Can a retail marijuana shop bank from a locally owned bank outside of their state? Retail marijuana stores have to deal in cash, as most major banks refuse to deal with them. This causes a very dangerous situation for the store owner, and stories are already circulating about the vulnerability of having so much cash on hand. However, it doesn't seem to be illegal for the banks to accept funds from cannabis shops, but these banks can be expensive and burdensome. Can a retail marijuana shop bank from a locally owned bank outside of their state to handle credit card transactions? In other words, can a retail store in Colorado bank with Maps Credit Union in Oregon, or even within a state that hasn't legalized recreational use?
This is an interesting idea, but very risky for the bank. Oregon and Washington's truce with the Feds involves strong state backing, banks willing to take risks that no Colorado bank has been willing to take, and a tacit understanding that the Feds will tolerate this because the banks know their customers and are very familiar with their state's regulatory regime so that they can distinguish between "marijuana limited" and "marijuana priority" accounts in their FinCen reports. People in the industry (I represent quite a few in Colorado) are always looking for solutions to the banking issue. But, due to a combination of personalities in state government, the banking industry, the local branch office of the Fed, and so on, no one has managed to make that work in Colorado and federal government authorities are very primed to give a great deal of scrutiny to interstate operations of any kind.
Obviously, it's not simply illegal to have a business that exchanges currency - legal currency exchanges do exist, after all. But you'd have to be careful if you wanted to open a business that does this. According to 31 CFR 1010.100, you are considered a "dealer in foreign exchange", and thus a "money services business", and thus a "financial institution", if you are: A person that accepts the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more countries in exchange for the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more other countries in an amount greater than $1,000 for any other person on any day in one or more transactions, whether or not for same-day delivery. You are not considered a "money services business" if you do this "on an infrequent basis and not for gain or profit", but you say you want to "open a business" that does this, so this exemption wouldn't apply to you. If you are considered a financial institution, then you must comply with all sorts of anti-money-laundering regulations, including, for example, verifying the identity of your customers, and filing reports with the US Treasury. You would definitely want to hire a lawyer to guide you through the requirements.
As far as I am aware there is no prohibition against bartering firearms in general. This would be an odd prohibition since it is legal to gift and lend firearms. However, some of your situations change this. could I legally manufacture and exchange a firearm If you manufactured a firearm with the intent to sell you would be required to have an FFL. If this was a one-off sale of a firearm you manufactured at some point in the past for personal use this can be legal without an FFL. There are some additional requirements for the transfer. No party is a known criminal It is illegal to sell or give a firearm to someone you know to be a prohibited possessor. Not all criminals are prohibited from owning firearms, but this helps keep you safe. No party inspects the ID of the other or performs a background check This is state dependent. Some states make you go through an FFL for all transfers, others are much less strict. New Hampshire does not require private sales to go through an FFL if you know the buyer personally. Each party is known to be or appears to be old enough to own a firearm legally This is required for your scheme to be legal. One party barters regularly in this manner using firearms and firearm components This person is now engaged in the business of selling firearms and must be a registered FFL and jump through all the corresponding hoops. No party is licensed to sell firearms Not typically required, unless you do this in a regular basis.
It is illegal to sell alcohol to a minor in Washington (RCW 66.44.270). The seller can get into various kinds of trouble, including losing their license, under liquor board regulations. However, as long as the establishment follows the rules for acceptable ID, they escape liability if in fact they sell alcohol to a minor: the license holder is legally allowed to accept an identification of the specific type. That is the sense in which this is required by law: the customer must have actually presented the identification, in order for the establishment to escape liability (RCW 66.20.210). Looking old enough is not the issue. It is legal to sell alcohol to a person who is over 21, and the law does not require presentation of identification as a condition for a sale. However, under RCW 66.20.180 a person is require to produce ID "upon request of any licensee, peace officer, or enforcement officer of the board". The legal risk attached to sales in an age-marginal situation is very high, and actual presentation of ID is required to escape liability by the establishment, so in that sense, it is "required by law". All requests to produce ID for liquor sales (at least in Washington, and leaving out deliveries which are governed by other laws) are driven by company policy. Typical policies are quite rational, being designed to protect the company's interest in not getting into a heap of trouble for an under-age sale. There is no law saying when you must ask, or when you are protected if you don't ask. Usually, store policy is to use "common sense" so that 90 year olds are not required to produce ID (they may be asked, jokingly). Non-compliance with RCW 66.20.180 carries no legal penalty, that is, there is nothing in the statute that says "if the customer doesn't...". The most obvious would be that the seller would refuse to sell, which the seller can arbitrarily do anyhow. There is no statutory penalty imposed on a licensee if they request ID of a person over 21 and the person fails / refuses to produce the ID. Obviously, the licensee cannot be punished if a customer fails to provide ID (and leaves), especially if they lost it. But the law "requires" them to provide an ID, with ne except "unless you leave / put the bottle back". Somewhat less obviously, if the legislature wants to, it can enact a provision that once a licensee requests ID, they are forbidden to sell alcohol to that customer until ID is provided. But there currently is no such law. "The law" also included regulations, such as WAC 314-17-105. This regulation is a chart, and the relevant entry is PERMIT: Failure to produce permit or identification upon request. See RCW 66.20.310 and 66.20.180. for which the 1st offense consequence is "5-day permit suspension OR $100 monetary option". This is a problematic regulation (potential lawsuit fodder), since it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The question is, of whom is the permit or identification predicated? Only the licensee has a permit, but customers and employees can both have identification. If we interpret this regulation as meaning "Failure by licensee or customer", then we arrive at the absurd conclusion that if a customer fails to produce ID on request, the establishment is fined. It is important to note that this regulation is under a chapter about server training, thus the regulation can only reasonably be interpreted as being about licensee providing identification.
The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the current definition is incredibly broad -- certainly broad enough to include the provision of abortions. If it were challenged, the government would likely rely on Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). In Gonzales, two patients who used medical marijuana as authorized by state law challenged the federal government's laws prohibiting the use of medical marijuana. They argued that because they were growing their own marijuana, because it never left the state, and because it was for personal, noncommercial use, it was outside Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. But the Supreme Court rejected their arguments, holding that Congress could use its Commerce Clause authority to enact health-care laws regulating access to marijuana and pre-empt contradictory state health-care laws. The federal government's case for regulating abortions would be event stronger than its case in Gonzales: First, because obtaining an abortion is typically a commercial enterprise; it is likely covered by insurance, and even if it patient isn't charged, someone is likely paying the doctor money to perform it. Also, abortions more obviously implicate interstate commerce because patients frequently travel from state to another to obtain one, because clinics order supplies and services from outside the state, and because they rely on instrumentalities of interstate commerce (highways, telephone lines, the Internet) to do their job. Indeed, as far as I know, every court to consider the issue has concluded that regulating access to abortion is a straightforward application of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“Violent and obstructive activity outside abortion clinics adversely affects interstate commerce in reproductive health services. In enacting the Access Act, Congress did not exceed its Commerce Clause power.”); Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1520-21 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Congress found that doctors and patients often travel across state lines to provide and receive services, id.; in other words, there is an interstate market both with respect to patients and doctors. In addition, the clinics receive supplies through interstate commerce. ... Congress' findings are plausible and provide a rational basis for concluding that the Access Act regulates activity which &quot;substantially affects&quot; interstate commerce. Thus, the Access Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.”); U.S. v. Wilson, 73 F.3d 675, 688 (7th Cir. 1995) (“the Access Act may be viewed as a direct regulation of interstate commerce and confirms once again that the Act is well within Congress's power to legislate under the Commerce Clause.”). Reacting to Dobbs, then, Congress could write a law finding that existing state laws pose a threat to the interstate markets for providing and receiving reproductive services, and then rely on those findings to say that the only limits on abortion are X, Y, and Z, and that states may not impose any additional restrictions.
Colorado statute 42-6-206 imposes disclosure requirements on the sale of vehicles with salvage titles. That you didn't know it was a salvage does not seem to be of concern to this particular statute. This means that you are potentially entitled to redress against the people who sold you the car as well, provided the sale occurred in Colorado and they failed to disclose it to you (i.e., you didn't just forget about it in the intervening years). Given the presence of a law specifically covering your circumstances, it may be worth consulting with a local attorney to see what your obligations are. There may be mitigating circumstances, but they are not currently obvious to me if they're there. (conventional wisdom in the industry is that all private sales are "as-is" with no implied warranty of merchantibility and no recourse for a buyer who doesn't do due diligence -- I was shocked to find a statute specifically protecting buyers of salvage vehicles)
england-and-wales The government grants limited rights of return (thanks Jen), for which you are entitled to a cash or cash-like refund (e.g. reversal of a credit card charge as described below). The vendor has the option to go above and beyond that statutory minimum as a courtesy to the customer. In that non-compulsory zone, they have the liberty to offer store scrip rather than a cash refund. Of course, any business can try to cheat you, and then you have to stick up for your rights by insisting or reporting to relevant authorities. united-states If you buy with a credit card, the rules and contractual obligations of the credit card companies oblige the merchant to accept returns by doing a refund to the card. It's important to understand how this happens: the merchant isn't just picking an arbitrary amount of money and doing a new &quot;sale in reverse&quot;... they are identifying a specific past transaction that already happened, and modifying or reversing it. That is a system safeguard so they don't credit the wrong person or be tricked into a reversal on a transaction that never happened. That's why they want your receipt. On a cash transaction, it is sellers prerogative whether to issue cash or store credit. Issuing store scrip is a reasonable option to deter theft and fraud. For instance someone who wanted an item could get it for free, by buying the item, taking it home, returning the next day without the item, grab another identical item off the shelf and sneak over to the CS line and &quot;return&quot; it with yesterday's receipt. With cash sales, that would be completely untrackable, and the thief is gone. With credit card, they have your identity; with scrip they can &quot;flag&quot; the scrip in their system to either prevent its use and/or have a security officer detain you if you try to use it. For instance American home stores will cheerfully take re-saleable condition items back even without a receipt, but will issue a store voucher for the value rather than cash. That policy would be a disaster if they refunded cash. As it is, I find it rather convenient! So if you want the convenience of cash refunds, you can just use credit cards - gaining the feature at the expense of anonymity.
You can be charged. The criminal act is defined here and here. A core defining feature of violation of The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 is knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity So if someone writes you a check funded by drug sales, then you have to worry about the reason for the check. Two of the reasons that will get you in trouble if the transaction is (i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or (ii) with intent to engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; Another reason would be knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part— (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or (ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law A "paper trail" if proof of nothing, it just makes it easier to get caught.