Do you need approval from the FAA for amateur model rocket launches? I'm building a model rocket that will probably go a maximum of 30km. Do I need special permission from the FAA to do this? I'm in Delaware, U.S.A., and this is a Class 1 Model Rocket. If I do, where can I get started? And do I need a licence or just permission?
The FAA regulates amateur model rocketry under 14 CFR 101, Subpart C. For a Class 1 model rocket: (a) Class 1 - Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that: (1) Uses no more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant; (2) Uses a slow-burning propellant; (3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic; (4) Contains no substantial metal parts; and (5) Weighs no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces), including the propellant. The following are the general limitations: (a) You must operate an amateur rocket in such a manner that it: (1) Is launched on a suborbital trajectory; (2) When launched, must not cross into the territory of a foreign country unless an agreement is in place between the United States and the country of concern; (3) Is unmanned; and (4) Does not create a hazard to persons, property, or other aircraft. (b) The FAA may specify additional operating limitations necessary to ensure that air traffic is not adversely affected, and public safety is not jeopardized. And specific requirements for notification are outlined as: No person may operate an unmanned rocket other than a Class 1 - Model Rocket unless that person gives the following information to the FAA ATC facility nearest to the place of intended operation no less than 24 hours before and no more than three days before beginning the operation: (a) The name and address of the operator; except when there are multiple participants at a single event, the name and address of the person so designated as the event launch coordinator, whose duties include coordination of the required launch data estimates and coordinating the launch event; (b) Date and time the activity will begin; (c) Radius of the affected area on the ground in nautical miles; (d) Location of the center of the affected area in latitude and longitude coordinates; (e) Highest affected altitude; (f) Duration of the activity; (g) Any other pertinent information requested by the ATC facility. There are no regulations for launches/operator to obtain a specific license if the model rocket motor complies with those in the quoted text. While this regulation says you don't have to notify anybody, since you are expecting a significant altitude flight (and speaking as a pilot), it would be nice if you did notify them, especially if you are within a few miles of an airport or airway.
I'm not a lawyer, but under the law as it's written, I see two problems: 17 USC 121 allows "authorized entities" to make and publish accessible copies of works. An "authorized entity" is defined as a nonprofit organization or a governmental agency that has a primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with disabilities. So if you, as a private citizen, decide to do this, it could conceivably be copyright infringement. You might have to set up some kind of non-profit organization to make it legal. It's also OK (I think) if you make such copies for your own personal use, so long as you don't redistribute them. So far as I can tell, nothing under 17 USC 121 requires the original publisher to provide an "authorized entity" with a copy in any particular format (PDF, paper, or otherwise) for making accessible copies. Basically, the law seems to have envisioned organizations of sighted people purchasing paper copies, transcribing them, and republishing them; not blind individuals doing electronic transcription for themselves. It might still be worth contacting Hal Leonard and asking what they can do for you, but unfortunately it doesn't look like the law requires them to do anything for you. As Nij points out in the comments, this really seems to be a question about the company's policy, rather than the law.
Choice 2 is what the writers of the license have in mind. You own the physical media on which the copy is delivered, such as a DVD or floppy disk (if there was physical media). But you do not own the copy of the software, you merely have purchased a license to use it, which may be revocable under specified circumstances. This is different from the law in the case of a book. Why you buy a book, you own a copy of the book, although you do not own the copyright to the book, and may not make additional copies. The license model was adopted by commercial software distributors for several reasons, but largely to avoid the "first sale doctrine". When you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you have the right (under US law at least) to lend, rent, sell, or give-away that copy. You do not need the permission of the copyright holder to do any of these. Those in the commercial software business did not want customers to be able to do those things legally. By making the software subject to a license, which is a contract, they could write that license to restrict or prohibit those rights. Sellers also wanted to prohibit reverse engineering of the software, and to restrict use of the software. (For example, to limit the user to installing it on a single computer.) There was at first much dispute over the enforcability of such license agreements. But most US courts now accept them as valid and enforceable, and copyright law has been modified to take account of them. Specifically, 17 USC 109 (2)(b)(1)(A) seems to include a legislative acceptance of this rule.
Is this interpretation correct? YES Encounters such as this should normally fall within the non-statutory stop &amp; account which covers police-initiated conversations with members of the public to ask general questions about their activities when there are no reasonable grounds to suspect an offence. The terminology varies from Force to Force, but can be summarised as: What are you doing? Why are you in the area? Where are you going? What are you carrying? There is no legal requirement or obligation to answer any of these questions, and the police cannot lawfully detain anyone to ask them - unlike the statutory powers under Stop &amp; Search and Arrest covered by the OP.
Since there is no search or seizure involved in having a driver's license, requiring a person to update their address is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. It is also not "testifying against oneself in a criminal case", so it does not violate the 5th. As has been repeated many times, driving is a privilege and not a right, meaning that there is no fundamental constitutional right to drive. Strict scrutiny would not render the requirement to have a license unconstitutional, and it certainly would not invalidate the requirement to give a correct address and update that address as necessary. There may be issues regarding a requirement to produce identification, but there is no legal precedent for the idea that an ID law law and a federal "must show" statute would violate the 4th (that is not to say that the courts could not find there is such a basis if the question arises, but it has not yet been found). Since there is no national ID law, one can only conjecture what the outcome of judicial review would be, but if such a law survived strict scrutiny, it would be inconceivable that a portion of the law requiring you to keep your address current would fail such scrutiny. A curiosity search would still be barred.
By &quot;unlicensed&quot; you mean that it doesn't state a license for use (MIT, GPL, etc.)? Those licenses are just a codified bundle of terms of use that cover many many edge cases. You have in place a much simpler agreement that covers the primary situation: you using/modifying the code for your own use. It's just like borrowing a car. You will ask a friend &quot;hey, could I borrow your car for a bit?&quot; &quot;sure!&quot;. You know there's a possibility that you'll get in an accident or something weird will happen, but you think the chances of that are minimal and you would be able to work it out. If you ask a car rental company, they'll give you a full contract covering every situation that may happen. Similarly, a large company would be hesitant to borrow a car for corporate use without a legal framework surrounding it. So you will likely be in the clear if you are just using it for a small project with minimal legal/financial implications. If you plan on turning your project into a multi-billion dollar empire, you should revisit your agreement.
This story is plausible but the technical legal details are probably wrong. It is completely illegal to transport a pistol in a car in New York State if you do not fall into the list of exceptions § 265.01-b: A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she: (1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section subject to the registration requirements of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision. Since the question mentions the firearm locked in a glovebox I'm assuming it is a pistol. Comments have suggested and certain exemptions in the law suggest that there isn't a licensure or registration requirement for manual action long guns, but I have not found the specific section exempting them from the possession law. There is a long list of exemptions to the possession law in § 265.20, but the only one that could be applicable to a person just travelling through the state might be section 13: 13. Possession of pistols and revolvers by a person who is a nonresident of this state while attending or traveling to or from, an organized competitive pistol match or league competition... Notably, for a regular citizen they must have a New York State carry permit to possess a handgun, and their long guns must be registered with the state: 3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter or possession of a weapon as defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this article which is registered pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter or is included on an amended license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of this chapter. Neither applies to someone simply travelling through the state to another state who hasn't fulfilled the appropriate license or registry requirements. What may apply, however, is the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act, which in part codifies 18 U.S. Code § 926A: Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. The notwithstanding in this case preempts state law and affirms that transporting a firearm between two states that allow the person to carry that firearm cannot be a crime assuming they meet the statutory requirements on carrying the firearm and ammunition. However, he failed to meet those requirements by keeping the firearm in the glove box, which the federal law specifically does not protect. Therefore, NY State law is allowed to apply and he can be charged with possession without a license under NY State law. The part about whether or not he stayed overnight being a distinction may be a retelling error or conflating this law with similar state laws that allow transporting firearms that are inaccessible in the vehicle as long as the vehicle doesn't stop in the state beyond minor pit stops (e.g. for gas).
This has been addressed over at Travel StackExchange: Does one need a visa to visit Antarctica? and Non-AT country citizen visiting Antarctica by non-AT country registred vessel (yacht) — do I need a permit and why? To summarize and expand on those two links: If your home country is a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, or your expedition departs from such a country, or your ship is registered in such a country, you generally will require a permit from the appropriate authorities in that country in order to visit. These are needed so that these countries can comply with Article VII.5 of said treaty: Each Contracting Party shall, at the time when the present Treaty enters into force for it, inform the other Contracting Parties, and thereafter shall give them notice in advance, of (a) all expeditions to and within Antarctica, on the part of its ships or nationals, and all expeditions to Antarctica organized in or proceeding from its territory; ... In general, cruise ships that travel to Antarctica will take care of these permits for their passengers. However, if you are traveling by private vessel, you will need to apply for such a permit in the pertinent country or countries. If, on the other hand, you are neither a citizen of, traveling on a vessel registered in, or departing from a country that is a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, it is basically terra nullius for you. You can travel there without any permission whatsoever. It is, however, not recommended. Note also that most of the countries that are in any way "close" to Antartica are signatories to the treaty. I suppose you could leave from Madagascar or Namibia if you really wanted to avoid getting a permit. Edit: The laws that govern actions in the Antarctic are individual to each country. This means that if you do something in the Antarctic that you shouldn't have done, and your expedition is for whatever reason governed by one of the AT signatories, it is up to the law enforcement officials of that country to prosecute you. As an example, let's take Canada. As part of the ratification of the Antarctic Treaty system, Canada enacted the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act. The laws in this act require any Canadians or Canadian vessels visiting Antarctica to acquire a permit; prohibit mining; prohibit activities that harm or disturb native plants or animals; prohibit damaging historic sites; and regulate many other things as well. Penalties for violating these laws include fines up to 2,000,000 CAD for individuals and up to 12,000,000 CAD for corporations. Individuals can also be imprisoned for up to five years. (These are the maximum penalties for second &amp; further offenses; penalties for first offenses are generally lower.)