There are NO lights!

I’m only but one person.

It is called the Takings Clause by the Supreme Court, Cornell Law, and pretty much anyone else who talks about it. Expect the word “take” in a discussion about it.

The clause itself uses the word “take”. Taking with compensation is still taking.

It is called the Takings Clause by

They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. The case also set the precedent that the government could take private land not just for public use, but to transfer that land to another private party. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner’s will for the purpose of enriching a corporation.

I feel like I have enough of a skillset and experience that with a solid free month I could make a terrible iteration of this.

Now all I need is the month.

Oh wow, now I want to make one of those physics gimmick games where you fire houses out of a trebuchet.

The Prosecutors: Legal Briefs, episode 117.

The show is hosted by two prosecutors, so in various episodes on criminal cases their opinions skew heavily pro-prosecutor, but when laying out facts like going through a SCOTUS case they tend to be more fact based and less opinion based, I have found.

cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s presence at the trial

That is a sentence that you can really roll over in your head. It does not necessarily also mean an amount within the resources of the defendant. I watch a lot of hearings, and something I’ve seen at least a few times is a set of allegations and past facts (usually something like multiple failures to appear in the past, and/or fleeing from police) in a situation where the actual charge being bailed on has a statutory requirement that bail be offered. The judge doesn’t want to let the person out on bail, so therefore sets the bail at $1 million or something which is functionally the same thing as not giving them bail.

Usually this triggers a motion for a hearing about the bail amount by the defense lawyer to argue down the amount, but if the court date on the charge is earlier than court date for the motion, it becomes a moot issue.

I’m not an expert, but I did just listen to a podcast on this (which basically makes me an expert, right?)

I think yes, technically, legally the federal government could. ‘Kelo v. City Of New London’ ruled that purely economic development was a sufficient justification for using the takings power (eminent domain). The reaction by most states was to make their own laws limiting eminent domain powers so that the Kelo situation couldn’t happen with the state government, but the federal government has never passed laws limiting its powers. Bills to limit federal power like S.1313 were introduced but never passed.

and the whole hooters/twin peaks concept

I haven’t thought about Hooters in years. It always did seem like a dated concept from the 1980s that was somehow still clinging to life in the 90s. It’s still in business, so obviously somebody must be going to them, but I don’t know if I’d call it normal for most Americans.

Anecdotally this is also my experience. I grew up with shoes off in the house, but even up to the early 00’s it seemed to be a cultural outlier in the US.

These days I think the majority of people who I go over to visit have a shoes off rule. Seems like the split is between the older half of millennials and up shoes on, and younger half and down shoes off for the most part.

If a business has a sign posted stating “no guns allowed,” you can still legally carry your weapon in that business.

I’m sure that’s the practicality, but I am skeptical of the legality of a CCW permit trumping the rights of the property owner.

It sounds more like breaking the law and just not getting caught. Do you have any links to CCW permit overriding property owner rights?

#8: Police

State police enforce state level laws, and Federal agencies enforce federal laws.

The whole semi-autonomous thing. If a state and the Feds both have their own laws against something they could each try to arrest somebody, but there could also be a situation where one might not have a law while the other one does. For example , weed is still illegal under Federal law. The Federal government has mostly chosen not to enforce these laws, but it could. Many states have legalized weed to varying degrees.

So there could be a situation where somebody is smoking weed in a state that has legalized it. The state police have no power to arrest that person, but the Feds do.

I’m sure this has all made it more confusing.

In the US with all the variety there are places like that, but then places where you seemingly can’t find alcohol to buy and take home anywhere.

There’s differences between how wine & beer, and hard liquor are treated. I’d say the “average” experience is beer in any corner shop or gas station, beer and wine in a grocery store, and hard liquor in specific liquor stores.

Alcohol sales vary hugely between states. In some states, you can get hard liquor at Wal-Mart while in others you can only get it at state run stores.

The rules about licensing mean some areas gas stations usually don’t even sell beer, while in other places they have giant walk in beer freezers.

Some states or counties have dry laws where they don’t sell alcohol on Sundays, or maybe no hard alcohol, or maybe you have to wait until noon to be able to buy it.

It’s all over the place.

As for the Wal-Mart machineguns, I think you’ve gotten enough replies on that detail, but again gun sales are something with huge variety. Some states have put restrictions in place where a Wal-Mart theoretically could still sell guns but doesn’t because of the hassle, and gun stores end up being few and far between, while other places basically just have the Federal minimum in place.

And if he has a permit but is printing then it can also land him with some penalties.

I can’t find anything in a quick search the specifies printing as being illegal. In fact, a quick search brings up the opposite, that printing is not a legal definition and the discussion around it by laypersons often becomes muddled with confusion between printing and brandishing.

States will vary, but did you have a particular one in mind regarding the specifics of printing? Some of the search results I get mention some anti-printing laws but none I find get more specific than that.

But he di’d bring a bomb