How common are import bans of what is freely traded on national markets? In this question I will give an example of a law that effectively bans the import of (and makes attempted import without prior approval a crime) certain goods that can be freely bought and sold on national market. The effect is that the goods are hard to find and cost 10 times more than in countries where such a ban does not exist. The actual question is: how common is this scenario in free/democratic countries? Is it common, or is the below example just a legal anecdote that ideally needs to be fixed by lobbying/pushing the law makers in the right direction? In New Zealand, people over 18 can freely buy and sell air pistols. No firearms license is required (unless you are younger than 18). However, if Bob wants to buy an air pistol from say Amazon, he needs to apply to the Police for a permit to import. The most amazing/amusing thing here is that, unlike real, non-air guns (e.g. a regular rifle, an application to import which can be considered just by any &quot;member of the Police&quot; who &quot;must&quot; grant it if certain criteria is met as per section 18(2,3)), an application to import an air pistol (which is &quot;restricted airgun&quot;) has to be considered by the Commissioner (the head of the NZ Police themselves) who only &quot;may&quot; grant it, and only if there is a &quot;special reason&quot; to it (section 18(4,5)). The law does not elaborate on what &quot;special reasons&quot; are, but the Police still has its idea. In a nut shell, if Bob simply wants to practice target shooting with an air pistol at his rural backyard, or control the population of rats threatening his duck flock, he is out of luck: import is effectively banned for him. But he still can just buy the same thing locally — if he is lucky enough to find it. Now, there is more to it. Say Bob, who routinely buys stuff from Amazon, sees there an air pistol he wants for only $50, new, whereas locally he can find it only for no less than $500, used. He orders it without hesitation, thinking that if he can freely trade and use it locally, surely there will be no troubles buying it from overseas. He has no idea that there is section 16 which, in its previous version could send him to jail for 1 year (in the current version they've added &quot;without reasonable excuse&quot; which now could possibly save Bob from becoming a prisoner). Bob's Amazon order arrives at the customs which, upon not finding a matching import permit, forfeits it by way of transfer of title to the Crown. Bob loses the money — getting punished for not being clairvoyant enough to expect that such a law could exist. Moreover, he should be thankful that no charges get laid against him. Apparently, the legislative intent here was to limit the number of air pistols in the country: if they were as accessible as they are in the world, the number of crimes involving them would have gone up. However, managing the risk of unlawful use just by keeping the prices 10 times higher (as opposed to either completely banning trade/possession or applying the same &quot;special reason&quot; threshold as for import) does seem like a very odd, peculiar solution.
The import of slaves into the United States was banned in 1808, although slavery itself and the buying and selling of slaves remained legal on a Federal level until 1865. There were, of course, many many violations of the law against importing new slaves.
That a company (C) has a website that can be accessed from a given county does not mean that the company operates in that country. If C is located in country A, markets and advertises to country A, offers products designed to appeal in country A, has its site only in the primary language of country A, uses servers located in country A, and has all its assets and physical offices in country A, it is not operating in country X, even if a few people from X do business with C over its web site. Country X may have laws which claim to apply to C or its web site. It will find it hard to enforce those laws, particularly if owners and officers of X do not travel to X. It will find it hard to extradite anyone for violations of the laws of X unless those actions are also crimes under the laws of A. If X is a major, powerful country such as the US, the UK, or the EU it may be able to get A to enforce its court orders, or to use its influence over the banking system to impose penalties on C. If X is North Korea, or even Brazil, it is probably out of luck. Thus the management of C needs worry primarily about the laws of A, and to a lesser extent the laws of major countries that make some effort to enforce their laws outside their own borders, such as the GDPR, or certain US laws. It probably has little reason to worry about the laws of other countries. If A is itself a major country that can easily resist any pressue from X, C has even less reason to worry. If C does significant business in countries D and E, and particularly if it opens physical offices in D or keeps assets in E, it will have much more reason to worry about the laws of D and E. If it does advertising in the D &amp; E markets, this also gives C more reason to be concerned with their laws. There is always some risk of X finding a way to enforce its laws, but the risk is small.
In my opinion, you are totally free to publish the information. There are two areas of law that can be cosidered - private and public law. In the private law area, you can be liable for revealing trade secrets, but only if you agreed to keep them by a contract. Trade secrets do not exist by themselves (there are minor exceptions, eg. in competition law, but those do not concern us), they must be protected by contracts. Another private limitations, like libel laws, won't apply here. This is not uncommon, but not in cars - you can find clauses like these in software license agreements. Then there is the public area. Is there any regulation, any policy of the state, that prevents you from publishing it? I am not aware you whole legal code of your state, but I doubt there is. It would be a harsh limitation of freedom of speech. Even if the modification could lead to illegal effect (like, modifying toy weapon to kill by rising its power...) it would be only illegal under very rare circumstances. To conclude it - freedom of speech can be limited only if there is sufficient public interest to do so, and I don't see any.
When a country makes criminal laws, these laws usually apply to anyone present in the country, and acting in the country. But the country is free to declare that some law might apply to its own citizens in a foreign country, or even foreign citizens in a foreign country. Assuming the laws about using marijuana say nothing about the country, that most likely means it only applies to using marjuana in the country itself. But if the US government decided that taking marijuana in Canada is illegal for US citizens, then nobody can stop them. In this case, Canada would not extradite you (unless Canadian law says that it is criminal for Canadians to use marijuana in another country), and Canadian police would likely not collect evidence. So even if illegal, it would be hard to convict you. PS. The "polygamy" case would be interesting, I think you would have to read the exact wording of the laws in every country. Some countries will say that you can't get married twice, and the attempt to get married a second time while already married is bigamy. In that kind of country you wouldn't have committed a crime within that country. Also, you would only be married to the first wife.
It is not correct to say that &quot;Gutenberg is banned in Germany&quot;. A German court ruled that Project Gutenberg (US) could not provide copies of 18 works to addresses in Germany. PGLF (the foundation that runs Project Gutenberg) decided to block all access from Germany, because similar claims might be made about other works, leading to added legal expense in Germany. PGLF is said to be appealing the German Court's decision. Many works in the PG collection are clearly out of copyright in Germany, under German law. Providing those works would not infringe German copyright. As long as the PG license is complied with (and it is quite permissive) I see no legal problem with such works, but anyone planning to start a business or service reproducing such works would be wise to consult a lawyer with knowledge of copyright law in that person's country. Note that there are PG affiliates in several countries, including Germany and Australia, that operate under their own local copyright rules, and are run separately, and have different collections of works.
As for a member of the Universal Postal Union, what repercussions will occur for country B? None. Are they allowed to keep stealing stuff at the sender insurer's expense? Well, country B isn't stealing stuff. Bad actors in the employe of country B are stealing stuff. This is a matter for law enforcement in country B. If country B is endemically corrupt as seems to be implied, then it is likely that the bad actors will continue to be bad actors. As for the insurer, they are in the business of selling insurance against theft (among other things) and they will take this into account in setting their premiums. Will they face any penalties (e.g. banned from the Union) that would encourage them to hold their customs to account? All member countries of the UN are entitled to be members of the UPU and it seems unlikely that such minor issues could lead to expulsion from the UN - nation-states that have committed genocide are still UN members after all. Since the UPU appears to produce more upsides than downsides, being one of, if not the single most successful and universally adopted international treaty in history this is just one of the minor annoyances.
Rhino horn cannot be sold across state lines: Rhino horn: Generally cannot be sold in interstate or international commerce. Consult the Service for limited exceptions. Import or export requires a permit. Sale of items within a State allowed unless restricted by “use after import” limitations associated with items imported after the listing of the species under CITES or unless prohibited under State law. Pennsylvania has a proposed bill banning the sale of rhino horn but it is not yet law.
18 USC 922(g) says that it is illegal for various persons to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. (5) refers to "being an alien", specifically one who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))) with an exception as provided in subsection (y)(2), The (y)(2) exceptions covers foreign officials and law enforcement (not a typical tourist), and one who is (A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States; which pretty much covers simple tourists, if not typical tourists.