Is it legal to use mousetraps without a hunting license? Is it legal to use mousetraps in Oregon without a hunting license? AFAIK mice are an unprotected species, so there are no bag limits or seasons and mouse tags are not required, and it's not a problem that mousetraps aren't listed as legal weapons for hunting, but is a hunting license required?
Mice are not Wildlife Any animal that can be hunted with regulations is listed in the laws about hunting. But the very hunting regulation in Oregon also has an exclusion list what is not regulated under it, because they are not wildlife. Some Rats and Mice species are called out: Pursuant to the definition of “wildlife,” the following species are not subject to these rules because they are not “wild”: SPECIES — SCIENTIFIC NAME (16) Mouse (House mouse) — Mus musculus. (18) Rat — Rattus norvegicus and R. rattus. As they are not Wildlife no license is required. They are not &quot;Wild Mammels&quot; either, meaning the whole rulebook of the Department of Fish and Wildlife does not apply to these species - and so no hunting license can be required. Several types of Muridae are also listed as &quot;Noncontrolled Species&quot; in the chappter on Importation, Possession, Confinement, Transportation and Sale of Nonnative Wildlife - pretty much the pet statutes so you can buy and trade them normally, but that is not about hunting. There are rules for Pests... There are specific Pest Control Laws in Oregon. For example Chapter 527 on Forest and forest products is targeting mostly &quot;native and exotic pests&quot;, but defines a pest as an insect for this chapter: (8) “Pest” means any forest insect or disease which causes or may cause damage that prevents or interferes with management objectives in a specific area. In chapter 603/division 52 on pest and Disease control, everything that is a pest is either a bacteria, fungi, or insect. Rodents are predatory animal Rule 837-012-0310 allows very specific pest control fireworks, which (via the definitions) points to ORS 480.124, which again points to ORS 610.002, which reads: As used in this chapter, “predatory animal” or “predatory animals” includes feral swine as defined by State Department of Agriculture rule, coyotes, rabbits, rodents and birds that are or may be destructive to agricultural crops, products and activities, but excluding game birds and other birds determined by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission to be in need of protection. [1959 c.240 §2; 1971 c.658 §29; 1977 c.136 §4; subsection (2) of 610.002 (“Predatory animals” defined) renumbered 610.003 (Bobcat and red fox control permitted); 1979 c.399 §2; 2001 c.125 §2] So Mice and Rats are under Chapter 610, which regulates that the Fish and Wildlife Service has to put up a fund to allow them to take measures for control of their numbers. Killing Rodents is often Mandatory There are 58 Oregon laws and regulations that mention the word Rodent. Many of them are about sanitation and were to not allow rodents, as well as who is allowed to regulate what to do against rodents. Child Welfare Services is allowed to make rules that demand rodent control. and indeed, Child care centers need to follow this rule (3) Insect and Rodent Control: (a) The center shall be in such condition as to prevent the infestation of rodents and insects. Rule 415-050-0085 mandates (like many similar ones) that certain medical centers need to get rid of rodents: (6) All measures necessary to control rodents must be taken; Rule 603-032-0140 demands that grain storage is rodent free: (1) Storage facilities shall be of sound construction and shall be maintained in such condition as shall adequately protect at all times stored commodities from the elements, rodents, birds, and injurious vermin. Then there's Rule 333-030-0070 from the section on camps, which is all about rodent control: (1) The grounds, buildings and structures [of a camp] used or intended for human use and habitation must be kept clean and maintained to prevent access, harborage and infestation by insects, rodents and vermin. Likewise, Recreation Parks, Adult Foster Homes, Mental Health institutions and others need to be rodent free. These does not just allow eradicating any rodent, it demands it
The 5th amendment protects you from self-incrimination. If by possessing a firearm you are in violation of the law you cannot be compelled by law to reveal this information. If the police discover you have a gun in violation of the law you can be arrested and prosecuted for that offense. They cannot additionally prosecute you for not telling them about a gun. I thought there was a supreme court case about this specific situation, but the closest I can find for now is Haynes v. United States. The 7-1 majority held that people prohibited from possessing firearms cannot be compelled to register their firearms that they are possessing illegally. They are stopped by the police and asked this question. They answer truthfully. Then they can be arrested and prosecuted for the illegal possession of the gun. How does this square with the right not to self-incriminate? Or is asking the question considered to be a search? Police can generally ask whatever they want. If you choose to waive your 5th amendment rights, that's your mistake. Can the state prosecute this person for carrying the illegal weapon? The state can generally prosecute crimes it knows about. So yes, in this case they can. Suppose that next to the weapon a stash of illegal drugs is discovered, which was only found due to the action taken to secure the weapon. Can the state prosecute for that? The state can generally prosecute additional crimes it uncovers during investigations or other lawful actions. So yes, this can be prosecuted.
It is legal, by Ministry of Nature order from 24th September 2019, but under strict control, by specially educated people, and only as part of other counter-fire measures, such as fire strips. Should be noted, that order restricts firing only grass, not setting trees on fire: Факторами, исключающими проведение профилактических выжиганий на участке, являются: а) наличие многоярусного строения древостоя, которое создает условия для развития верхового пожара; translated as: Factors that preclude preventive burning on the site are: a) the presence of a multi-tiered structure of the forest stand, which creates the conditions for the development of a riding fire; Paragraphs 14 and 15 also specifies forests, where such measures cannot be applied: Профилактические выжигания не применяются в лесах, относящихся к категориям защитных лесов в соответствии с пунктами 1, 2 части 2 статьи 111 Лесного кодекса Российской Федерации 2. Профилактические выжигания не рекомендуется применять в лесах, относящихся к категориям защитных лесов в соответствии с пунктами 3, 4 части 2 статьи 111 Лесного кодекса Российской Федерации 3. translated as: Preventive survival in forests related to the categories of protective forests in accordance with clause 1, 2 of part 2 of article 111 of the Forest Code of the Russian Federation 2. Preventive survival is not recommended for use in forests belonging to the categories of protective forests in accordance with clause 3, 4 of part 2 of article 111 of the Forest Code of the Russian Federation 3. Protective forest is an (mostly) artifically created forest, which protects some natural or unnatural object. For example such forest may protect river banks from destruction. Also, it is widely presented as 'protective forest strips' - along fields or railway - to protect both from wind. It is enough widespread thing in Russia and China. It is not widespread-used in the West, maybe because of that I do not see english wiki page about it.
Is this legal for the county to enforce? Yes. And can I sue if they try to enforce it? You could, but you would very likely lose your lawsuit. A more fruitful approach would be to go to the county planning board and seek a variance to permit you to do what you want to do.
Clauses (a) and (c) are potentially relevant. You have to look in the Rules &amp; Regulations to see what exceptions are permitted. Although firearms and especially shotgun shells are of a "dangerous, flammable or explosive character", it is reasonable to believe that when stored properly, they do not unreasonably increase the danger of fire or explosion, and would not be considered hazardous or extra hazardous by any responsible insurance company. On the latter point, you could ask any responsible insurance company if they would consider such shells to be hazardous. While in ordinary language simple possession of a firearm is not a threat of violence, the wording of clause (c) is open to a wider interpretation, since acts considered to be a threat of violence include displaying or possessing a firearm, knife, or other weapon that may threaten, alarm or intimidate others. The fact is that many people are alarmed by the simple existence of a weapon, so simply possessing a weapon could be interpreted as a "threat" in this special sense. Since you are not in the position of having signed the lease and now need to deal with the consequences of this clause, the simplest solution is to explain your interest, and ask them if having your gear in your apartment would be a violation of the lease. Be really clear about this and get it in writing in some form, if they say "no problem". Then either pick a different place, pick a different hobby, or find a separate storage facility.
It depends on your jurisdiction. Check the applicable laws; there's probably a section named something like "definitions" that gives the meaning of terms such as "loaded". For example, from RCW 9.41.010 (the "Terms defined" section of the "Firearms and Dangerous Weapons" chapter of the Washington State laws): (17) "Loaded" means: (a) There is a cartridge in the chamber of the firearm; (b) Cartridges are in a clip that is locked in place in the firearm; (c) There is a cartridge in the cylinder of the firearm, if the firearm is a revolver; (d) There is a cartridge in the tube or magazine that is inserted in the action; or (e) There is a ball in the barrel and the firearm is capped or primed if the firearm is a muzzle loader. So in Washington State, any of your examples 2-4 would be considered "loaded" for the purposes of firearms-related crimes.
The landlord may be confused about what is legal. Growing pot without a license (they do not have one: it cannot be grown at home, and certainly not if there is a minor present) is not legal, not even in Seattle (medical marijuana now requires a general marijuana license, and home-grown is not legal – some Dept. of Health pages don't reflect the new law). Under RCW 59.18.065, the landlord must provide a copy of the executed agreement to each tenant, and a replacement copy on request. Under RCW 59.18.150, the landlord may enter the unit in case of an emergency, and otherwise shall give the tenant at least two days' written notice of his or her intent to enter and shall enter only at reasonable times. The notice must state the exact time and date or dates of entry or specify a period of time during that date or dates in which the entry will occur, in which case the notice must specify the earliest and latest possible times of entry. The notice must also specify the telephone number to which the tenant may communicate any objection or request to reschedule the entry. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter the dwelling unit at a specified time where the landlord has given at least one day's notice of intent to enter to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers or tenants A lease cannot be terminated without cause and a legal process (eviction hearing), rather, it runs out at a specific time (the end of July). The situation with dog-washing is unclear, since normally a landlord can't decide to use a person's apartment for a dog-washing operation (the common law right to quiet enjoyment). If there is such a clause in the lease then that would be allowed, but they can't now decide that they have this right (the terms of a lease can't be changed in the middle). They can restrict the cats from areas outside your unit. You may however have some (legal) misunderstanding about what exactly "your unit" is, specifically, is the dog wash part of a "common area" that isn't actually part of what you have an exclusive right to.
You can write anything you want (basic First Amendment protections): the question is whether one would be liable for damage that arises from what you're written, or whether you can distribute what you've written. Distribution may be restricted, thanks to the Commerce Clause (hence FDA regulations, which figure prominently in the analysis). Most software writers are not medical practitioners, and vice versa, and what the software writer does is implement something described by a competent medical practitioner. It is logically possible that a med. practitioner might also try to write software (no problem) and distribute it (possibly a problem); or, a software writer might read up on something on Wikipedia and try to implement it (again, no problem) or distribute it (possible problem). Damages can be sorted into two categories, implementation errors and scientific errors, and having ruled out deliberate sabotage, we are left with negligence. If the software writer failed to use suitable care in writing code that sums a set of numbers, the software writer has been negligent. If the person purporting to have the qualified scientific knowledge mis-states the formula, that person has been negligent. It is possible for many parties to be negligent (the programmer failed to be diligent in understanding the software requirements; the medical professional failed to adequately explain what was required of the program). The FDA does regulate medical devices, and "device" is construed pretty broadly (condoms are non-exempt class 2 medical devices). There is FDA guidance on medical software which makes it clear that the device manufacturer shoulders the regulatory burden. Anytime you manufacture a tangible thing (which is within the scope of FDA regulation for medical devices), you have to have the thing approved. Many (most?) medical devices implement software, and are thus within the scope of FDA scrutiny. It is not illegal to write software that ends up being implemented in an unapproved medical device, but the unapproved medical device itself is illegal. It is reasonably likely that purported medical software (not a gadget with software build in) would be held to be a non-exempt device. To know if something is exempt, you would look at the exemptions list, and determine that your program (or thing) is not on or implied by anything on that list. The visual acuity eye chart is a class 1 exempt item, as is the manual toothbrush. There is no way to specifically look for things that are only software, or that contain software, so the search through the list would have to be guided by knowledge of the subject area. Canada is helpful in explaining when software is a regulated medical device. This is non-probative w.r.t. US law but gives you an idea what is likely to be considered a "device". Under Canadian law, the software would be clearly a regulated medical device. The FDA has a power-point that attempts to say something about the matter which warns you that you are on your own and "You will need to go back to study and use the source regulatory documents" to make the determination. Eventually, slide 13, they hint that if you intend the software to be used in diagnosis, prevention, or treatment, then it is a device (so, yes, the aforementioned software would be a device, and probably not exempt from regulations). General purpose software (word processors, web browsers, communications software, etc.) are not indented to be used for a regulated purpose, although they can be so used, and thus they are probably not subject to FDA regulation. There is a murky relationship between regulatory approval and liability. Being approved by the government does not convey immunity to negligence suits (see Wyeth v. Levine), but being approved can have weight in determining whether a party was negligent, since regulatory scrutiny ostensibly filters out errors that could have been caught. Federal approval does not preempt state tort law, as the court ruled. Regulations pertaining to medical devices hold for anything that qualifies as a device, and is not defined (negatively) in terms of disclaimers. If you sell a medical device but label it saying "this is not a medical device, it is not created by a competent medical practitioner", that doesn't make it not a medical device. Unfortunately, what counts as a regulated device is based on intended use, and there is an obvious connection between disclaimers and intentions. Taking MS Word as an example, MS does not as far as I know say that "Word is not intended to be used as a medical device". It can certainly be used to diagnose, teat, and prevent medical conditions, but so too can a screw driver or pretty much anything else. The number of non-medical uses vastly outweigh the medical uses, so it would be deemed not to be a regulated device. A program which prescribed a set of prayers to be uttered in case of illness would be subject to First Amendment override of any FDA regulations. Quack medical devices are prohibited (that's why there is regulation of devices in the first place), but discerning the fine line between permitted actions based on nutty beliefs and forbidden actions is not easy. The FDA also has guidance on the distinction between "Complementary and Alternative Medicine", which does not clearly state that, for example, a software reading of your cakra-energies based on a computer program's questions is not a medical device. They do say of mind-body medicine (mentioning yoga, biofeedback and tai chi as examples) that "CAM practices in this domain would not be subject to our jurisdiction under the Act or the PHS Act", but then say "any equipment or other products used as part of the practice of mind-body medicine may be subject to FDA regulation, depending on the nature of the product and its intended use" (hence a yoga-enabling program may be subject to regulation).