Permit Type Parking Lot Petition: Fill & Download for Free

All of them which are problematic, or are prohibitively difficult, to enforce.This includes, unfortunately, most gun laws which were well-meaning in conception, but impractical in implementation.Which means: most gun laws.We can start from the idea that almost every state-level or lower (county, municipal) gun law is unconstitutional.This is because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Pretty clearly stated. But let’s go for “plain English” — I imagine 100 years from now, people laughing at my use of this term, in the same way I laugh at people who try to redefine the 1789 definition of “militia” and “regulated” using modern meanings of those words.The “plain English” version is:The Constitution is the supreme law of the landWhen federal law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution winsWhen state law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution winsWhen state law conflicts with federal law, federal law winsSo, given the second amendment:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That’s pretty much “game over”, right?You’d think so, and you’d think that people would use the first amendment to protest over it:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.And they are definitely allowed to do so.As long as they get an unconstitutional protest permit, and do so from the confines of the unconstitutional free speech zone, which is located far, far away from he members of the government whom they are trying to petition, so that those officials don’t actually have to deal with the PR fallout of press coverage involving the grievances they want redressed.You can thank the Vietnam era protestors for the existence of “free speech zones”.So how can government actually regulate gun ownership at all?It uses constitutional judo.Felons.Let’s take felons, first; they’re easiest. Convicted felons have a lot of restrictions placed on their rights. One of these is gun ownership.How is this possible?These seeds to the answer to this question lie in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. I’m going to link to the full text, but provide abridged versions.The fifth amendment seed:No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...The fourteenth amendment seed:[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..Together, these are referred to as “the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments” — or “The Due Process Clause”, for short.So it’s possible to restrict the rights of convicted felons, because they have had due process.Besides guns, we also have laws which:Restrict their freedom of association, which also restricts their first amendment rights: you can’t peaceably assemble, if you can’t assemble in the first place — which by the way: great way to prevent grievances such as voting rights removal being petitioned for redress by groups of felonsRestrict their occupations — child molesters, for some reason, are precluded from opening day care centersRestrict where they live — Megan's Law is a prime exampleRestrict their right to voteRestrict their right to keep and bear armsEtc.Some of these are what The Declaration Of Independence called “inalienable”; but that’s not law, and it’s not in the Constitution.Besides: it’s written in cursive, and we’ve stopped teaching cursive.So it is, in fact, permissible to alienate some rights of felons; and we do so.The mentally ill.This is a problem area.There’s a lot of rhetoric about this.Mostly, it’s an attempt to cloud the underlying issues; among the most popular is the meme that white people are mostly labelled mentally ill, while people of color are mostly labelled terrorists.This is utter crap.Even if you are motivated by political ideology, you have to be pretty screwed up to kill a lot of people against whom you do not have a specific grievance.The last person executed by the federal government for domestic terrorism was a white guy, Timothy McVeigh, in 2001.There’s currently a federal death row, and one of the people on it for domestic terrorism is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — for the Boston Marathon bombing — another white guy.So let’s agree to drop the rhetoric around “who’s a terrorist” (and pretty screwed up) vs. “who’s mentally ill” (and pretty screwed up).We can at least agree that people who are pretty screwed up should not be allowed to buy guns.And here we run into a social problem, and its roots in several Supreme Court decisions.Back in “the good old days” — that was facetious in case you were wondering — we used to lock up mentally ill people, essentially for life.We’d sterilize them; that was part of the — very active, at the time — U.S. eugenics program.And if they put up too much of a fuss about that, then we’d throw in a free lobotomy.After the atrocities committed by Germany in WW II in the name of “eugenics”, no one waned to be associated with the word at all, and the pendulum swung the other direction.And then there were the court cases involving a patients right to refuse treatment, which effectively neutered the mental health infrastructure in the U.S.:1975 — O'Connor v. Donaldson1978 — Rennie v. Klein1979 — Addington v. Texas1990 — Washington v. Harper1992 — Riggins v. NevadaThere were other landmark cases. A lot of these cases were supported by the ACLU in New York State. Several of the cases were funded, in large part, by the Church of Scientology; to see why, read Scientology and psychiatry.But the biggest offender, by far? California.In 1972, California passed the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act; at the time Ronald Reagan was governor of California, and California — as always — was spending more money than it was taking in as tax revenue. And one place it looked like the budget could be cut, without impacting anyone that someone cared much about, was mental health care.The act established a lot of rules, effectively ended judicial psychiatric commitments, outside of criminal sentencing. And it institutionalized “treat and turf” for mentally ill persons, through section 5150 — aka, he “72 hour hold” rule.The problem being that almost every mass shooter with acknowledged mental health problems in the last several decades has been subject to this modified process, which, since it does not involve the judiciary, does not involve a judicial finding under due process.But the absolute capstone was the 1996 passing of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act).With that, we hit the trifecta:The mentally ill were allowed to refuse treatment — meaning that they could go around being mentally illThe judiciary was largely removed from involvement with the mentally ill and the commitment process, meaning no court records for the FBI to look at when doing background checksNo one who knew — to a medical certainty — that someone was mentally ill, could legally disclose that information to law enforcementWhich is why it is a voluntary disclosure on form 4473, for background checks.Background checks themselves.Background checks were also another Reagan-Era invention; this time, due to Reagan-The-President, rather than Reagan-The-Governor.On March 30th, 1981, John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate then President Reagan. He failed in both this goal, and in the goal motivating the attempt, which was to impress actress Jodie Foster, who had played a child prostitute in a film (Taxi Driver) revolving around a similar plot.But he did seriously injure presidential press secretary James Brady.This eventually led to the introduction of he Brady Bill (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act). Initially, a five day waiting period to deal with “hot heads buying guns”, in 1998, it was amended to include a background check through the newly created NICS system (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).It’s a useful system for some types of enforcements, but usually fails to prevent gun related crimes.A preposterous system… for preventing mass shootings.To understand why this is the case, we have to delve a little bit into where the federal government derives its authority to impose background check in the first place.It comes from a weird place.It comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution; this is also known as the Commerce Clause. It states:[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;The key point here is that most guns are not manufactured where they are sold.This is a problem, when you are a gun dealer — or more likely, a sporting goods store — and you want to sell a gun not manufactured in the state where you operate. Or manufactured internationally, since he federal government ges to regulate that too.So the only people who are allowed to sell guns from out of state are people with an FFL (Federal Firearms License); they are the only people authorized by the federal government to ship guns interstate.And that license has restrictions on it.And one of those restrictions is an agreement to perform background checks.What about the gun show loophole?Glad you asked:It’s not a loopholeIt has nothing to do with gun showsThe thing is… the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce; they have to keep their noses out of commerce within a state.And gun shows travel from state state: they almost always count as interstate commerce.So if you buy a gun a a gun show?You have to pass the background check, for the same reason you have to if you bought a gun from a sporting goods store.But… but… but… loophole?!?It’s not a loophole.It’s the tenth amendment;The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Private sales between individuals cannot be subject to federal background checks by federal law.This has nothing to do with dealers at gun shows, which have to obey federal law. Or they lose their FFL.It’s a lot less sexy to call it “The Craig’s List Loophole” or “The 7–11 Parking Lot Loophole” — both companies would probably object in court anyway, by suing you for saying it.Especially if you hate gun shows happening in the first place, and want to advocate against both guns, and gun shows, at the same time.If the federal government can’t, can states regulate private sales?In theory, yes.In practice, no.Such a law would be unenforcible, in the same way as admitting to mental illness on your form 4473 is unenforcible.It would require voluntary self-reporting.So let’s reiterate:What existing gun laws in the U.S. are not currently being enforced, either fully or partially?All of them which are problematic, or are prohibitively difficult, to enforce.Especially the ones which might be useful in preventing mass shootings.

An IPS officer does not need the order of the Chief Minister for taking action during a riot. The power to take action during riots is given to the police officers in the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, on the other hand, under the law, the CM does not have any direct power to give specific directions to a police officer during riotous situation. The decision to deal with a riotous situation rests with the concerned police officer (or, executive magistrate) on the spot.During my tenure as an IPS officer, I have myself dealt with a large number of situations wherein I had to deal with crowds, unlawful assemblies and riotous situations. I never took any instructions from the CM (or from any other ministers) for controlling these situations. Not even from the superiors. I had to deal with these situations on my own, and as per my own judgment of the situation at hand. This is despite the fact that I have handled sensitive positions, including but not limited to, DCP of South Mumbai, wherein the Secretariat (called Mantralaya in Maharashtra), Legislative Assembly, the unofficial commercial capital of the nation, and other important institutions were also situated, and thousands of morchas, processions, protests, dharnas, etc., were held in my jurisdiction every year.There were only 2-3 situations wherein the CM spoke to me on phone during a public meeting or a potential riot like situation. As I have mentioned in one of my earlier answers [Ashok Dhamija's answer to Why can't the supreme court ban all hartals and bandhs?], in 1990’s, in a writ petition filed in Bombay high court, I had filed an affidavit on behalf of the State Government, Commissioner of Police, DCP, etc., in which I had suggested that the taking out of morchas and processions in South Mumbai should be banned, and instead of that all protests should be held within the premises of Azad Maidan itself (near Mumbai CST railway station). I had given this suggestion on the basis of a similar system existing in London where protests were held in Hyde Park. This was to avoid inconvenience to millions of people in Mumbai who resided in or visited South Mumbai daily. My further argument was that the right of an individual cannot override the collective rights of the community as a whole, and that if an individual has a right under Article 19 then so do the members of general public also. Bombay high court agreed with these suggestions and banned all processions, morchas in South Mumbai. In my capacity as DCP, it was then my duty to ensure strict implementation and enforcement of the said ban to make the agitators get used to this new system.Many labour union leaders were not happy with such ban, and the first test was a huge morcha planned by various left unions together. A word had got spread that I would be strictly enforcing the High Court order even if I had to use force. A word also got spread that I had deployed about 40-50 specially-selected strong policemen (who were supposed to be aggressive policemen) near the stage from where all the main leaders were addressing the huge gathering of about 25000 people, with the instructions that if the said leaders tried to take out a morcha outside the Azad Maidan, in violation of the High Court order, then these policemen would break the legs of these leaders. This word had spread everywhere, including to the CM. While the public meeting of such huge gathering was going on, with provocative speeches trying to incite the crowd, and with open criticism of the Chief Justice of the Bombay high court (Justice M.B. Shah, who subsequently became Supreme Court judge) and me as DCP, the two persons mainly responsible for the ban on morchas, the CM called me on mobile phone. He was worried that if police used force on such gathering, there could be many casualties. He tried to convince me that I should not use bullets or lathi-charge and instead of that I should use water-canons or tear gas to disperse the crowd. I politely but firmly told the CM that my best efforts would be ensure peace without using any type of force and that most likely I would be successful in my efforts, but I could not guarantee what type of action I would be taking if the law & order situation deteriorates. I informed the CM that I had to take quick decision as per the requirements of the situation. I also reminded him that if the crowd violates the High Court order and proceeds to take out morcha on South Mumbai roads towards the Mantralaya, that would also be equally damaging for the State Administration, since we had promised the High Court that we would enforce the ban orders. I also told him that if he had lost trust in me, he could direct any officer senior to me to the spot in which case such senior officer would command the situation and not me. However, the CM did not agree to this. As I had already been working as DCP of South Mumbai for more than one and half years (till that time), the CM knew my working style and he said that he would fully trust my judgment, but just requested (he literally used the word request) that I should use force only if there was no other option. I assured him that I am not an irresponsible person and I knew my duty very well and would not do anything unless required.And, let me tell you – no violence took place and no morcha was taken out from Azad Maidan. The rumours that had spread about policemen being ready with specific instructions of targeting the leaders in case of problem might also have helped strongly. In fact, some leaders who knew me personally, had indirectly asked me about these rumours. I just smiled without confirming or denying those rumours. We kept strong vigil and kept full control of the situation. So, the first big test went off peacefully and successfully. Thereafter, it became quite easy to enforce similar ban on other smaller morchas. Slowly and slowly, it became the new system, thereby smoothening the normal flow of life in Mumbai. Though I left Mumbai about 10 years back, I understand that this new system is still continuing.There was another similar incident wherein about 1 lakh people (mostly goons) from all over Maharashtra had assembled in South Mumbai for a huge assembly. This was on a call given by the Don of a notorious gang, who at that time was getting enough public support. He had floated his own political party and had started dreaming of becoming next CM (though it never happened in practice, and I have no space in this answer to explain the reasons). [But, see: here and here.] The State Government did not want to permit such huge gathering, partly also because this rival party was fast becoming a serious contender in politics. But, it was on my assurance that I would manage the show peacefully that it was left to me and I permitted the huge assembly. In those days, we did not have TV news channels. But, the gathering was so huge that even BBC News had sent its special TV crew to cover that event. It was said that it was perhaps the largest gathering in Mumbai in more than 50 years, after the August 1942 “Bharat Chhodo” event in Mumbai organised by Mahatma Gandhi. So, here also, the CM did not interfere ultimately, and left it to the decision of the professional. It goes without saying that this meeting went off peacefully, though it required a lot of efforts and crowd management.Of course, I understand that there are police officers who would be willing to do anything to please their political masters (bend it like Beckham), even in the matters of serious law & order situations. For example, recently, 30 persons had died in Haryana in violent protests that followed the conviction of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, a Dera chief in Sirsa, in a rape case. In my article (Haryana violence – where should the buck stop?), I had strongly criticized the senior police officers for their inaction for allegedly seeking the so-called “free hand” from the political executive:“Blame was immediately shifted completely to the Haryana Chief Minister M.L. Khattar for these unavoidable deaths and other cases of arson and violence. Khattar may be negligent or complacent or may even perhaps be complicit. Okay. But, then, what about the police officers? DGP of Haryana, Police Commissioner of Panchkula, DCP’s and SHO’s of Panchkula? What about their accountability? Khattar is not supposed to be a security specialist. He is to be guided by professionals. But, these police officers are supposed to be experts in law and order, and they are paid for it. What were they doing? Sleeping? Or looking at the face of Khattar for getting a so-called “free hand”? Do the police officers need any so-called “free hand” from political executive, while dealing with law & order? Isn’t the Criminal Procedure Code unequivocally clear about the duties and powers of police? Do Sections 129, 130, etc., of the Criminal Procedure Code envisage any role for the political executive or do they require the police officers commanding an unlawful assembly to look at the face of the CM or any other political executive before taking any action or before using any force to disperse such assemblies? Do these legal provisions not give sufficient powers to police officers to deal with riotous situations without taking any orders from the political executive?No doubt, the political executive does have some accountability for failure of law & order in the state, because ultimately it runs the Government. But, blame should first be directed towards the police officers who are professionals and whose duty it is to control the law & order.”As I made clear in my above-mentioned article, the responsibility of taking immediate action in riotous situation lies with the police, who have sufficient powers to deal with such situations without having to seek any instructions from the political executive, including the CM.Lastly, before I end, let me point out that Section 129 Cr.P.C. is the main legal provision in Cr.P.C. which empowers police officers to disperse unlawful assemblies with the use of force, if needed. This legal power is not subject to control by political executive. And, senior police officers get their powers in this regard from Section 36 read with Section 129 Cr.P.C.

Countries Where Bitcoin is Legal and not LegalThe peer-to-peer digital currency Bitcoin made its debut in 2009 and with it ushered in a new era of cryptocurrency. While tax authorities, enforcement agencies and regulators worldwide are still debating best practices, one pertinent question: is Bitcoin legal or illegal? The answer – it depends on the location and activity of the user.Bitcoins are not issued, endorsed, or regulated by any central bank. Instead, they are created through a computer-generated process known as mining. In addition to being a cryptocurrency unrelated to any government, Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment system since it does not exist in a physical form. As such, it offers a convenient way to conduct cross-border transactions with no exchange rate fees. It also allows users to remain anonymous.Consumers have greater ability to purchase goods and services with Bitcoin directly at online retailers, pull cash out of Bitcoin ATMs and use Bitcoin at some brick-and-mortar stores. The currency is being traded on exchanges, and virtual currency-related ventures and ICOs draw interest from across the investment spectrum. While Bitcoin appears at glance to be a well-established virtual currency system, there are still no uniform international laws that regulate Bitcoin.Countries that Say Yes to BitcoinBitcoin can be used anonymously to conduct transactions between any account holders, anywhere and anytime across the globe, which makes it attractive to criminals and terror organizations. They may use Bitcoin to buy or sell illegal goods like drugs or weapons. Most countries have not clearly determined the legality of Bitcoin, preferring instead to take a wait-and-see approach. Some countries have indirectly assented to the legal use of Bitcoin by enacting some regulatory oversight. However, Bitcoin is never legally acceptable as a substitute for a country’s legal tender.The United StatesThe United States has taken a generally positive stance toward Bitcoin, though several government agencies work to prevent or reduce Bitcoin use for illegal transactions. Prominent businesses like Dish Network (DISH), the Microsoft Store, sandwich retailer Subway and Bedding, Furniture, Electronics, Jewelry, Clothing & more (OSTK) welcome payment in Bitcoin. The digital currency has also made its way to the U.S. derivatives markets, which speaks about its increasingly legitimate presence.The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has been issuing guidance on Bitcoin since 2013. The Treasury has defined Bitcoin not as currency, but as a money services business (MSB). This places it under the Bank Secrecy Act which requires exchanges and payment processors to adhere to certain responsibilities like reporting, registration, and record keeping. In addition, Bitcoin is categorized as property for taxation purposes by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).CanadaLike its southern neighbor the United States, Canada maintains a generally Bitcoin-friendly stance while also ensuring the cryptocurrency is not used for money laundering. Bitcoin is viewed as a commodity by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). This means that Bitcoin transactions are viewed as barter transactions, and the income generated is considered as business income. The taxation also depends whether the individual has a buying-selling business or is only concerned with investing.Canada considers Bitcoin exchanges to be money service businesses. This brings them under the purview of the anti-money laundering (AML) laws. Bitcoin exchanges need to register with Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), report any suspicious transactions, abide by the compliance plans, and even keep certain records. In addition, some major Canadian banks have banned the use of their credit or debit cards for Bitcoin transactions.AustraliaAustralia considers Bitcoin a currency like any other and allows entities to trade, mine, or buy it.The European UnionThough the European Union (EU) has followed developments in cryptocurrency, it has not issued any official decision on legality, acceptance or regulation. In the absence of central guidance, individual EU countries have developed their own Bitcoin stances.In Finland, the Central Board of Taxes (CBT) has given Bitcoin a value-added tax exempt status by classifying it as a financial service. Bitcoin is treated as a commodity in Finland and not as a currency. The Federal Public Service Finance of Belgium has also made Bitcoin exempt from value added tax (VAT). In Cyprus, Bitcoin are not controlled or regulated either. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom (U.K.) has a pro-Bitcoin stance and wants the regulatory environment to be supportive of the digital currency. Bitcoin is under certain tax regulations in the U.K. The National Revenue Agency (NRA) of Bulgaria has also brought Bitcoin under its existing taw laws. Germany is open to Bitcoin; it is considered legal but taxed differently depending upon whether the authorities are dealing with exchanges, miners, enterprises or users.Ukraine - LegalThe use of bitcoins is not regulated in Ukraine. Mining is legal type of entrepreneurship.Belarus - LegalThe Decree On the Development of Digital Economy — the decree of Alexander Lukashenko, the President of the Republic of Belarus, which includes measures to liberalize the conditions for conducting business in the sphere of high technologies.The provisions of the decree "On the Development of Digital Economy" create of a legal basis for the circulation of digital currencies and tokens based on blockchain technology, so that resident companies of the High-Tech Park can provide the services of stock markets and exchange offices with cryptocurrencies and attract financing through the ICO. For legal entities, the Decree confers the rights to create and place their own tokens, carry out transactions through stock markets and exchange operators; to individuals the Decree gives the right to engage in mining, to own tokens, to acquire and change them for Belarusian rubles, foreign currency and electronic money, and to bequeath them. Up to 1 Jan In 2023, the Decree excludes revenue and profits from operations with tokens from the taxable base. In relation to individuals, the acquisition and sale of tokens is not considered entrepreneurial activity, and the tokens themselves and income from transactions with them are not subject to declaration. The peculiarity of the introduced regulation is that all operations will have to be carried out through the resident companies of the High Technology Park.In addition, the decree includes:Extension of the validity period of the special legal regime of the High-Tech Park until January 1, 2049, and expansion of the list of activities of resident companies. Under the new rules, developers of blockchain-based solutions, developers of machine learning systems based on artificial neural networks, companies from the medical and biotechnological industries, developers of unmanned vehicles, as well as software developers and publishers can become residents. The list of promising areas is unlimited and can be expanded by the decision of the High-Tech Park supervisory board.Preservation of existing benefits for resident companies in the High-Tech Park, including the cancellation of the profit tax (instead of which a contribution of 1% of the gross revenues proceeding to the administration of the park is applied), reduced to 9% of the personal income tax rate for employees, and the right to contribute to the Social Protection Fund according to the national average figures, and not the actual salaries.Exemption of foreign companies providing marketing, advertising, consulting and other services to the residents of the High-Tech Park from paying value-added tax, as well as paying income tax, which allows to promote IT products of Belarusian companies in foreign markets. To encourage investments, the Decree also exempts foreign companies from the tax on income from the alienation of shares, stakes in the authorized capital and shares in the property of residents of the High-Tech Park (under condition of continuous possession of at least 365 days).Introduction of individual English law institutions for residents of the High-Tech Park, which will make it possible to conclude option contracts, convertible loan agreements, non-competition agreements with employees, agreements with responsibility for enticing employees, irrevocable powers of attorney and other documents common in international practice. This measure is aimed at simplifying the structuring of transactions with foreign capital.Simplification of the regime of currency transactions for residents of the High-Tech Park, including the introduction of a notification procedure for currency transactions, the cancellation of the mandatory written form of foreign trade transactions, the introduction of confirmation of the conducted operations by primary documents drawn up unilaterally. Also, the decree removes restrictions on resident companies for transactions with electronic money and allows opening accounts in foreign banks and credit and financial organizations without obtaining permission from the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus.Simplification of the procedure for recruiting qualified foreign specialists by resident companies of the High-Tech Park, including the abolition of the recruitment permit, the simplified procedure for obtaining a work permit, and the visa-free regime for the founders and employees of resident companies with a term of continuous stay of up to 180 days.Japan - LegalOn 7 March 2014, the Japanese government, in response to a series of questions asked in the National Diet, made a cabinet decision on the legal treatment of bitcoins in the form of answers to the questions. The decision did not see bitcoin as currency nor bond under the current Banking Act and Financial Instruments and Exchange Law, prohibiting banks and securities companies from dealing in bitcoins. The decision also acknowledges that there are no laws to unconditionally prohibit individuals or legal entities from receiving bitcoins in exchange for goods or services. Taxes may be applicable to bitcoins.Do you think of how to make fast profits with your cryptos..? It’s so possible atcenturycoingroup.us because at Century Coin Group USA , you will be able to make double of your bitcoin investment within just seven days..South Korea it is LegalMinors and all foreigners are prohibited from trading cryptocurrencies. Adult South Koreans may trade on registered exchanges using real name accounts at a bank where the exchange also has an account. Both the bank and the exchange are responsible for verifying the customer's identity and enforcing other anti-money-laundering provisions.As of April 2017, cryptocurrency exchange businesses operating in Japan have been regulated by the Payment Services Act. Cryptocurrency exchange businesses have to be registered, keep records, take security measures, and take measures to protect customers. Financial Services Agency (FSA) was established in 2014 for the purpose of establishing a registration platform for cryptocurrency exchange businesses. the law on cryptocurrency transactions must comply with the anti-money laundering law; and measures to protect users investors. The Payment Services Act defines “cryptocurrency” as a property value. The Act also states that cryptocurrency is limited to property values that are stored electronically on electronic devices, not a legal tender.Taiwan - Legal /Banking banFinancial institutions are not allowed to facilitate bitcoin transactions. Regulators have warned the public that bitcoin does not have legal protection, "as the currency is not issued by any monetary authority and is therefore not entitled to legal claims or guarantee of conversion".Financial institutions have been warned by regulators that necessary regulatory actions may be taken if they use bitcoin. TaiwanOn 31 December 2013, Financial Supervisory Commission (Republic of China) (FSC) and CBC issued a joint statement which warns against the use of bitcoins. It is stated that bitcoins remains highly volatile, highly speculative, and is not entitled to legal claims or guarantee of conversion.On 5 January 2014, FSC chairman Tseng Ming-chung stated that FSC will not allow the installation of bitcoin ATM in Taiwan because bitcoin is not a currency and it should not be accepted by individuals and banks as payment.South Africa - LegalIn December 2014 the Reserve Bank of South Africa issued a position paper on virtual currencies whereby it declared that virtual currency had ‘no legal status or regulatory framework’. The South African Revenue Service classified bitcoin as an intangible asset.Namibia-LegalIn September 2017 the Bank of Namibia issued a position paper on virtual currencies entitled[20] wherein it declared cryptocurrency exchanges are not allowed and cryptocurrency cannot be accepted as payment for goods and services.Zimbabwe - LegalThe Reserve Bank Of Zimbabwe is sceptical about bitcoin and has not officially permitted its use. On 5 April 2017 however, BitMari, a Pan-African Blockchain platform got licensed, through its banking partner, AgriBank, to operate in the country.Nigeria - LegalAs of 17 January 2017, The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has passed a circular to inform all Nigerian banks that bank transactions in bitcoin and other virtual currencies have been banned in Nigeria.However, during the year, the CBN (through its Deputy Director on Banking and Payments System, Musa Itopa-Jimoh) clarified the circular and its stance on bitcoin, citing that a lot of people misinterpret the central bank’s recent warning. It noted that "Central bank cannot control or regulate bitcoin. Central bank cannot control or regulate blockchain. Just the same way no one is going to control or regulate the Internet. We don’t own it".Later on, a committee was set up by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) to look into the possibility of the country adopting the technology driving bitcoin and other digital currencies – blockchain. The committee has submitted its report but "several sub-committees are still working on the issue" according to the Director, Banking & Payments System Department at CBN, Mr. ‘Dipo Fatokun.Israel- Yes- LegalAs of 2017, the Israel Tax Authorities issued a statement saying that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies would not fall under the legal definition of currency, and neither of that of a financial security, but of a taxable asset.[55] Each time a bitcoin is sold, the seller would have to pay a capital gains tax of 25%. Miners, traders of bitcoins would be treated as businesses and would have to pay corporate income tax as well as charge a 17% VATSaudi Arabia - Legal - Banking banFinancial institutions are warned from using bitcoin. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority (SAMA) has warned from using bitcoin as it is high risk and its dealers will not be guaranteed any protection or rights.Jordan-Legal- Banking banThe government of Jordan has issued a warning discouraging the use of bitcoin and other similar systems.The Central Bank of Jordan prohibits banks, currency exchanges, financial companies, and payment service companies from dealing in bitcoins or other digital currencies. While it warned the public of risks of bitcoins, and that they are not legal tender, bitcoins are still accepted by small businesses and merchants.Lebanon-LegalThe government of Lebanon has issued a warning discouraging the use of bitcoin and other similar systems.Turkey-LegalBitcoin is not regulated as it is not considered to be electronic money according to the law.Iran-Legal-Banking banFinancial institutions are not allowed by central bank to facilitate bitcoin transactions. In April 2018, Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a statement banning the country’s banks and financial institutions from dealing with cryptocurrencies, citing money laundering and terrorism financing risks.Bangladesh - Legal/Banking banFinancial institutions are not allowed to facilitate bitcoin transactions. In September 2014, Bangladesh Bank said that "anybody caught using the virtual currency could be jailed under the country's strict anti-money laundering laws".India -Legal /Banking banFinance minister Arun Jaitley, in his budget speech on 1 February 2018, stated that the government will do everything to discontinue the use of bitcoin and other virtual currencies in India for criminal uses. He reiterated that India does not recognise them as legal tender and will instead encourage blockchain technology in payment systems."The government does not recognise cryptocurrency as legal tender or coin and will take all measures to eliminate the use of these cryptoassets in financing illegitimate activities or as part of the payments system," Jaitley said.In early 2018 India's central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) announced a ban on the sale or purchase of cryptocurrency for entities regulated by RBI.In 2019, a petition has been filed[by whom?] with the Supreme Court of India challenging the legality of cryptocurrencies and seeking a direction or order restraining their transaction.Countries That Say No to BitcoinWhile Bitcoin is welcomed in many parts of the world, a few countries are wary because of its volatility, decentralized nature, perceived threat to current monetary systems and links to illicit activities like drug trafficking and money laundering. Some nations have outright banned the digital currency while others have tried to cut off any support from the banking and financial system essential for its trading and use.List of some of the Countries Bitcoin-Cryptos are illegalChina - IllegalBitcoin is essentially banned in China. All banks and other financial institutions like payment processors are prohibited from transacting or dealing in Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency exchanges are banned. The government has cracked down on miners. (Related reading How Bitcoin Can Change The World)Russia - RegulatedBitcoin is not regulated in Russia, though its use as payment for goods or services is illegal. As of November 2016 declared, bitcoins are "not illegal" according to the Federal Tax Service of Russia.[50] Deputy Finance Minister of the Russian Federation Alexei Moiseev said in September 2017 it's "probably illegal" to accept cryptocurrencies payments.[51] However bitcoin market sites are blocked and in court decisions stated that bitcoin is a currency surrogate which is outlawed on the territory of Russian Federation.Vietnam - IllegalVietnam’s government and its state bank maintain that Bitcoin is a not a legitimate payment method, though it is not regulated as an investment.Bolivia, Columbia and Ecuador not legalEl Banco Central de Bolivia has banned the use of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Columbia does not allow Bitcoin use or investment. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were banned in Ecuador by a majority vote in the national assembly.Algeria it is illegalAccording to the "Journal Officiel" (28 December 2017)The purchase, sale, use, and holding of so-called virtual currency is prohibited. Virtual currency is that used by internet users via the web. It is characterized by the absence of physical support such as coins, notes, payments by cheque or credit card. Any breach of this provision is punishable in accordance with the laws and regulations in force.Egypt it is illegal"Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta, the primary Islamic legislator in Egypt, has issued a religious decree classifying commercial transactions in bitcoin as haram (prohibited under Islamic law).Morocco it is illegalOn 20 November 2017 the exchange office issued a public statement in which it declared, "The Office des Changes wishes to inform the general public that the transactions via virtual currencies constitute an infringement of the exchange regulations, liable to penalties and fines provided for by [existing laws] in force."The following day, the monetary authorities also reacted in a statement issued jointly by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, Bank Al-Maghrib and the Moroccan Capital Market Authority (AMMC), warning against risks associated with bitcoin, which may be used "for illicit or criminal purposes, including money laundering and terrorist financing"On 19 December 2017, Abdellatif Jouahri, governor of Bank Al-Maghrib, said at a press conference held in Rabat during the last quarterly meeting of the Bank Al-Maghrib's Board of 2017 that bitcoin is not a currency but a "financial asset". He also warned of its dangers and called for a framework to be put in place for consumer protectionUnited Arab Emirates - Contradictory informationAbsolute ban. According to the Library of Congress "Under article D.7.3 of the Regulatory Framework for Stored Values and an Electronic Payment System, issued by the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates in January 2017, all transactions in “virtual currencies” (encompassing cryptocurrencies in Arabic) are prohibited."Nevertheless, on 13 February 2018 Dubai gold trader Regal RA DMCC became the first company in the Middle East to get a license to trade cryptocurrencies, the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre said.[53] DMCC's website emphasizes the "cold storage" of cryptocurrencies and states "DMCC’s Crypto-commodities license is for Proprietary Trading in Crypto-commodities only. No initial coin offerings are permitted and no establishment of an exchange is permitted under this license."Nepal it is IllegalAbsolute ban. On 13 August 2017 Nepal Rastra Bank declared bitcoin as illegal.Pakistan it is IllegalAs of 7 April 2018, State Bank of Pakistan [SBP] has announced that bitcoin and other virtual currencies/tokens/ coins are banned in Pakistan. This news was followed right after India's restriction of converting bitcoin and cryptocurrencies into fiat currency. For organizations and institutions it is banned by State Bank of Pakistan. Bank will not get involved if there is any dispute. They will not facilitate any transaction for it.The bank has issued an official notice on its website and has also posted the news on its official Twitter account.The Bottom LineAlthough Bitcoin is now almost 10 years old, many countries still do not have explicit systems that restrict, regulate or ban the cryptocurrency. The decentralized and anonymous nature of Bitcoin has challenged many governments on how to allow legal use while preventing criminal transactions. Many countries are still analyzing ways to regulate the the cryptocurrency. Overall, Bitcoin remains in a legal gray area for much of the world.Thank you!