smuggling birds across the border in your pants, letting your livestock graze on federal land. All felonies that I can see and they have nothing to do with guns or violence. As lawyers, what are your thoughts on stripping 2A rights for non-violent crimes? I'm absurdly pro-gun compared to most people on this server (or maybe everyone outside of The Firing Line) and I don't see what's disproportionate about it. In theory, people who've demonstrated that they won't follow major laws by committing and being convicted of a felony have shown that they're not responsible citizens who can be expected to follow the law, so in the abstract I see no disproportion. If you think that particular laws shouldn't carry felony penalties then you could argue that the effect is disproportionate on those specific laws, but the remedy then would be to lower them to misdemeanors. I don't actually agree that tax fraud, smuggling animals past agricultural controls, or damaging public lands by violating land use laws are actually minor offenses in theory. In practice, it's even less disproportionate because in practice people don't get convicted of those felonies for doing something at the low end of what the law states - tax evasion is usually handled by 'pay back taxes with interest', smuggling is usually just 'turned away, animal confiscated', and your pet goat eating some national park leaves generally just gets a fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 03:47
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:The idea of "violent" crime is also very subjective. A lot of people seem to consider even breaking and entering or robbery non-violent as long as there is no physical contact and I vehemently disagree. Just because you're not in physical contact doesn't mean that you're not endangering someone else's life for your own personal gain. At least in my state, robbery (taking property by force or fear of force) is violent. Second degree burglary (entering an unoccupied building with intent to steal) not violent. First degree burglary (entering an occupied building with intent to steal) is violent. Stealing an unoccupied car, nonviolent. Stealing an occupied car, violent. OTOH, my state also considers higher volume drug possession, using an elderly person you care for's money beyond their permission or what you should have known might be beyond their permission, and calling in a fake bomb threat to be violent offenses. joat mon fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Apr 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 04:04
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:I'm absurdly pro-gun compared to most people on this server (or maybe everyone outside of The Firing Line) and I don't see what's disproportionate about it. In theory, people who've demonstrated that they won't follow major laws by committing and being convicted of a felony have shown that they're not responsible citizens who can be expected to follow the law, so in the abstract I see no disproportion. If you think that particular laws shouldn't carry felony penalties then you could argue that the effect is disproportionate on those specific laws, but the remedy then would be to lower them to misdemeanors. I don't actually agree that tax fraud, smuggling animals past agricultural controls, or damaging public lands by violating land use laws are actually minor offenses in theory. In practice, it's even less disproportionate because in practice people don't get convicted of those felonies for doing something at the low end of what the law states - tax evasion is usually handled by 'pay back taxes with interest', smuggling is usually just 'turned away, animal confiscated', and your pet goat eating some national park leaves generally just gets a fine. I'm glad your world is just. For many people with felony records, it's a just world fallacy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 04:16
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Kind of by definition less pro 2A than several folks who've already posted. I don't say anything about being pro or anti "2A" and I'm not sure how it would be relevant here - as far as I know the supreme court has consistently held that it's constitutional for lawmakers to forbid convicted felons from doing things that would be unconstitutional for lawmakers to forbid in general, so as far as I can tell there aren't any second amendment issues involved in what we're discussing. I literally don't see the 'several folks' you talked about - there's people talking about things being classified as felonies, but I don't actually see even a single post agreeing with your position that felony convictions should not be a bar to gun ownership (I can guess that some people do, but they didn't say so), and I already stated that I don't disagree with arguments of the form 'this particular crime should not be a felony'. Also 'most of the server' is not contradicted by 'some folks' as 'most' is not the same as 'all'. Can you provide some examples of felony convictions that people actually have that you think should not bar them from owning firearms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:I don't say anything about being pro or anti "2A" and I'm not sure how it would be relevant here - as far as I know the supreme court has consistently held that it's constitutional for lawmakers to forbid convicted felons from doing things that would be unconstitutional for lawmakers to forbid in general, so as far as I can tell there aren't any second amendment issues involved in what we're discussing. Just to make sure I understand, you agree that there are felonies that shouldn't be felonies, but even if somebody were convicted of one of those dumb felonies (such as keying somebody's Tesla for $1,000 in cosmetic damage), they ought to be barred from owning firearms, voting, et cetera, because of their disregard for the law?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 05:22
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:In theory, people who've demonstrated that they won't follow major laws by committing and being convicted of a felony have shown that they're not responsible citizens who can be expected to follow the law, so in the abstract I see no disproportion. This line in particular strikes me as the exact same argument that people make against any idea of rehabilitation. That coupled with the idea that only people who really deserve it actually get convicted really demonstrates the mindset of the people who encourage the exact "tough on crime" mindset I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 12:40
|
|
|
joat mon posted:At least in my state, robbery (taking property by force or fear of force) is violent. Second degree burglary (entering an unoccupied building with intent to steal) not violent. First degree burglary (entering an occupied building with intent to steal) is violent. Stealing an unoccupied car, nonviolent. Stealing an occupied car, violent. So how does this work? If I think the place I'm breaking into is uninhabited, is that good enough for the court? Can I just say your honor I swear I thought it was abandoned. Is it for the prosecution to decide?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 14:57
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:So how does this work? If I think the place I'm breaking into is uninhabited, is that good enough for the court? Can I just say your honor I swear I thought it was abandoned. Is it for the prosecution to decide? In my state it depends on the definition of "dwelling", "curtilage", etc. I've seen very complex arguments over things like whether or not it was "burglary" to take a bicycle off of a screened porch from a university campus building.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:So how does this work? If I think the place I'm breaking into is uninhabited, is that good enough for the court? Can I just say your honor I swear I thought it was abandoned. Is it for the prosecution to decide? The question is, was there an inhabitant in the house. The burglars belief that it was not inhabited is 100% irrelevant. The risk is on the burglar to know, and surprisingly it generally works. (Being in a low gun regulation state helps too.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
homullus posted:Just to make sure I understand, you agree that there are felonies that shouldn't be felonies, but even if somebody were convicted of one of those dumb felonies (such as keying somebody's Tesla for $1,000 in cosmetic damage), they ought to be barred from owning firearms, voting, et cetera, because of their disregard for the law? I have absolutely zero idea where you got "voting, et cetera" from. I said nothing about barring people from voting for any reason, so saying you think I think they ought to be banned from voting is putting words in my mouth, and the 'et cetera' is an even further leap. I do think dumb felonies should not be dumb felonies, but the problem there is not 'felony blocks firearms' but 'this shouldn't be a felony,'. I'm also fine with 'deliberately causing major property damage' being a felony in general and that leading to someone being barred from firearms, I don't want someone keeping and bearing arms while they're going through parking lots keying cars and I don't think that's disproportionate at all. Atticus_1354 posted:This line in particular strikes me as the exact same argument that people make against any idea of rehabilitation. The leap from 'should be barred from owning firearms' to 'any idea of rehabilitation' is a pretty big one, and not one that I've made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
Texas-specific, but I’m also interested in how other states do it. So group homes are a thing. Multiple unrelated adults living in the same house, paying for food and housing (and other care) to the owner. Owner employs people to be at the house to care for the residents. It’s not the usual kind of Assisted Living Facility that’s like a big apartment complex, but it’s considered the same thing (at least in Texas). This is a considered a business, right? Do these people need to register this as such, like give it a name or anything? How does it work to turn a regular-rear end house in a suburban neighborhood into a business? Do neighbors have any recourse if one day suddenly there are a bunch of cars constantly parked on the street and people going in and out? I remember one apartment I lived in stated explicitly and specifically that we weren’t allowed to run any kind of business out of our units, so I wondered if there’s some regulation against using a residential property for a ‘commercial’ purpose. Is there anything stopping someone from renovating their house into a store? A law office? I guess this is similar to the question “what’s the difference between a Day Care and some person who babysits multiple kids at once?” It seems like there should be…
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 15:34
|
|
|
E-flat posted:Texas-specific, but I’m also interested in how other states do it. This is probably addressed by a zoning ordinance. For example, in the town I'm a resident of, a group home like you describe is an acceptable use by special exception in certain types of residential area. For that exception, you'd have to petition the zoning board, appear at a meeting, meet certain operatoinal criteria, and notify the neighbors (which gives them a chance to object). Being a "business" isn't automatically a disqualification to being in a residential area, as there are carveouts for certain kinds of home based businesses in my local zoning ordnance that don't require the special exception. This is all applicable to my area. Yours may be different but there's likely a zoning authority (city/county/etc.) that may address the situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
As a general rule, you should think that if there is a business model, then there is some type of federal, state, or local regulations concerning that model. There's not always a bright line of when something goes from "guys living together and sharing resources" to "group home." Or "i babysit kids" to "i run an in home daycare." Usually you aren't allowed to run businesses from residences without getting permission and certifications from local and state regulators. But in this case, there are definitely rules. For example, in Texas once you start providing care for 1 to 3 unrelated children in your home for 3+ days a week for 4+ hours per day for 3+ connective weeks (or 40 days in a year total) you are required to register as a "Listed Family Home," which has minimum standards that Health and Human Services child Care Regulation Department can enforce. Practically this only happens if there's a complaint. I'm more familiar with the child care rules because i was once a child myself. As far as adult group homes go, I don't know the rules because I'm not yet elderly or in need of group care. If you check back in with me in 10 to 40 years, I may know. But i bet the rules are similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
Nursing homes are mixed state and federal regs. Assisted living facilities are most entirely state level regulation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Cities will also have zoning ordinances that prevent people from running businesses in residential locations, and will have sometimes permit requirements that any business must obtain prior to operating within the city limits depending on the kind of business. In addition, most neighborhoods have civil and contractually binding deed restrictions amongst and between the owners in a neighborhood that prohibit commercial activity out of homes in the neighborhood. So for example, if Paul just decided to start up some kind of group home in a suburban neighborhood, neighbors could report him to the city for A) operating a group home business without the relevant permit and B) violating zoning regulations. If Paul failed to stop, the city could find him and take corrective action to shut down the operation. If Paul instead decided to ask for permission, He would apply to the city for a permit and when reviewing his application the city would say, " nope, looks like It's zoned single family residential, permit application denied." If for some reason the city granted him his permit, the deed restriction still prohibited the activity, the homeowners could file a civil lawsuit to get a court order telling him that he's in breach of the deed restrictions and he has to stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
And maybe to answer your fundamental question, If for some reason Paul went to court in response to, and defense of either the city fining him or the homeowners suing him, and he decided to claim that it wasn't in fact the business but was some sort of social club or some other weird rear end thing, It would be up to the plaintiff or prosecutor to investigate the operations, and up to the judge or Jury to decide if, based on the facts, If the owner was in violation of the relevant prohibition. So he might claim, " No no. We're just guys being dudes and we're all putting money together in a pot because we like having our diapers changed by this nurse lady." And the prosecutor or the plaintiffs might do discovery on the nurse and take her deposition and ask her what's really going on, investigate financials, clients, histories, etc. then eventually if everyone's sticking to their guns they go to trial and find out who's right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Hypothetical, but I suspect this will become reality pretty soon. Let's say that I use AI generated images to create a graphic novel. I've been really meticulous to make sure that my images are in the style of a popular and successful Artist. While the images are not exactly as if they were produced by that Artist, they're very close and clearly inspired by them. Let's say that the graphic novel is a success and I make money. Lo and behold, the Artist finds out about my publication and sues for infringement, saying that, despite the fact that the artwork was AI generated and not copyrightable, the images was deliberately made in the style of the Artist and used that Artist's style to gain popularity and profitability (i.e. That profitability would not have been possible had the art been in a different style) Naturally, I would counter argue saying that the images are only inspired by the Artist, and it's the quality of the writing and curation/selection of the generated art which resulted in the work's success. That it would be no different than if someone had carefully studied the Artist's style and made the art by hand. Could this argument find traction in court? Where does it fall apart or stand to win? I know that at least one graphic novel with AI generated art was initially granted and then refused a copyright (for its art, the writing was granted a copyright), though I don't think it's made much money and I don't think it was done in the style of a particular artist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
I don't really have an answer to your post, but it made me thing of fogerty vs fogerty so thank you for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:I don't say anything about being pro or anti "2A" and I'm not sure how it would be relevant here - as far as I know the supreme court has consistently held that it's constitutional for lawmakers to forbid convicted felons from doing things that would be unconstitutional for lawmakers to forbid in general, so as far as I can tell there aren't any second amendment issues involved in what we're discussing. Pantaloon Pontiff posted:I literally don't see the 'several folks' you talked about - there's people talking about things being classified as felonies, but I don't actually see even a single post agreeing with your position that felony convictions should not be a bar to gun ownership (I can guess that some people do, but they didn't say so), and I already stated that I don't disagree with arguments of the form 'this particular crime should not be a felony'. Pantaloon Pontiff posted:Can you provide some examples of felony convictions that people actually have that you think should not bar them from owning firearms? Charges my clients have actually had: Failure to pay child support failure to provide for children or wife Cruelty/neglect to animals Arson except 1st Degree Assault & Battery on Police Officer Bail Jumping Bounced checks more than $1000 ($2000 after 2017) false bomb threat Burglary except 1st degree financial abuse by caretaker possess controlled drug other than marijuana before 2019 possess marijuana 2nd offense before 2019 attempt to possess drugs by fraudulent prescription maintain a dwelling where drugs are kept possess controlled drugs within 1000 feet of a school possess controlled drugs in the presence of a child under 12 use of a communication facility in the commission of a felony bring tobacco/drugs/cell phone into a jail or prison possess tobacco/drugs cell phone in a jail or prison possess controlled drugs with intent to distribute drug trafficking (simple possession of larger amounts) distributing fake controlled drugs fail to purchase tax stamp for controlled drugs possess drug precursors child neglect fail to prevent child abuse child endangerment drug use child endangerment by dui child endangerment by allowing child where drugs are used possessing any stolen property, before 2016 - after 2016, value over $1000 contributing to delinquency of a minor, 2nd offense I'm not even through the Cs, so I'm going to stop here. For some it would be fine to bar possession while the person's on probation. Most just shouldn't be a bar at all For some there should be a presumption of no bar at all - that the State can choose to rebut, given sufficient evidence of violence or violent propensity. This would provide more of an actual relationship between the crime committed and the risk of future gun violence before taking away someone's rights. For the ones not on this list, there should be a presumption of no firearm possession that the defendant can later attempt to rebut, given sufficient evidence of lack of violence or violent propensity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:AI stuff Well, my friend, I suspect you'd have a real humdinger of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I don't really have an answer to your post, but it made me thing of fogerty vs fogerty so thank you for that. Did you mean Fogerty vs Fantasy? Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Well, my friend, I suspect you'd have a real humdinger of an issue. Me: Your Honor, I move to dismiss the case based on the fact that this is a humdinger of an issue. Judge: Denied.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Lo and behold, the Artist finds out about my publication and sues for infringement, saying that, despite the fact that the artwork was AI generated and not copyrightable, null_pointer posted:the images was deliberately made in the style of the Artist and used that Artist's style to gain popularity and profitability Where AI comes in here is in a couple of places: 1. There's debate whether the use of a protected work in the generation of an AI model is itself an act of infringement. The consensus has been that use of protected works in the generation of an AI model is transformative, and thus, a fair use, but--and to your point--with AI generated works now having sufficient quality to be valuable, there's been a bevy of ongoing lawsuits to determine this. 2. If you can demonstrate that the allegedly infringed works were not part of the training data for the AI model, that may aid in a defensive argument that a generated work is non-infringing and any similarity to the protected aspects of the infringed works is coincidental. ExcessBLarg! fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Apr 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Did you mean Fogerty vs Fantasy? Yeah but it’s more fun to call it fogerty v fogerty. Sued for plagiarizing yourself. Still makes me lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
I'm not pantaloon pontiff but I'd be comfortable with revoking gun rights from people convicted of any of the things on that list, with two exceptions: "Failed to purchase tax stamp for controlled drugs" and "possession of stolen property" are both crimes I want to know if they have a mens rea defense, because I think "I didn't realize I needed a tax stamp for this specific drug" shouldn't screw over a pharmacist at some clinic and "I didn't know this bike I bought on craigslist was stolen" should be a default assumption that the prosecution has to disprove, and I would guess that in both cases that's not actually how the law works and I am mad about that. Do correct me if my assumption here is poor. But also I think most people shouldn't have guns. So that obviously strongly colors my view. I also think we should spend a lot less time and effort arresting and prosecuting drug offenders and a lot more time and effort arresting and prosecuting CEOs and financial advisors and film executives and especially, especially congressmen, and by all means take away their gun rights first. As long as we're disproportionately targeting poor people, black people, and especially poor black people, taking away felon's rights feels like another item on the "racist-rear end country" evidence heap and I don't think you can conveniently ignore that aspect while speaking in purely abstract terms about how things ought to work in a perfectly spherical world and still be having a useful discussion. We don't get to live in that world, we live in this one, and in this world we're taking away people's rights based on a lot of persecution of the poor, and that includes 2nd amendment rights, and that's unfair. Disarming the scary black people was the obvious goal of a lot of gun control legislation in California when the Black Panthers were insistently exercising their gun rights in public, for example, and those laws are still on the books today. So on balance I'd like to see a hell of a lot of legal reforms and fixing whether and when and for how long 2nd amendment rights are taken away is like 849th on my list of poo poo we need to fix, but it is on the list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
All this brings to mind when we (Floridians) voted to give felons the right to vote back (because from anything other than a disingenuous position to punish people for being poor/maybe voting Democrat/whatever, what the gently caress?) in 2018. It was Amendment 4 and loving Desantis decided you had to pay the state back for your fines and fees. It got upheld and just sort of gutted the intent, gently caress all that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm not pantaloon pontiff but I'd be comfortable with revoking gun rights from people convicted of any of the things on that list, with two exceptions: "Failed to purchase tax stamp for controlled drugs" and "possession of stolen property" are both crimes I want to know if they have a mens rea defense, because I think "I didn't realize I needed a tax stamp for this specific drug" shouldn't screw over a pharmacist at some clinic and "I didn't know this bike I bought on craigslist was stolen" should be a default assumption that the prosecution has to disprove, and I would guess that in both cases that's not actually how the law works and I am mad about that. Do correct me if my assumption here is poor. It's just illegal drugs that need a tax stamp, so the pharmacist's OK there. (There are felonies for pharmacists for recordkeeping frauds or omissions and for failing to use proper DEA forms for Sched I and II drugs, but since pharmacists can afford their own attorneys, I don't know if these cases get filed regularly. I don't think these convictions should take away gun rights either.) possession of stolen property requires the state to prove that you reasonably should have known it was stolen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It's just illegal drugs that need a tax stamp, so the pharmacist's OK there. 1. interesting, and fair enough 2. hmm, who knew thousands of youtubes and tiktoks could be so wrong
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"I didn't realize I needed a tax stamp for this specific drug" Nobody realizes they need a tax stamp for drugs that are illegal to possess. And the law isn't even in the Crimes and Punishments part of the state statutes, it's buried in Revenue and Taxation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Nobody realizes they need a tax stamp for drugs that are illegal to possess. Can you even get a tax stamp for illegal drugs? Is it as simple as going into your local tax stamp office (or wherever one would get a tax stamp) and saying, "I have 2lbs of cocaine and 1000 tabs of ecstasy I plan on selling over the summer, can I get a tax stamp please?" and the teller replying, "Sure thing sir! Don't forget to report your income on your taxes next spring. Have a great day!".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
Yes, and yes. for example: quote:North Carolina
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Yes, and yes. Holy poo poo. That is amazing!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:10
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Holy poo poo. That is amazing! here, $3.50/g for marijuana ($10 minimum) $200/g for other drugs sold by weight ($200 minimum) $1000/50 dosage units for other drugs sold by dose ($1000 minimum) joat mon fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Apr 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
Yeah. There’s actually a minor, but extant, collector’s market in state revenue stamps for illegal drugs. Since, since the laws say you have to have them, the state departments of revenue produced them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:31
|
|
