Is it illegal to kill honeybees in Oregon or in the USA? Recently had an issue with a honeybee hive and a beekeeper said to me "It's illegal to kill honeybees". Not completely believing this at face value, I did a little digging. My research seems to show that honeybees are protected against certain types of pesticide use. To me, the laws surrounding the bees seem primarily directed at farms/orchards and more "commercial" methods of eliminating bee populations, not private individuals. I am aware that I may be incorrect in that interpretation. If an individual private home owner were to spray a honeybee hive, clearly on their property, with an EPA approved, over-the-counter, general, pesticide - one not specifically engineered for bee killing - what legal ramifications might there be, if any?
I believe you are correct. It doesn't seem illegal for a private individual to use a bee pesticide (following label instructions) to remove a beehive from property that you own. There are federal laws regarding the commercial use of pesticides which are regulated under the EPA (not the FDA). People are encouraged to report bees being killed to the EPA from commercial operations. However, if you do have a problem with a honey bee nest on your property I would highly recommend that you contact the local beekeepers association first. Usually they can have somebody out the same day to remove and relocate the nest. Removing and relocating bees is actually not that hard (for a trained individual). Honey bees don't pose a risk unless somebody is allergic, and they are not aggressive. My neighbor usually has four or five hives on his property, and we see the bees all the time. My kids enjoy watching them climb into flowers or buzz around the garden. They really are a natural resource that should at least be attempted to be preserved if at all possible.
A government, in this case the Brazilian government, cannot effectively control what people, particularly people who are not its citizens, do in other countries. If people are able to obtain and ship outside of Brazil supplies of the plant, then the Brazilian government cannot stop them doing research on it. However, the Brazilian government can largely control what happens in Brazil. It can ban or restrict cultivation or harvesting of the plant. (Let's call it Athelas.) It can pass a law requiring an Athelas harvester's license, and only approve licenses for citizens of Brazil who agree not to sell or transfer any Athelas to anyone outside Brazil. Indeed it can require that any Athelas harvester have a contract with a firm doing research in Brazil. Whether such restrictions would be effective cannot be said in advance. They might be evaded. They might not be allowed under the Brazilian Constitution. But such restrictiosn might serve the purpose that the Brazilian government has in mind.
Arizona does not license chemists, though they do license pharmacists. There is a law against possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of which is a felony. The law also says In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority shall consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following: Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use. Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any drug. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter. The proximity of the object to drugs. The existence of any residue of drugs on the object. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this chapter. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use. National and local advertising concerning its use. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community. Expert testimony concerning its use. The size of your equipment would be relevant in defending against such a charge; your publications in the field of chemistry would be relevant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you were using the glassware to make drugs. Paraphernalia is defined as all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a drug in violation of this chapter. so a garden shovel can be used to grow marijuana, but that is not enough. The prosecution has to prove that the items "are used, intended for use or designed for use" in drug making – not just that they could be so used.
Referring to the current US Code, 16 USC 1538, one may not (B) remove and reduce to possession any such species from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy any such species on any such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law or (E) violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of plants listed pursuant to section 1533 of this title and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by this chapter. In this scenario, the person does not harm the tiger, so he could not be charged. There is not a blanket ban on killing a member of an endangered species. It is legal under 50 CFR 1721(c)(2) to &quot;&quot;take&quot; (which ranges from &quot;harass&quot; to &quot;kill&quot;) endangered wildlife in defense of his own life or the lives of others&quot;. Also, appropriate wildlife authorities may under (c)(3) take endangered wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured or orphaned specimen; or (ii) Dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) Salvage a dead specimen which may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) Remove specimens which constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner; the taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by live-capturing and releasing the specimen unharmed, in a remote area. US law does not define petting as a form of harassing, so petting a tiger is not a crime.
There is no parallelism between the Texas decision and the proposed lawsuit. In the anti-mifepristone lawsuit, there exists a statute granting the FDA authority to regulate and review new drugs, and a petition procedure whereby citizens can state ground for the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to consider a regulatory action. There is no statutory basis on which a ban of meat-eating could be created by executive action. Congress cannot be sued for not passing a law (failure or refusal of Congress to pass a particular law is not justiciable). If, for example someone were to submit a petition to the FDA urging such a regulation, the petition would have to be denied because the FDA does not have statutory authority to issue such a regulation. As argued here, the anti-mifepristone plaintiffs lack standing in that case, so one can expect that to be a substantial issue in the subsequent appeal.
You could almost define a country as, "an entity that can defend itself against invasions." Non-sovereign entities are indeed generally prohibited from deploying lethal autonomous defense systems like booby-traps. But governments and state-like actors, as a matter of practice, choose their own rules. laws-of-war and international-law are not like "regular" law: When it comes down to it, states only follow international conventions and treaties to the extent that they consider it to be in their own interest to do so. If you start mining your property, you will probably be forced to stop by local law enforcement. If a warlord starts mining his borders, he's going to get away with it until someone with more power convinces or forces him to stop. Was it "illegal" for Turkey to shoot down a Russian military aircraft? One could cite all sorts of laws and conventions to answer that question. But in practice the consequences of that act are limited to whatever Turkey allows, or to what Russia and its allies can impose on Turkey.
"Public space" is not a relevant criteria when considering trespass or other crimes/torts against property. The relevant criteria is who owns it and what they allow you to do on it. All land in the USA is owned by someone. That someone may be a government; that does not make it a public space - Camp David is owned by the US government; it is certainly not public. The owner of the land can decide (subject to the law) who has access to their land and in what circumstances. If they erect a fence then they are saying "You cannot access my land here" - if you ignore this then you are trespassing. This is true even if there are legitimate ways to access the land i.e. there is a place where there isn't a fence; to avoid trespass you would have to access the land from there. If you think of this in terms of a public building like a courthouse you are free to enter through the unlocked front doors but not by climbing through a window. The trespass is in the act of crossing the fence - that is the act that you have been implicitly denied permission to do. Being on one side or the other is not trespass. For the specific image that you show it is quite likely that those roads are owned by different people - the highway is probably owned by the state while the cul-de-sac is a local government road.
Following you around with the intent of harassing you is stalking. I don't know whether there's going to be a law actually requiring social distancing in Florida. In other states, I've seen laws set up to make it a crime to violate an order of the Director of Public Health or something like that. I don't know whether Florida actually has an order requiring social distancing by the general public.