Getting Credit - Public Credit Registry Questionnaire: Fill & Download for Free

Unlike most answers, I do think we have some “good gun laws”. The problem is twofold; those laws don’t (can’t) go far enough in scope, and they’re not enforced until after much more heinous crimes have occurred as a result. And not even then; the Parkland shooter violated the Gun Free School Zones Act, but he’s not being charged with that offense, because the 17 counts of premeditated murder he racked up in the next few minutes afterward are being treated quite rightly with much higher priority by prosecutors. You’re typically only charged with these kinds of malum prohibitum crimes when the investigators and prosecutors can’t find anything else to charge you with, which literally makes the law a way to turn people with no intention of committing a violent crime into felons anyway.On the other hand, the great majority of the laws we have, Federal and State, are either so anachronistic they no longer make sense, or are feel-good measures that never made any sense to begin with. Case in point, the aforementioned GFSZA; who in their right mind ever thought that a sign would have deterred the Stockton shooter? Or the Columbine shooters? Sandy Hook? Parkland? Santa Fe? They all walked right past one of these:And nothing happened until they started shooting.So, this list is gonna piss everybody off at some point or another, in that it will, in one single argument, call for more and less gun laws than our current status quo. You have been warned:Universalize and streamline background checks using updated technology. When NICS was conceptualized in the early 90s, the Internet as a public resource was still very young, and most people and businesses didn’t have access to it. 20-ish years later in 2015, 77% of Americans live in a home with broadband, 75% have a smartphone or other Internet enabled mobile device, and Internet access is a practical must-have for any retail businesses to run credit/debit cards, so even if you happen to not have Internet access, your local gun store will.As such, there’s really very little reason for NICS to still be a call center, at least not one of its current size. We can do the same job with a secure web application handling the overwhelming majority of the traffic. That would additionally allow that app to be accessible to people besides FFLs, and would be the most convenient option available for universalizing background checks.That also creates other possibilities, such as streamlining the 4473. This is actually a virtual necessity if you’re going to universalize background checks without requiring an FFL to run the check; the information on a 4473 is identity theft on a silver platter, and you’re going to be expecting the average Joe to not only not misuse that data, but to safeguard it for however long you want the provenance chain to be traceable. The REAL ID Act gives us some possibilities for uniquely verifying identity without traditional identifying information; name, address and “document discriminator” aka audit number off of an RIA-compliant ID would be enough to get any other information needed as of time of sale, and when actually running the background check, all you’d actually need to input is the DD code and state of issue and the app could retrieve anything else needed.The questionnaire is little more than a trap, and we can get rid of it; the idea is that if you are a prohibited person and filled the questionnaire out such that the FFL actually bothered to call it in, and NICS denied you, you have just made a materially false statement on a Federal government form. However, the Brady Act itself makes trying to buy a firearm while knowingly prohibited a crime in itself, so either way the Feds have to prove the offence was committed knowledgeably. All we really need to give background checks “teeth” is a very obvious “click-wrap” disclosure in the app that states unambiguously that if you fall into one of the listed prohibited categories and submit the form, you are committing a crime. We can capture a signature image if you really want, but no handwriting analyst will ever swear on oath that your signature drawn on a tablet with a stylus would match a signature sample written on paper.Once the check comes back clean, you have to give the seller the ability to prove beyond any doubt that he ran the check. Since centralization of records of gun sales is an extremely touchy issue, not to mention illegal under the 1986 FOPA, the proof has to be self-contained in the paper record of sale. You can do that by encoding a “digital signature” on the paper document, such as in a QR code (it’d be a large one, but the spec allows for up to 4K of data to be encoded in one QR which would be enough). NICS basically receives all the information on the form, makes sure the background check on the listed individual passed, then strings it together in a known order, hashes it with a secure hash function, then encrypts that hash using an “asymmetric key” algorithm like RSA or ECC. You don’t have to know the technical details, just that this “hash and encrypt” signature system is the backbone of secure communications on the Internet that most major websites now use for all their traffic, and it’s worked for a couple decades now, failing only when the human side of information security does.So, to prove you ran the background check, you produce a copy of the record of sale, the QR code can be scanned into a mobile version of the NICS app along with the plain text data of the form, and the plain text data is hashed the same way as the signature originally was. Then, the app decrypts the signature with the public key of the keypair that initially encrypted it, and if the hashes match, whoever’s asking knows the record is authentic, and the guy on the form is the next guy they need to talk to about why that gun ended up at a crime scene. They know it’s authentic because only the information on that form, encrypted using a key known only within the NICS system as of the date of sale (they have a lifespan; NICS could generate a new keypair every couple years, and the app would know all public keys and the date range each one was valid for), could have produced the digital signature in the QR code, which means NICS vetted the exact data on the printed form. If you don’t have a record of sale or other proof of dispossession (i.e. police record of theft, loss or destruction) and your gun shows up at a crime scene, you’re now a POI and guilty of a crime in itself (failure to maintain required records).A system like this would allow UBCs to be performed by anyone with a laptop or smartphone, and it would even allow buyers to avoid the three-day delay on an in-person private meetup by vetting themselves and obtaining a “pre-authorization”. And it would do so without requiring an FFL (though you could still use one and they’d become the custodian of the record of sale), and without centralizing these records in government hands (a de facto registry of gun owners).Increase the Federal minimum age to purchase semi-automatic long guns to 21, alongside the minimum for handguns. Psychologists are pretty clear that puberty, and the host of chemical, physical and mental changes that occur during it, really doesn’t wind down until the mid-20s for the average man; maybe a year or two earlier for women. Auto insurance companies know this; you can be totally accident free your entire driving career since the age of 16, and they don’t consider you “low-risk” until you’re 25. On that note, we as society grant the rights and privileges (and responsibilities) associated with adulthood to young adults gradually; most religions have an informal age of majority (such as the Age of Reason in Christianity, around 12 or 13), then from a more legal standpoint you can drive at 16, you’re criminally and civilly liable for your actions at 17 (though this varies by state), you can vote and own most guns at 18, and drink at 21. So, the “eighteen means eighteen” argument that when you’re legally an adult, you’re a full adult, just doesn’t fly. Any SDI in boot camp will tell you their 18-year-olds are just as immature as any other, the main difference is that along with their service rifle (and long before they touch one), they get a no-nonsense introduction to following orders as given without argument or discussion, designed to condition them to do exactly that when lives are on the line.So no, I do not think that an 18 year old, simply by virtue of managing to not piss off their parents or teachers long enough to attain said age, should be able to walk up to the firearms counter of a sporting goods store and buy absolutely anything under the glass or on the back wall. There’s legal adulthood and there’s physical adulthood, and the medical consensus is that those are currently separated by about 8 years. At least give them the three extra that we already do for alcohol and handguns, for them to realize that life actually does get better in many ways after high school, before we allow them to purchase a rifle that can end a life for each wiggle of their pointer finger with no other action required. At 18, you can buy and own break-action and repeating-action long guns; for semi-automatics and revolvers, it should be 21.Temporary firearm restraining orders. Oh yeah, we’re going here too. “Red Flag laws” have been the subject of serious debate in the U.S., with arguments against ranging from “the police can already do this if there’s a credible threat to someone’s safety” to “this is just an end run around the rights of the accused allowing vindictive individuals to use the government to indefinitely suspend a person’s RKBA without the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction“.Personally, I think it’s a good idea that needs very careful attention paid to its implementation. Whether or not society needs an actual law detailing a new process, we shouldn’t have to wait for a potential, specific threat to public safety to become an actual specific threat to public safety before action can be taken. At the same time, I recognize the very serious potential for evil, and it simply cannot be dismissed. Protective orders don’t require a unanimous jury verdict based on there being no reasonable doubt that one is needed. All the petitioner needs is to convince a judge it’s a good idea, and judges run the gamut on the topic, with most of the ones in New Jersey chomping at the bit to sign anything that comes across their desk that takes a gun away from a civilian.So, if we’re gonna use court orders to remove guns from a person who has not been convicted of any crime, we need to strike a very fine and specific balance between the law being too easily abused for government or personal gain, and the law being just as ineffective as waiting for a crime to be committed. There must be controls in place regarding who can “wave the red flag”, what criteria is valued in determining to grant the initial order, and a guaranteed maximum time for hearing the subject’s challenge to said order. In addition, a common criticism of the laws is that is that the restraining orders target the guns based on a need for mental health care, but don’t provide mental health care. If we’re really worried about someone’s mental state, that sounds like the obvious place to start. We can talk about these orders as an exception to being “involuntarily committed to a mental health institution”; if the care was the result of a temporary restraining order it doesn’t trigger the permanent Federal prohibition, provided the care has some measure of success (or doesn’t find a problem).I’ve also floated the idea of a “yellow flag”, an indication that someone is in need of a refresher on firearms safety due to demonstrated complacency or ignorance of basic safety rules, but is unwilling to get the training themselves. A court order to force the training based on a description of the unsafe behavior, in lieu of any possible criminal charges for said behavior, might have a significant effect on reducing negligent discharges and unintended access by children while protecting gun owners from rabid prosecution for first-time offenses. Similar safeguards would be needed to avoid this being used as a nuisance or a backdoor to indefinite loss of gun rights with no criminal conviction.Now, having agreed in a very big way to a few major recent demands of the myriad gun control groups, I must in all seriousness ask, what do gun owners get in return for being limited to single-shots and repeating-actions for three years, having to defend against repeated aspersions on our mental health from a vindictive ex-spouse or your in-laws, plus being required to Federally vet anyone they pass a gun to, and then maintain proof of that check for years or even indefinitely?While I think the conclusion of the “cake analogy” - “I want my whole damn cake back now” - is unhelpful and even counterproductive, the position is sound; gun owners have been agreeing to allow their right to keep and bear arms to be restricted in the name of public safety for over 80 years, and all that’s happened is that those who are against gun ownership in the first place come back wanting more restrictions.This is in fact the stated goal of gun control activists like Josh Sugarmann; to restrict, piece by piece, the RKBA in the U.S., like boiling a frog, until the 2A is effectively dead because those still willing to jump through the regulatory hoops are a superminority, and/or because the only weapons still available for civilian purchase have little practical use for self-defense (which is what 60% of gun owners give as a major reason they are gun owners, compared to just 36% for hunting). They get impatient from time to time and make big pushes, but after most of the major players favoring gun control “outed” themselves as to their end goal in the early 90s, resulting in the Republican Party’s first bicameral Congressional majority in 40 years, most have walked back their public positions. Can those new stated end goals for gun control be trusted? Only the GCAs really know for sure, but history is not on their side.So, if we’re going to call UBCs and an increased minimum age a “compromise”, it should fit the definition; both sides should leave the table angry with the agreement they reached. To that end, gun control advocates do not get it all their own way; policies proven to be counterproductive or ineffective since their passage need to be rolled back, along with additional measures that become possible once it’s that much more obvious that the guys who legally own guns are not the problem in our country:Repeal the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, and all government-level policies restricting the possession of guns on any publicly-owned or managed land or building where entry is not contingent on passing through an armed security checkpoint where all entrants are searched for weapons. If the government and/or property owner is serious about people not having guns in a particular place, you know it before you get five feet inside. We have the technology and the process. The question is whether it’s worthwhile to implement these in any given place. If it’s not, hanging up a sign forcing those breaking no other law to disarm not only doesn’t solve the problem, it makes it worse.I will, in this discussion, give private property owners the benefit of the doubt; its your property, you’re a legal entity just like I am, it’s your prerogative to restrict entry as you wish based on any fact not explicitly protected under Federal law. I personally like to at least know someone else in my home besides me has a gun, and I won’t begrudge you the same. But had you caught me on any other day I’d be insisting on landowner liability for owners/controllers of “places of public accomodation” posted as “no guns allowed” for victims of violent crime in such venues. You are imposing a restriction on my entry into your otherwise publicly-accessible place, which places me and everyone else there at any give time at greater risk of harm, and you take no additional steps to mitigate that risk; that makes your policy a contributing factor to any criminal violence I might become a victim of while on your property.Repeal the Hughes Amendment, and allow purchase and registration of new automatic firearms in the United States. Yeah, you heard me right. The NFA, in itself, was sufficient to virtually end the violence committed with legally-owned automatic weapons; it gave the precursor organizations to the BATFE and FBI the legal tools they needed to dismantle the Mafia gangs of the 1920s, and since it passed, not one violent crime was committed with a legally-owned, NFA-registered machine gun. The only two crimes committed with any legally-owned machine gun involved police-issue machine pistols, and the crimes that actually prompted the Hughes Amendment, mainly in the Miami area among rival drug gangs, were committed with illegal weapons smuggled into the country alongside the drugs. The most notable shootout involving automatic weapons since the passage of the NFA, the North Hollywood Shootout, happened 10 years after the passage of the Hughes Amendment, and involved illegally-modified AKMs that would have landed the robbers in prison for 20 years each even without the Hughes Amendment in effect.Once again, the law is only a restriction on those inclined to follow it in the first place. The Hughes Amendment was passed in response to a spate of crimes in Miami, representing less than 3% of the total homicide count in Miami-Dade County, committed with weapons the ATF didn’t even know about in the first place. The ability of people to legally buy machine guns didn’t figure into it in the slightest. The Hughes Amendment also gave us the current political climate regarding guns and any registration thereof; in 1986, the Feds proved that they were willing to use registration as a first step to an outright ban. It had been done at lower levels before (DC’s handgun ban dated to 1976 and was legislated a similar way; you had to register all firearms to possess them in DC, and beginning in 1976 you couldn’t register handguns unless they were already there), but the Hughes Amendment brought the tactic to national attention, poisoning any attempt at actual compromise ever since. If gun control advocates want gun rights advocates to ever sit down at a negotiating table and assume good faith ever again, this strategy needs to be demonstrably off the table as a gun control tactic.Deregulate suppressors and short-barreled firearms. The NFA was passed 80 years ago, and was originally intended to restrict access to “concealable” firearms by union labor protesters, while not being an insurmountable hurdle to the labor bosses putting down the strikes, nor the police who are specifically exempted by the law and for whom the factory or mine was the primary taxpayer in the locale. In the works for most of the Roaring 20s, the NFA finally passed early in FDR’s term, due to a combination of the increasing publicity of mafia violence in the media involving fully-automatic weapons, and an attempted assassination of then-President-elect Roosevelt making gun control an early personal priority of FDR’s.That was 84 years ago. In more recent times, we wear less clothing in general, making these same types of weapons harder to conceal, meanwhile even illegal use of weapons and devices subject to NFA restrictions (registered or otherwise) is very low. Hunters and homeowners want to use suppressors to save their hearing and reduce the disturbance inherent in a rifle shot to those nearby, and for proof they’re not dangerous in themselves, one only has to look at the UK, where they’re sold off the shelf in any sporting goods store, and hunters are encouraged by police to use one. Homeowners also want access to short-barreled rifles as home defense weapons, easier to aim than a handgun while easier to maneuver through a home than a 16″ barreled rifle. For both SBRs and SBSes, workarounds to the law have been found and vetted by the ATF, and have become very popular, making the additional NFA restriction of short-barreled weapons useless in practice.National carry permit reciprocity, and a Federal pre-emption of “may-issue” permitting policies among State governments. Totally within the Feds’ purview under provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (giving Congress the power to legislate the manner in which legal instruments of one state are to be recognized and honored by any other), Federally-enforced national reciprocity would force all 50 states, D.C. and all Federal territories to recognize a valid concealed-carry permit issued by any state - or the government-issued resident ID card of any state that does not require a permit - as if it were a valid concealed carry permit in their jurisdiction, subject to the laws of the state in which the person is currently located. So if it’s illegal to enter a bar in Texas with a concealed weapon (and it is, a felony in fact), it’s just as illegal to do so with a Tennessee permit as a Texas one. But, if it’s legal to walk around Central Park while strapped if you have an NYC carry permit, it’s just as legal to do it with a Texas permit, or a Tennessee permit, or a driver’s license from the State of Vermont.Now, national reciprocity, especially when it includes nonresident licenses, will accomplish an effective end to “may-issue” policies anyway, but I wanted to be explicit about this. The majority of the states in this country recognize a right to carry, typically subject to state regulation on the manner of the wearing of arms. As of 2018, the remaining few states that exercise subjective discretion in permitting, typically along the lines of requiring “good cause”, do so for the sole and express reason of limiting permits to a privileged few. It’s codified in Maryland’s version of the good cause requirement; applicants must have a reason to carry that “distinguishes the applicant from the general gun-owning public”; a desire to defend oneself is not distinguishing, as 60% of gun owners have their guns for that reason.This is unconstitutional, and to date the only credible reason SCOTUS has not heard a case on this topic is that the Court, and Roberts as Chief Justice, is unwilling to be seen as a tool to overturn state gun laws in a series of lock-step ideologically-polarized 5–4 decisions. They want the existing decisions in Heller and McDonald to be digested and mixed into lower court case law, and once that settles to a backwash of a few notable disagreements among Circuit Courts and State Supreme Courts, they’ll entertain the question. It’s well-known in legal circles that Gorsuch and Thomas are already chomping at the bit for another 2A case, but as of when Peruta was denied cert in 2016, the popular theory was that Alito and Roberts were unsure of Kennedy’s vote (on top of the whole “tool to overturn state laws 5–4” thing), and so took the out that with Moore v. Madigan not having been appealed by Illinois, there was no active Circuit Court split pending SCOTUS review.That’s compromise. I give you, you give me. Gun owners began the 20th Century with zero Federal restrictions on gun purchase or ownership, and many fewer State restrictions than most of the more problematic states for gun owners currently impose. The original position of this debate is that Americans have free and easy access to whatever firearms were available, and therefore “keeping some of my gun rights for now” is not a “compromise position”. That’s like me telling you “give me all the money you have now and all your future earnings”, you refusing, and then me saying “let’s compromise; you give me half of your money and 75% of your future earnings”.Would you agree to that “deal”? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Doing Business measures aspects of business regulation affecting small domestic firms located in the largest business city of 190 economies. In addition, for 11 economies a second city is covered. Doing Business covers 12 areas of business regulation. Ten of these areas—starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, and resolving insolvency—are included in the ease of doing business score and ease of doing business ranking. Doing Business also measures regulation on employing workers and contracting with the government, which are not included in the ease of doing business score and ranking. More than 48,000 professionals in 190 economies have assisted in providing the data that inform the Doing Business indicators. 18 DOING BUSINESS 2020 Doing Business is founded on the principle that economic activity benefits from clear rules: rules that allow voluntary exchanges between economic actors, set out strong property rights, facilitate the resolution of commercial disputes, and provide contractual partners with protections against arbitrariness and abuse. Such rules are much more effective in promoting growth and development when they are efficient, transparent, and accessible to those for whom they are intended. Rules create an environment where new entrants with drive and innovative ideas can get started in business and where productive firms can invest, expand, and create new jobs. The role of government policy in the daily operations of small and medium-size domestic firms is a central focus of the Doing Business data. The objective is to encourage regulation that is efficient, transparent, and easy to implement so that businesses can thrive. Doing Business data focus on 12 areas of regulation affecting small and medium-size domestic firms in the largest business city of an economy. The project uses standardized case studies to provide objective, quantitative measures that can be compared across 190 economies. What Doing Business measures Doing Business captures several important dimensions of the regulatory environment affecting domestic firms. It provides quantitative indicators on regulation for starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, and resolving insolvency (table 1.1). Doing Business also measures aspects of employing workers and contracting with the government (public procurement), which are not included in the ranking. How the indicators are selected The design of the Doing Business indicators has been informed by theoretical insights gleaned from extensive research.1 In addition, background papers developing the methodology for most of the Doing Business indicator sets have established the importance of the rules and regulations that Doing Business measures for economic outcomes such as trade volumes, foreign direct investment, market capitalization in stock exchanges, and private credit as a percentage of GDP.2 Some Doing Business indicators give a higher score for more regulation and better-functioning institutions (such as courts or credit bureaus). Higher scores are given for stricter disclosure requirements for related-party transactions, for example, in the area of protecting minority investors. Higher scores are also given for a simplified way of applying regulation that keeps compliance costs for firms low—such as by easing the burden of business start-up formalities with a one-stop shop or through a single online portal. Finally, the scores reward economies that apply a risk-based approach to regulation as a way to address social and environmental concerns—such About Doing Business 19 as by placing a greater regulatory burden on activities that pose a high risk to the population and a lesser one on lower-risk activities. Thus, the economies that rank highest on the ease of doing business are not those where there is no regulation, but those where governments have managed to create rules that facilitate interactions in the marketplace without needlessly hindering the development of the private sector. Doing Business 2020 does not introduce any new metrics. The assumptions of the protecting minority investors indicator set, however, refocused on corporate governance for listed companies so that, if an economy does not have an active stock exchange with at least 10 listings that are not stateowned, no points are given under the extent of shareholder governance index. Economies are assessed on the same practices as before. The ease of doing business score and ease of doing business ranking To provide different perspectives on the data, Doing Business presents data both for individual indicators and for two aggregate measures: the ease of doing business score and the ease of doing business ranking. The ease of doing business score aids in assessing the absolute level of regulatory performance and how it improves over time. The individual indicator scores show the distance of each economy from the best regulatory performance observed in each of the indicators across all economies in the Doing Business sample since 2005 or the third year in which data were collected for the indicator. The best regulatory performance is set at the highest possible value for indicators calculated as scores, such as the strength of legal rights TABLE 1.1 What Doing Business measures—12 areas of business regulation Indicator set What is measured Starting a business Procedures, time, cost, and paid-in minimum capital to start a limited liability company for men and women Dealing with construction permits Procedures, time, and cost to complete all formalities to build a warehouse and the quality control and safety mechanisms in the construction permitting system Getting electricity Procedures, time, and cost to get connected to the electrical grid; the reliability of the electricity supply; and the transparency of tariffs Registering property Procedures, time, and cost to transfer a property and the quality of the land administration system for men and women Getting credit Movable collateral laws and credit information systems Protecting minority investors Minority shareholders’ rights in related-party transactions and in corporate governance Paying taxes Payments, time, and total tax and contribution rate for a firm to comply with all tax regulations as well as postfiling processes Trading across borders Time and cost to export the product of comparative advantage and to import auto parts Enforcing contracts Time and cost to resolve a commercial dispute and the quality of judicial processes for men and women Resolving insolvency Time, cost, outcome, and recovery rate for a commercial insolvency and the strength of the legal framework for insolvency Employing workers Flexibility in employment regulation Contracting with the government Procedures and time to participate in and win a works contract through public procurement and the public procurement regulatory framework Note: The employing workers and contracting with the government indicator sets are not part of the ease of doing business ranking in Doing Business 2020. 20 DOING BUSINESS 2020 index or the quality of land administration index. This approach underscores the gap between a particular economy’s performance and the best regulatory performance at any time and is used to assess the absolute change in the economy’s regulatory environment over time as measured by Doing Business (see chapter 7 on the ease of doing business score and ease of doing business ranking). The ranking on the ease of doing business complements the ease of doing business score by providing information about an economy’s performance in business regulation relative to the performance of other economies as measured by Doing Business. Doing Business uses a simple averaging approach for weighting component indicators, calculating rankings, and determining the ease of doing business score.3 Each topic covered by Doing Business relates to a different aspect of the business regulatory environment. The scores and rankings of each economy vary considerably across topics, indicating that a strong performance by an economy in one area of regulation can coexist with weak performance in another (figure 1.1). One way to assess the variability of an economy’s regulatory performance is to look at its scores across topics. Panama, for example, has an overall ease of doing business score of 66.6, meaning that it is about two-thirds of the way up the range from the worst to the best performance. It scores highly at 92.0 on starting a business, FIGURE 1.1 An economy’s regulatory environment may be more business-friendly in some areas than in others Source: Doing Business database. Note: The scores reflected are those for the 10 Doing Business topics included in this year’s aggregate ease of doing business score. The figure is illustrative only; it does not include all 190 economies covered by Doing Business 2020. See the Doing Business website for the scores for each Doing Business topic for all economies. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Average of all topic scores Average of the three highest scores Average of the three lowest scores Select economies New Zealand United States Lithuania United Arab Emirates Thailand Iceland China Switzerland Czech Republic Belgium Croatia Kenya Bulgaria Brunei Darussalam Jamaica Peru Mongolia Panama El Salvador Guatemala Uruguay Tajikistan Dominica Uganda Eswatini Argentina Nigeria Solomon Islands Tanzania Grenada Burkina Faso Guinea Madagascar Burundi Sudan Syrian Arab Republic Timor-Leste Libya 21 85.5 on trading across borders, and 83.5 on getting electricity. At the same time, it has a score of 49.0 for enforcing contracts, 46.7 for paying taxes, and 39.5 for resolving insolvency. Advantages and limitations of the methodology The Doing Business methodology is designed to be an easily replicable way to benchmark specific characteristics of business regulation—how they are implemented by governments and experienced by private firms on the ground. Its advantages and limitations should be understood when using the data. Ensuring comparability of the data across a global set of economies is a central consideration for the Doing Business indicators, which are developed using standardized case scenarios with specific assumptions. One such assumption is the location of a standardized business—the subject of the Doing Business case study—in the largest business city of the economy. The reality is that business regulations and their enforcement may differ within a country, particularly in federal states and large economies. Gathering data for every relevant jurisdiction in each of the 190 economies covered by Doing Business is infeasible. Nevertheless, where policy makers are interested in generating data at the local level, beyond the largest business city, and learning from local good practices, Doing Business has complemented its global indicators with subnational studies. Also, starting with Doing Business 2015, coverage was extended to the second-largest city in economies with a population of more than 100 million (as of 2013). Doing Business recognizes the limitations of the standardized case scenarios and assumptions. Although such assumptions come at the expense of generality, they also ensure the comparability of data. Some Doing Business topics are complex, so it is important that the standardized cases are defined carefully. For example, the standardized case scenario usually involves a limited liability company or its legal equivalent. There are two reasons for this assumption. First, private limited liability companies are the most prevalent business form (for firms with more than one owner) in many economies around the world. Second, this choice reflects the focus of Doing Business on expanding opportunities for entrepreneurship: investors are encouraged to venture into business when potential losses are limited to their capital participation. Another assumption underlying the Doing Business indicators is that entrepreneurs have knowledge of and comply with applicable regulations. In practice, entrepreneurs may not be aware of what needs to be done or how to comply with regulations and may lose considerable time trying to find out. Alternatively, they may intentionally avoid compliance—by not registering for social security, for example. Firms may opt for bribery and other informal arrangements intended to bypass the rules where regulation is particularly onerous. Levels of informality tend to be 22 DOING BUSINESS 2020 higher in economies with especially burdensome regulation. Compared with their formal sector counterparts, firms in the informal sector typically grow more slowly, have poorer access to credit, and employ fewer workers—and these workers remain outside the protections of labor law and, more generally, other legal protections embedded in the law.4 Firms in the informal sector are also less likely to pay taxes. Doing Business measures one set of factors that help explain the occurrence of informality, and it provides policy makers with insights into potential areas of regulatory reform. Many important policy areas are not covered by Doing Business; even within the areas it measures, the scope is narrow. Doing Business does not measure the full range of factors, policies, and institutions that affect the quality of an economy’s business environment or its national competitiveness. It does not, for example, capture aspects of macroeconomic stability, development of the financial system, market size, the incidence of bribery and corruption, or the quality of the labor force. Data collection in practice The Doing Business data are based on a detailed reading of domestic laws, regulations, and administrative requirements as well as their implementation in practice as experienced by private professionals. The study covers 190 economies—including some of the smallest and poorest economies, for which other sources provide little or no data. The data are collected through several rounds of communication with expert respondents (both private sector practitioners and government officials), through responses to questionnaires, conference calls, written correspondence, and visits by the team. Doing Business relies on four main sources of information: the relevant laws and regulations, Doing Business respondents, the governments of the economies covered, and the World Bank Group regional staff (figure 1.2). For a detailed explanation of the Doing Business methodology, see the data notes at www.doingbusiness.org. Relevant laws and regulations The Doing Business indicators are based mostly on laws and regulations: approximately two-thirds of the data embedded in the Doing Business indicators are based on a reading of the law. In addition to filling out questionnaires, Doing Business respondents submit references to the relevant laws, regulations, and fee schedules. The Doing Business team collects the texts of the relevant laws and regulations and checks the questionnaire responses for accuracy. The team examines the civil procedure code, for example, to check the maximum number of adjournments in a commercial court dispute, and reads the insolvency code to identify if the debtor can initiate liquidation or reorganization proceedings. Because the data collection process involves an annual update of an established database, having a very large sample of respondents is not strictly necessary. In principle, About Doing Business 23 the role of the contributors is largely advisory—helping the Doing Business team to locate and understand the laws and regulations. There are quickly diminishing returns to an expanded pool of contributors. This notwithstanding, the number of contributors rose by 80% between 2010 and 2019. Extensive consultations with multiple contributors are conducted by the team to minimize measurement errors for the rest of the data. For some indicators—for example, those on dealing with construction permits, enforcing contracts, and resolving insolvency—the time component and part of the cost component (where fee schedules are lacking) are based on actual practice rather than the law on the books. This approach introduces a degree of judgment by respondents on what actual practice looks like. When respondents disagree, the time indicators reported by Doing Business represent the median values of several responses given under the assumptions of the standardized case. Doing Business respondents More than 48,000 professionals in 190 economies have assisted in providing the data that inform the Doing Business indicators over the past 17 years.5 Doing Business 2020 draws on the inputs of more than 15,000 professionals.6 The Doing Business website shows the number of respondents for each economy and each indicator set. Selected on the basis of their expertise in these areas, respondents are professionals who routinely administer or advise on the legal and regulatory requirements in the specific areas covered by Doing Business. Because of the focus on legal and regulatory arrangements, most of the respondents are legal professionals such as lawyers, judges, or notaries. FIGURE 1.2 How Doing Business collects and verifies the data December February April June August October Questionnaire Data collection and analysis The Doing Business team analyzes the data and writes the study. Comments on the study and data are received from across the World Bank Group through an internal review process. The Doing Business team updates the questionnaires and consults with internal and external experts. The Doing Business team distributes the questionnaires and analyzes the relevant laws and regulations along with the information in the questionnaires. The Doing Business team travels to approximately 40 economies. The Doing Business team engages in conference calls, video conferences, and in-person meetings with government officials and private sector practitioners. Governments and World Bank Group regional teams submit information on regulatory changes that could potentially be included in the global count of regulatory reforms. Data verification The study is published, followed by media outreach and findings dissemination. Doing Business development launch 24 DOING BUSINESS 2020 In addition, officials of the credit bureau or registry complete the credit information questionnaire. Accountants, architects, engineers, freight forwarders, and other professionals answer the questionnaires related to paying taxes, dealing with construction permits, trading across borders, and getting electricity. Certain public officials (such as registrars from the company or property registry) also provide information that is incorporated into the indicators. The Doing Business approach is to work with legal practitioners or other professionals who regularly undertake the transactions involved. Following the standard methodological approach for time-and-motion studies, Doing Business breaks down each process or transaction, such as starting a business or registering a property into separate steps to ensure a better estimate of time. The time estimate for each step is given by practitioners who have significant and routine experience in the transaction. Governments and World Bank Group regional staff After receiving the completed questionnaires from the Doing Business respondents, verifying the information against the law, and conducting follow-up inquiries to ensure that all relevant information is captured, the Doing Business team sends the regulatory reform descriptions to the World Bank Group’s Board of Executive Directors and World Bank Group Country Management Units in different regions, which then inform the respective governments about the reforms identified in their economies. Through this process, government authorities and World Bank Group staff working on the economies covered by Doing Business can alert the Doing Business team about, for example, regulatory reforms not reported by the respondents or additional achievements of regulatory reforms. In addition, the team responds formally to the comments of governments or regional staff and provides explanations of the scoring decisions. Data adjustments Information on data corrections is provided in the data notes available at the Doing Business website. A transparent complaint procedure allows anyone to challenge the data. From November 2018 to October 2019, the team received and responded to 150 queries on the data. Uses of the Doing Business data Doing Business was designed with two main types of users in mind: policy makers and researchers. It is a tool that governments can use to design sound business regulatory policies. Nevertheless, the Doing Business data are limited in scope and should be complemented with other sources of information. Doing Business focuses on a few specific rules relevant to the case studies analyzed. These rules and case studies are chosen to be illustrative of the business regulatory environment, but they do not constitute a comprehensive description of that environment. By providing a unique dataset that enables analysis aimed at better understanding the role of business About Doing Business 25 regulation in economic development, Doing Business is also an important source of information for researchers. Governments and policy makers Doing Business offers policy makers a benchmarking tool useful in stimulating policy debate, both by exposing potential challenges and by identifying good practices and lessons learned. Despite the narrow focus of the indicators, the initial debate in an economy on the results they highlight typically turns into a deeper discussion on areas where business regulatory reform is needed, including areas well beyond those measured by Doing Business. In economies where subnational studies are conducted, the Doing Business indicators go one step further in offering policy makers a tool to identify good practices that can be adopted within their economies. The Doing Business indicators are “actionable.” For example, governments set the minimum capital requirement for new firms, invest in company and property registries to increase their efficiency, or improve the efficiency of tax administration by adopting the latest technology to facilitate the preparation, filing, and payment of taxes by the business community. Governments also undertake court reforms to shorten delays in the enforcement of contracts. Some Doing Business indicators, however, capture procedures, time, and costs that involve private sector participants, such as lawyers, notaries, architects, electricians, or freight forwarders. Governments have little influence in the short run over the fees these professions charge, though much can be achieved by strengthening professional licensing regimes and preventing anticompetitive behavior. In addition, governments have no control over the geographic location of their economy, a factor that can adversely affect businesses. Over the past decade governments have increasingly turned to Doing Business as a repository of actionable, objective data providing unique insights into good practices worldwide as they have come to understand the importance of business regulation as a driving force of competitiveness. To ensure the coordination of efforts across agencies, economies such as Colombia, Kuwait, and Malaysia have formed regulatory reform committees. These committees use the Doing Business indicators as one input to inform their programs for improving the business environment. More than 70 other economies have also formed such committees. Governments have reported more than 3,800 regulatory reforms, 1,316 of which have been informed by Doing Business since 2003.7 Many economies share knowledge on the regulatory reform process related to the areas measured by Doing Business. Among the most common venues for this knowledge sharing are peer-to-peer learning events— workshops where officials from different governments across a region or even across the globe meet to discuss the challenges of regulatory reform and to share their experiences. Researchers Doing Business data are widely used by researchers in academia, think tanks, international organizations, and other institutions. Since 2003, thousands of empirical articles have used Doing Business data or its conceptual 26 DOING BUSINESS 2020 framework to analyze the impact of business regulation on various economic outcomes.8 Doing Business 2020 presents a literature review of recent research on the effects of business regulation in chapter 2. That chapter is an update to a similar exercise conducted in Doing Business 2014 and focuses on research published in the top 100 academic journals in economics between 2013 and 2019.9 What is next? Doing Business 2021 will include the contracting with the government indicator set in the calculation of the ease of doing business ranking. The contracting with the government indicator set measures the procedures and time to win a public procurement contract according to a standardized case study focused on the infrastructure sector (see chapter 5 on contracting with the government). It also assesses the compliance of regulation with internationally recognized good practice. The data benchmark the efficiency of the public procurement life cycle in the 190 economies measured by Doing Business. As in the case of the other topics included in Doing Business, the data identify sources of delay and waste of resources. Also, as part of a five-year cycle established in Doing Business 2015, Doing Business 2021 will update the metrics of the best and worst regulatory performance used in the calculation of the scores for the various Doing Business indicator sets as well as the data on gross national income per capita and the export and import products used as a reference for each economy in the trading across borders indicator set. This update will allow the Doing Business data to more accurately reflect the best regulatory practices achieved by top-performing economies in the last five years—these practices will set the new standard for other economies to pursue. Doing Business is also considering expanding the coverage of the study to include the second-largest business city for economies with a population of more than 100 million (as of 2019), and the third- and fourth-largest business cities for economies with a population of more than 300 million.Following is the link for newly created space for getting all Indian government jobs updates. This space is managed from the student of Banaras Hindu University.Link…Following is the link of newly created You Tube Channel- “India tour”. Your one subscribe will make the US dollar, come into Indian Economy.Link…India TourThis is You Tube channel-India Tour. Basically, on this channel you see the all tourism place whatever we hear from any people. We know that looking anything live is the another thing but whenever we go somewhere then which kinds of things are popular on that area, that also matters. So, about the famous things of that particular criteria, you would be able to get information about that particular place. Except, the information about any tourism place in India, you will also also be able to know about the importance of that tourism centre and you will also be able to get the particular information about that tourism centre. Is You Tube channekl par aap sabhi log Bharat ke baare mein sabhi jankari ekatra kar paasyenge aur wo saari jankari Bharat ke prachalit jagahon ke baare mein hogi. Saath hi aap sabhi un tamam videos ko dekh paayenge, jin par unse sambamdhit jaankariyan hogi, jo bharat ke bhavishya ko prastut karta hai.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI0S7f2y_9C5IBkyRl5LyBgIndia TourThis is You Tube channel-India Tour. Basically, on this channel you see the all tourism place whatever we hear from any people. We know that looking anything live is the another thing but whenever we go somewhere then which kinds of things are popular on that area, that also matters. So, about the famous things of that particular criteria, you would be able to get information about that particular place. Except, the information about any tourism place in India, you will also also be able to know about the importance of that tourism centre and you will also be able to get the particular information about that tourism centre. Is You Tube channekl par aap sabhi log Bharat ke baare mein sabhi jankari ekatra kar paasyenge aur wo saari jankari Bharat ke prachalit jagahon ke baare mein hogi. Saath hi aap sabhi un tamam videos ko dekh paayenge, jin par unse sambamdhit jaankariyan hogi, jo bharat ke bhavishya ko prastut karta hai.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI0S7f2y_9C5IBkyRl5LyBgTeachmintRajas AcademyClassroom Id for student who want to join the class for Commerce (12th) from the teacher who is topper of CommerceID - 447168176

In North Carolina, no person shall engage in the business of money transmission in this State without a license. The Licensing Authority is North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks (NCCOB). The name of the license required is NC Money Transmitter License (NCMTL). An additional registration is required with FinCEN as a Money Services Business.In order to get licensed in North Carolina, an applicant must prepare the following documents:• Credit Report for control persons• FBI Criminal Background Check• Bank Account Details• Authorization for Background checks• Audited financial statements in GAAP prepared by a CPA, dated within 90 days of your fiscal year end for the immediately preceding 2-year period• Agent locations• Bank Account details• Primary Contact employees• Company Formation Documents• Anti-Money Laundering/ Bank Secrecy Act Policy• Business Plan• Internal policies• Certificate of Good Standing• Samples of documents and forms which will be used by the business for customers• The flow of funds structure• Management Chart and Organizational Chart showing ownership percentage• List of permissible investments• Information Technology Questionnaire• Electronic surety bonds (ESB)Application has to be made to the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks through Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS). Application Fee is $1500 (Non-refundable and not transferable), Credit report is $15 per person, FBI Background Check costs $36.25 per person. A Surety Bond of a minimum of $150,000 executed by a surety company authorized to conduct business in North Carolina must be furnished. Maximum surety, which can be required, is $250,000. The Net worth of the applicant must be minimum of $250,000 and Legal Fees Varies between $8,000-$12,000.As a full-service Global Law Firm focused on global I-gaming, Financial Services, Licensing, Asset Management, Securities, International Business & Tax; we value hearing from you, no matter where in the world you are. If you have any question, get in touch with us anytime via email, or visit us at www.empireglobal.partnersE-mail: [email protected] Disclaimer:This website, or this blog post and its contents do not create and are not meant to offer any legal advice, and this is not an advertisement or solicitation but merely a legal-minded expression of fact or opinion meant for public consideration, not to be substituted for legal advice.Full Disclosure - Lionel Iruk, Esq is the principal attorney and manager at Empire Global Partners, PLLC and Iruke Legal, Inc.