Rights You Didn't Know You Had, and SHOULDN'T USE
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
America: land of the free. But why?
🚀For a LIMITED TIME get CuriosityStream & Nebula for 26% OFF! legaleagle.link/curiositystream
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
👮♂ Did you know the Second Bill of Rights was written by James "Shortboy" Madison?
🚀 LIMITED: Get CuriosityStream AND Nebula for 42% OFF! legaleagle.link/curiositystream
I have both fought for my right to party, and partied for my right to fight, so I will exercise both rights.
Love the random dark joke about dog and cat training, lmao!
How do Camera work in homes in states where two people have to agree?
And there was substantial thought that enumerating rights at all was a bad idea, as the text would be interpreted as an exclusive list, rather than as examples.
And that's pretty much how most people look at it, rather than the intended interpretation that "pursuit of happiness" and other self evident rights, covers me doing what I want, unless the government shows a compelling need to impose specific restrictions.
Iow: I don't need anyone's permission by default.
This comment was sponsored by nobody, because I hate ads.
My grandfather claimed Adverse Possession a few decades back. There was a largely unused lot of land next to our childhood home that was always overgrown with weeds, and he would go out and mow it and keep it useable for the neighborhood kids. He tried to get the owners to take care of it themselves, but they were fairly belligerent about it. The whole back and forth went on for decades before someone in our neighborhood told him he could probably just claim the land as his then. He didn't do it right away. First he used that information as a threat to try to force the neighbors to finally take care of the land themselves, since he was getting older and it was getting harder for him to do it. But when they didn't, he eventually just decided to go through with it. Now it's his land. He put up some fences and a swing and a seesaw. People like to bring their dogs there more than their kids though, so it's more or less just an unofficial dogpark now.
that’s awesome! Your dad is the kind of human we need more of.
That's a really good use of the law, I think. He clearly did all of the work to maintain the property that they not only neglected to do but actively refused to do. Some places actually fine people for letting the plants grow out of control on their property because it causes problems for everyone eventually.
Put a sign up saying "Property of X, open for all to use" or something, so he/you can keep the land. :)
That sounds pretty cool. Where exactly did this happen? I mean, in what jurisdiction did it occur?
@@jawstrock2215 you dont need a sign as long as its clear, and obvious, that entering is permitted.
Trucker here. My company 5 years ago ordered me to drive 600 miles on bad brakes to get the truck fixed at their shop for cheaper. I refused and recorded all the conversations where they urged me to do that particular illegal act, and then recorded the exit interview where they fired me for refusing to drive on bad brakes.
The recordings of those conversations played in court are a big reason I now own my own truck cash outright pink slip in hand.
Sounds like a cool outcome.
Go you! Thank you!
Good on you! I imagine driving on those brakes would have out you and others at risk.
Are you allowed to tell us which company did that? Does it rhyme with "grift" or "hay bee runt"?
Also, I'm glad you're still here with us. I can't imagine driving 600 miles on bad brakes, especially out here in the west. Not so fun fact: it was bad brakes that caused a fuel truck to burn down the maze overpass leading to the Bay Bridge back in April of 2007. The driver suffered second degree burns.
Ha ha you're a badass!I've heard some real crazy stories about those big companies: one guy, when the company wasn't sending help, got out of there and abandoned his rig rather than freeze to death; they fired him!
Did you hear the one about the girl who got suspended for recording her teacher verbally assaulting another student? The school said the teachers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the classroom. Why would a teacher who is responsible for the well-being of 30 ish students in a public classroom have any expectations of privacy? There are literally 29 ish witnesses right there and a recording isn't ok?
hm.. you could argue that since that was a 'conversation' between the teacher and studend b, student a was not allowed to record it because she was not part of the conversation.
@@sebastianmanthey742 it may have been a one on one but it wasn't private, I guess more wordplay is involved but when does a discipline lesson turns into insults and hostility, whatever the case may be, I don't think people take students seriously, especially when they use words like "disciplinary punishment" to use paddleboards on kids or "bullying" to water down harassment of other students and the accountability of staff for the safety of the kids
this is probably not a legal punishment so it can be different.
smh. My university’s gonna have to come after me for all the lessons and lectures I recorded for study while attending.
@@Zractor that might depend on if your university allows it or not
I used adverse possession to expand my property from 1.5 acres to 10 acres since no one cared for the land around me. Grazed some goats on it and took care of the invasive plants and poison ivy and cleaned up the creak from trash and dumped debris, it's a lovely wooded wetland area now that I've fenced in. It was covered in basically a landfill when I moved in, it was awful. Been here a number of years and never seen anyone on or around it. Filed the papers and it's in my name now.
Thank you for cleaning the area up, i wish more people cared if only because it ucks to look at trash
It's funny cause that whole "trespass until you legally have a right to own" thing actually happens in Jamaica 😂 that's why people who are away for a long time or just have a vacation home there always hire a gardener or sm to check the place out every once in awhile, before your house gets given to someone else 😂
@@ichijofestival2576 I do
Yea … I’m from Dominica and this is a regular occurrence. Most times the owner dies and by the time the kids come down to the property the gardener is saying that they have always lived on the property and that it’s theirs lol
Not a lawyer.....I knew someone who would mow the grass another 10 feet past his property to the corn field and did so for over a decade, the land was sold and they plotted it for housing and they actually shortened his property pin angle on one side, mad about this not only did they get in trouble, he use a law where if you maintain property for ex amount of time that land becomes theirs so that 10 feet by x amount of feet became his, now if you have a neighbor that mows over your property line mow it anyway, just for this reason, trespassing... you must post your land with name phone # on the sign every x amount of feet, if it is fenced, you must follow the first rule and maintain your fence properly, failure to do so lets people legally trespass if they find an are that is not marked or done so properly, with fences not maintained people can trespass and do it alot during deer hunting, which leads to problems for the landowner who gets upset...
Most countries have some form of squatters rights.
@@ichijofestival2576 ok but its still there house. Not their fault your on benefits
"Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should" Great advice to avoid needing a Divorce Lawyer
You are legally allowed to fart in a crowded elevator. But you really shouldn't.
Now you tell me. I just spend the college savings on a Tesla.
The reasons divorces are so expensive because they are worth it
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
@@jayk3551 This is the best idea I've ever heard
This was actually an issue for the Mythbusters. They needed to build a flamethrower for one episode, and since they're based in California they had to jump through several legal hoops to do it. They repeatedly warned viewers throughout the episode that what they were doing was illegal under normal circumstances--I guess they didn't realize how lenient the other states were.
Its because California was a mistake
Most Americans think all laws are exactly the same in every state, even after being informed of several examples to the contrary.
It's also possible that they thought it was too dangerous for people to attempt (as the kind of stuff they do often is) and they figured "this is illegal" would do more to dissuade people than just "do not try this at home".
@@GremlinSciences Not really
Can't they just... Not make that episode?
I read about squatter's rights years ago, and ever since then a part of me has wondered if it might not be the most feasible way for me to someday own a house.
The weird, popular yet official names of some US legal acts have sometime amazed me, in a bad way, but I must say the "Flamethrowers? Really?" act is a very good one.
I want anti drone and anti tank missiles personally.
@@Ledabot drones you could normally take down with small arms fire (if they fly in range of the firearm used) since sufficient damage to a number of parts would bring it down and has been done to airplanes as well. But that lacks the awesome explosion. And there's also flak cannons.
Do you know how many farmers and land owners use weed burners that are basically large propane torches that throw flames
There’s really no sense in banning flame throwers. Nobody robs a liquor store with a flame thrower, so as scary as it might seem it’s just not an issue.
Handguns are really the only weapons we have any serious issues with (10k homicides/year). Rifles are used in like 500 homicides a year so even those are barely worth considering.
@@sackofclams953 i like your comment for your factual and sensible thoughts, and appreciate it in today's "outcry" society. Even though I believe none of it should be banned.
Fun fact about recording consent, this is why you hear a lot "This call maybe recorded or monitored for quality assurance" basically this statement is a request for consent if you continue with the call after hearing it you consent to the possibility of being recorded by the individual or organization
Which covers 2 party consent states AND of the call "failed" to record.
"We said may, not will."
I complain constantly about the computer systems they use when I hear that.
We get a call about once a week where the first thing they say is "first I have to tell you that this call may be monitored..." and we hang up without saying anything.
@@jb888888888 I worked at a call center doing criminal and employment background checks. I hated when people picked up the phone because I’d have to tell them that line, and I got hung up on more than once. We’d leave a voicemail and if they called back, they got a recording saying so. One person didn’t get off the line, and kept berating me on the phone about it. -rolls eyes- Not my policy, bro. However, we did have an unrecorded line that callers could use if they wished.
@@shaon317 Well in this case we already know what it's about. I'm not going to say what in a YT comment.
One party consent laws are important for protecting potential victims of abuse. And should be used wherever allowed. Whenever I consider moving somewhere I check the recording laws and anytime I am in a potentially dangerous (or even just legally precarious) situation I set my phone to record just in case.
in case you know anyone who can do anything, there is a criminal syndicate operating in Jamestown, NY and originating from Las Vegas, NV. Please help!!
I had a situation that was quite questionable at work several years ago. I was already going through a divorce, so while I was at his office for a meeting, I asked how I could go about legally recording a meeting at work that was going to happen within a few days, without directly asking for permission to record it. He told me, as long as the recording device is in plain view of all parties to the meeting, it was legal to record without getting consent. So, after I walked into the meeting, I hit record on an app installed on my phone and placed my phone in plain view. Man was everyone involved pissed when they found out I had recorded the meeting, including all of their blatant lies, and there was nothing they could do to defend themselves in court. I had the company and all management by the balls..... They made accusations against me and refused to provide proof of said accusations, in accordance with employment laws..... It was great!! All the company owner could do was apologize and quietly listen to what I had to say. Now I record every meeting I go into.....
I wonder how many two party consent states would be satisfied by you wearing a hat that says "electronic surveillance in use".
“Just because you can legally do something doesn’t mean you should.”
Every single person in this country needs to remember that short sentence. It would improve so many things.
Something for wannabe-criminals to note: A key aspect of the "You may steal someone's house" thing being that, well, that it does have to be open or non-secretive. If you break in during the middle of the night for like 30 years, then I'm pretty sure that won't qualify.
You would, in effect, have to trespass in full view of any potential onlookers any of whom might call the police about the trespasser (read: you). Thus the property itself has to be already vacant if not outright abandoned...and then remain such for literally at least the length of a mortgage.
yep, most common case for that is either: abandoned land, or friendly neighbor that lets you do shit on their land.(like parking, putting a fence up, having kids play on it, maintaining it... )
Works in partial or property sections, too... There's never any telling why surveyors so arbitrarily put lines and boundaries where they do, BUT sometimes (like after a funeral) properties get broken into various parcels, and trying to be "fair" to the inheritors, odd bits are technically attached but useless to the parcel they are attached to... SO whenever the inheritors decide to sell or bitch about it in court, whomever's been actively upkeeping and using it longest tends to win the case...
On abandoned properties, the most "legitimately advised" method is to scour courthouse records of properties for those places listed as "tax deficient"... Once found and confirmed (never do this without visiting the site physically to be SURE it really even exists) you can post a bid on paying the taxes. A year later (something blah-blah something else about probates and clearance) you can either go back to the courthouse and claim your new property or get your money back (if the original owner was only behind and pays up) plus 10% on average....
However, since municipalities have ALWAYS tried to encourage efficient use of property, should you find a property unused for years, you can openly break in and just start upgrading and using the place... After the minimum statutory requirement(s) you can then take the matter to the courthouse (or wherever deeds and records are kept) and record yourself as the new owner of the property when you assume legal responsibility... This is at least part of why the sudden rise of "Urban Explorers" have had such a mix of responses from law enforcement. The technical reality is that busting into an abandoned building and grabbing some artifact of the urban past IS theft, so long as anyone cares... BUT in many places, law enforcement has better things to do than to chase down some rusted hunk of crap that nobody cared about until they saw it with "so-and-so" on UA-cam... or whatever.
I won't say "Don't take advantage like that." ONLY "Take care how you use this information, and GOOD LUCK!" ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 I have heard of stuff like that happening, but always anecdotal stories without enough detail to verify. Seems like the most common type of "theft" I've heard about is when a property is behind on taxes, some municipalities will sell or auction the property off...and the owner doesn't always get notification that this is going to happen (eg: someone who lived alone and is unexpectedly hospitalized, hasn't had the chance to get mail forwarded or literally isn't well enough to do anything with the mail, even if it is being delivered).
@@randomstuff-qu7sh I've personally seen the end of it with the person struggling to get together the land-tax moneys... and it just seemed like I was missing something...
Different counties and municipalities (I think?) have their own guidelines on how far taxes can "back-log" before trying to sell out the place or take the tax-deficiency bidding... and they also seem to have different definitions (or interpretations?) of how much notice or effort for it is "sufficient" before sending the sheriff to force people from the home...
Like I said, "Be careful how you use this information"... AND ALWAYS physically go check on the property before you try to bid, to make sure it legitimately exists. I've seen people trying that racket get scammed, too...
As to the weird surveyor's lines... I'm currently in that situation... My neighbor technically owns this tiny corner at the top of the slope of my property but there's NO WAY they can possibly use it without collapsing part of their quarter-mile of driveway to the top of their hill... SO we were told just do whatever with it, and now I have a shed on it, and my stepdad has a dog-lot... and dogs... and we've been keeping the thing up for more than 20 years...
I'm going to have to get to a real estate lawyer for an interview and some notes. Should that neighbor sell out, I'll hope to make a decent offer, since it's clearly not the new folks' fault... I'm that type, I guess... BUT worse come to worse, I'll take it to court and that will be that... I just need to know the precise steps... I've been there for it to be done, but I'd rather get it straight from a lawyer to "do it right the first time" so I don't spend years dicking around over it. ;o)
@@SirJacko999 hold family hostage for 20 years and get house? I mean gotta keep up with the houses upkeep, but because holding hostage is in itself hostile act, after 20 years of looking after the family would the hostage crime be dropped? or do you get a new house and family? or get house and go to jail?
Marge Simpson once said: "Anyone can make a difference, but most people shouldn't."
That's funny, this also made me think of Marge Simpson.
Homer: See Marge? I told you they could deep fry my shirt!
Marge: I didn't say *they couldn't*, I said *you shouldn't.*
Probably because they watch that corny cartoon
The adverse possession thing can get out of hand.
I was reading a story recent about a case in Iowa where the home owner lost the house because they wintered out of state. A shady character claimed the house was abandoned, and starrted court proceedings to have it declared so. They tried to serve notice on the owner, but since the owner wasn't at the house at the time, there was no one to serve. They weren't required to locate the person, but they were requried to advertise, so they put a notice in the local paper. Of course, the owner wasn't there to see the notice and therefore did not object. Therefore, the house was declared abandoned. By law, anyone who has claim to the house can then claim it.
The person who claimed it was the one who claimed it was abandoned. Note that person had absolutely no actual claim to the house, there was no dispute on who was holding the title, and that person never had any legitimate claim to it. But that person knew the house was ruled abandoned and therefore called dibs.
The owner knew nothing about it until her daughter called to say she say the house for sale on Zillow.
Apparently, this shady character had made a habit of this process, of claiming abandon houses and then selling them. It's not exactly the same as what you descirbe, but based on the same conccept.
The part that bothers me perhaps the most is that the person who makes the complaint gets the house. Adverse possession is supposed to be for resolving disputes over title. There was no dispute here. The title was held free and clear, until the person went to try to make it invalid. Yes, there are procedures for servng notice that were followed, but clearly they were inadequate, and not carried out with due dilegence. But even then, when the house gets designated abandoned, why just give it to someone who had no prior claim to it? Why not have the city take the property and sell it? Yes, make abandoned houses available for sale to the pubic, but why let a single person who has claim to the title just have it for free?
This was not a dispute over title, it was a carefully planned strategy to steal their house.
Sounds like a good way to have a pissed home owner ventilate you for stealing your house.
This is why the adverse possession thing should only work if the house had been 'abandoned' between 5-30 years like he said in the video. Guy is gone for 3 months and comes back to it being claimed abandoned is just ridiculous...
My dad has used the property "theft" laws. He used the city land outside our back fence for years and then legally claimed it as his.
I never went into property law, but I recall one of my buddies from law school who was interested in it talking endlessly about the intersection of easements and adverse possession. That seemed like a huge hornet's nest. But also apparently its most common incarnation in real life is when you have a surveyor's error: We have adjoining yards and decide to put up a fence along the boundary. If it's 5 feet too far one way or the other, after 20 years or however long it is in your state, the fence becomes the new boundary, not what was on the original deed.
I had heard about this when I was living in a housing cooperative which had a brick walkway which was technically on the neighboring property. I wondered if we'd technically taken over that little bit of land.
Such a lame law, unless it's in your favor
Teehee
The question is what happens when the local town has an ordinance that says the fence has to be set back three feet from the property line?
@@danamoore1788 Oftentimes, easements are to help with utilities or parking/driveways, etc. So long as nobody fills the empty space with anything they shouldn't, it's usually fine. If someone DOES try to use your land for something they shouldn't, you need to complain about it at the time rather than waiting decades to stir up a fuss.
You’re correct. The exact amount of time varies by state but most commonly it takes 15 years of actual possession and to be valid the property you wish to acquire must be pretty visible, your use of it must be open and notorious, it must be exclusively used by you, you must possess it continuously throughout that time period, and lastly your possession of it must be hostile (that means the original property owner cannot have gave you his permission to use it)
Source: law student
I could see the adverse trespass rights being used in the common sitcom scenario of "my property line goes through your house."
In the real world, that's usually where it comes up, e.g., when a fence is in the wrong place.
Many real estate agents (realtors?) Don't have a clue about the law. Was watching a video where a realtor was arguing with an attorney while selling property they didn't own quoting adverse trespass. Didn't work out well for him. :)
It’s really meant for abandoned homes whereby the actual owner doesn’t use or maintain property. It a unlikely to happen in modern times where it’s easier to keep track of something.
In ancient times it was so land abandoned due to things like war and famine could be reclaimed. In modern times it's to protect someone who had a house that's a few feet over a property line due to a surveyor's error that was overlooked for 20+ years, so they don't have to tear down their house.
While living overseas, my uncle bought some land intending to build on it when he retired from foreign service. There was a local that kept using the land for something, I think it was gardening, but my uncle was very proactive in making sure the guy wouldn't have any adverse possession rights. Although I heard it as "squatter's rights."
I found out about the flamethrower thing because of, of all places, Nextdoor. Someone in the neighborhood was torching weeds with it. Turns out, totally legal. But like, we're in a state with notoriously common wildfires, and he was in the city proper in Denver. You'd think it would be considered a fire safety hazard, but apparently not!
The “Not a Flamethrower” it’s really just a roofing torch with a fancy cover. Still cool
Really all the flamethrowers in the video (besides the WW2 b-roll) are just big torches and not the same device as an actual flamethrower weapon.
@@josephmagana6235 Yeah, real flame-throwers are more like a really angry version of a Super Soaker, actively throwing accelerant onto the target - not just big blow torches.
@@sysanlots Not quite. It's a gas torch. Iirc actual flame throwers use a flammable liquid such as gasoline, whereas the "not a flame thrower" uses propane gas. Gas torches can burn at higher temperatures, but actual flame throwers are more dangerous because the burning liquid can stick to objects or people
I Can't Believe It's Not A Flamethrower!
@@darthplagueis13 They also have a massive range advantage on gas torches and produce a chocking thick smoke that will asphyxiate any remaining enemies when fired into an enclosed space.
Canadian here, I actually already knew flamethrowers weren’t completely banned here and in much of the US.
I’ve seen how they are used for controlled burns in forests where fires would naturally occur in a wild environment.
The burning releases nutrients from the dead plant matter into the soil, essential for the healthy growth of trees like the savannah oak
People really need to understand the importance of controlled burns. Without them we get raging wildfires and dying forests.
But democrats would probably want to anyway,"potential school burner, why should someone own a 'weapon' of mass burning, reeeeee"
I think controlled burns are usually done by government agencies. I wouldn’t want just any yahoo with a flamethrower taking it upon himself to do a controlled burn in the nearby forest.
Of course, Virginia tried a controlled burn a month or two ago and it ended up out of control.
I didn't know until that guy tried to torch cops a year or so back.
Australian here. We've had a few interesting adverse possession rulings in our courts in the last couple of years. We had a squatter win his adverse possession case after occupying, renovating (spending at least AU$10000 of his own money on said home improvements), paying council rates and renting the property out to tenants who were 100% under the impression he owned the property for about 18 years. The guy who had title on the property had abandoned it and only on his death did his inheritor try to claim ownership. The inheritor argued as he had acted to claim the property within weeks of becoming aware of it the squatter could not claim ownership as not enough time had passed. The court ruled that as the squatter met the requirements for adverse possession against the deceased previous owner, the owner could not pass the title to the inheritor on death.
There was another case where a police officer was discovered to be taking possession of multiple properties that she knew to be abandoned. She assisted with forced evictions and thus as part of her work was privy to a database of addresses where such evictions had taken place. She would visit those addresses on her own time and when she noticed a property lying vacant for several months would go in and change the locks and start undertaking work on them with the intention of renting them out to tenants. She was discovered before more than a handful of years had passed so she wasn't able to claim adverse possession on any of her properties and the legal title holders were all informed of the situation so they all came back to claim ownership of their land. I don't know if she was reprimanded or dismissed from work.
Doesn't happen often but I prefer that over an abandoned property being left abandoned for generation after generation due to miscommunication or some other mishap and ruining the appeal of the neighbourhood for everyone. I think a slightly more preferential arrangement to arrive at the same result might be the local or state government upon discovering abandoned properties must make every effort to get in touch with the titleholder. If they receive no response after 2 years or so they apply to the court to have title transferred to the state after which the state can auction it off. Generates revenue and prevents abandoned properties turning into drug dens or eyesores otherwise.
I work a government job and from what I was able to read online The one-party consent law doesn't require both states to have that law. I live in Michigan which has a one-party consent law if I were to call somebody that lives in a two-party consent law then I am still legally allowed to record them without their consent because the call is initiated in a state where it is legal. As long as the phone call is initiated in a state where the one-party consent law exists then it doesn't matter what laws the receiving end has for recording
It depends on where you intend to use that recording. If you're intending to use it in a state with a 2-party consent law, you'd still be required to have consent of the second party.
I think the reason she got in trouble is that she was calling FROM a two-party consent state, which would still violate the law.
@@dewydewback1376 ahhh I see
Also, I don't know about MIchigan, but even in some one-party states there's a clause that says in interstate communications the most restrictive law applies.
It doesn't matter where the call came from. It matters where you record it.
If you aren't in the 2 party state on your end and you are recording that is outside the 2 party state's jurisdiction.
I dated a guy who owned a couple of houses in what he called a "sketchy" neighborhood (that turned out to be like two streets over from where I'd previously lived for years, soooo. . . 😅) and they had sat vacant for months while he got money together to fix them up to rent. He drove past one night to find cars in the driveway and the electricity on in one of the houses and discovered that some people had moved in and turned on the power, and since the power was on in their name, he couldn't evict them without treating them as tenants and taking them to court for the whole eviction process. We stopped seeing each other while it was still going on so I have no idea how it turned out, but this was fairly recently and in Texas
In the Netherlands we have a lot of anti-squatting 'benchwarmer' contracts.
Dirt cheap temporary renting.
Isnt that just breaking and entering? If the owner of the houses didnt allow them in? Why would he need to evict them?
@@Julian-pw5mv Depends how long they were there. In a lot of places, the line of separation between a visitor and a resident is 14 days. You can call the cops and have an unwanted visitor removed, but getting rid of a resident requires a court process.
This could also have been a rent scam. Some criminal notices the vacant house, advertises it for rent, changes the locks, finds tenants, takes their money, and disappears, leaving the new residents thinking they're legally occupying the property.
@@thatjulsie so if someone were to break into your house while you were on vacation for a few weeks you have to go through an entire court process just to get your house back? Because they became residents by breaking in?
@@Julian-pw5mv yeah. Unless you have enough money to have someone watch your property. You'll note a lot of these laws tend to only apply if you're a commoner.
Someone tried that land ownership thing in the middle of Paris, arguing that a small part of the city didn’t belong to Paris, but to the king of France.
But there’s a broader law which states that anything that used to belong to the king belongs to the State.
So no free land in the middle of Paris 😀
aha bien joué.
in case you see this, there is a criminal syndicate operating in Jamestown, NY and originating from Las Vegas, NV. Please help!!
Never forget that laws in one country may likely not match laws in another.
Single party consent is vastly superior, as it is often the only way for someone to gather evidence of wrongdoing and abuses. That said, I think there should be some caveats on what those recordings can legally be used for.
Isn’t blackmail still illegal?
@@ked49 Blackmailing is specifically using the threat of revealing information as coercion to get someone to do what you want. If you just immediately reveal the information without ever using it as a threat, no blackmailing has happened.
I use a 500,000 BTU propane flamethrower from Lowes for gardening. It shoots a four foot long tuft of flame and by just passing it over weeds it'll wilt them. I come back a few days later and repeat the process - I don't burn them to the ground, I just wilt them. It doesn't hurt my back nearly as much as a tiller, doesn't put chemical weed killers into the air or soil (or me!), and it's really fast to do. I can clear a 25x40 foot plot in two 5 minute sessions. As silly as it sounds, being able to point fire right where you need it is a REALLY useful tool!
As a bonus, if I come over the same area at the end of the year and take my time (25 minutes or so), I can heat the ground up hot enough to kill any pests. It helps control squash bugs, vine borers, etc that typically require copious usage of chemicals.
Re trespassing: in South Africa land owners or the state needs to provide alternative accomodation to people who trespassed for longer than 6 months. If the owner does not protest the trespass within 6 months, the reasoning goes, they give tacit permission for the trespasser to occupy the property and therefore can't just evict the trespasser or have them arrested.
In South Africa it's practically legal to murder white people.
@@ChomoBidensMules hey some snowflake showed up! I love how cute all you boomers are, you're like babies! You can't do anything on your own, always needing handouts :)
@@ChomoBidensMules No it's not, that's white supremacist propaganda.
@@ChomoBidensMules you're kidding, right? most SA crime is against black people. White ppl tend to live in nicer areas and then across the street are slums. sounds like some kkk shit you're spreading
@@ChomoBidensMules Given the history of apartheid there; it rly shud be.
Gotta love living in a one-party consent state. Has helped me hold up verbal contracts and prove misconduct by a medical professional.
Project Veritas loves it too.
@@ChomoBidensMules And fail pretty badly at it. Everything they release turns out to be shyte.
All states should be one-party consent imo
@@TheSaxAppeal Recording others should be a human right.
The solution to all lies in the palm of our hands, and laws prevent it.
Nice
Its so funny, i used to watch these legal eagle videos before going to law school and now, a semester and a half in, i find it awesome that I immediately go "oh huh he's talking about adverse possession here" and actually know whats going on lmaoooo
Isn't -flamethrowing- -torchblowing- unfreezing your driveway by fire a great way to make black ice?
Also, DnD DMs take note: Fireball followed by Cone Of Cold. That frost giant never knew what hit'em (hint: the ground, followed by subsequent stabbing).
asa long as you heat the water it should take a while to refreeze
How much of a concern is it in a driveway, you aren't really going that fast in a car. The only real concern would be walking on it and slipping but you could also just salt it after
@@wades623 Driveways are often steeper than actual roads, so it might cause the tires to slip even at low speeds.
There's a reason Zambonis use VERY HOT water to smooth out ice rinks.
Now, flamethrower to melt snow + salt to melt ice might be an effective thing some places
Another Unknown RIght:
Unless in the state of Idaho, Cannibalism* is legal in the US
(Under certain conditions; i.e: "Given Consent", "Survival")
Ah. The Donner Party law.
So the Armin Meiwes case might've had a different outcome in the US? Hmm....
@@grmpEqweer
The Donner Precedent? Donners versus Diners? idk
@@ichijofestival2576 "Hey can I eat you?" "I thought you'd never ask." *Precedes to take a bite out of the person.* "This isn't what I meant!"
@@alm2187
... You've read about the Donner Party? If not, search UA-cam. Videos await.
As a Maryland resident thank you for all of the surprisingly Maryland-based law tips. Still sad I can't own a flamethrower here. That (as the kids say) would have been lit.
It isn't a flamethrower it is a long distance blow torch used for clearing weeds, snow and cleaning plastic seats.
Hehehe lit
@@dsmx85 My dad actually owns one of those; it's basically a Bunsen burner on an aluminum rod, attached to a propane tank. He uses it to burn brush. The "Flame" itself is about a foot long or so, but the burner and handle have been ruggedized so you can shove it into a pile of blackberries and it won't break.
I think you can still go to Knob Creek in Kentucky and at least play with one!!! They'll rent you the desired weapon (literally anything from history) and give you a safety lesson and then you go to the range and play... Ammunition costs are on you, of course... BUT you can play with just about anything and it's legal so long as you're supervised and compliant with their Range Master.
AND for those of you at the West Coast, there used to be a place in Nevada much like it. I can't remember the name... Forgive me, because I was still a teen' when I was there last... BUT in case it's closed out, there IS still Knob Creek... ;o)
Just build and not tell, "build something, say nothing"
In Ontario, Canada one doesn’t have to get the consent of the other party but they do have to inform them. Fun fact, a quick and easy way to get out of a phone conversation with someone sketchy is to tell them “I’m legally required to inform you that I am recording this call”. They usually hang up on their own pretty quickly.
And then again, that depends on the intent of the call. If you are recording for quality control in a business, yes, you need to notify the other party. However, if you are aware a crime might be committed against you or around you, you may be allowed to record that call without the other person's knowledge if you are one of the participants.
In the Criminal Code of the Canadian law, Section 184 states that recording private conversation is illegal unless one of the participants consents to the interception. However, if anyone is getting involved in intercepting individual interactions without the consent of the other person, they can face imprisonment for up to five years.
“Bill of Rights 2: Electric Boogaloo”!!! YES!!! Laughed so much at that.
That was a wild movie 😂
9:36 My uncle did that or rather is in the process of it. The land next to his house (it's the area of an other house) was bought by a company a few years ago, but shortly after the company went bankrupt and was dissolved and the land was forgotten about it (might me nobodies land), so he put up a fence and turned it into an extension of the garden.
how big is his garden????
In European measurement, it's quite big, in American, not so much
@@WoWhistorian "garden" is British for your yard.
Am I the only one who kinda thinks people like this are scumbags? If you don't want to buy it you don't need it. Much less of an issue if the person is legitimately homeless but this business of trying to steal a corner of property is so scummy.
The "trespass until you own the place" laws are usually called squatter's rights, at least colloquially.
I call it a good way to get shot.
This was more of thing prior to the Closing of the American Frontier (e.g., typically most Western states prior to World War I) and possibly areas of Alaska and Oregon prior to 1970, it's not really useful with 21st century rates of population density. Also, I'm kind of surprised that the legal concept of "echeatment" wasn't introduced at this point during the video.
@@Dynamic_Editor You're correct, AFAIK anyway. For example in some countries squatters rights may include something akin to (and this is not supposed to be a legal quote but more of layman's vague description of law) 'if you find your house has been taken over by squatters, they now have same rights as a tenant would'. I've seen a British documentary about this kind of thing, and if you know what I'm talking about you also know how lacking my description of it is, but you'll probably get the idea. The squatters may have been there for a very short time, but they can't be just removed from the property by force - for example you likely need to go through eviction process, etc.
These laws have their justifications, although not everyone agrees with them, but they can also be very very flawed and in some cases can result in regular middle class (even lower middle class) people suffering very costly and unjust consequences - my personal opinion is that this particular kind of squatter's rights laws need to be changed, but not simply completely removed. But I digress, I only meant to respond with an example of squatters rights laws where the _ownership_ of the property is not challenged.
I haven't the slightest clue whether US has squatters laws like this anywhere, but I'm fairly sure that in my country (Finland), this particular kind of squatters rights laws are pretty non-existent. Even in case of literally abandoned buildings, squats that become publicly known usually tend to get "taken care of" by the city in relatively short time - when there's an actual property owner who wants the squatters out, they can pretty much call the cops and get them removed right there and then. There have been exceptions, long-lived squats where eventually the city has given permission for some community group or non-profit to take care and use the property - but they've never been properties where there have been an owner who have challenged the case before the city has decided that the property has been abandoned and thus belongs to the city. Used to be more common in the 70's and 80's.
If I'm in error, anyone who knows better of Finnish law (and/or reality behind Finnish squats) is more than welcome to correct me - I like being right, not believing to be right ;) ...and I feel a bit lacking in confidence on this subject.
I have a question about US wiretapping laws. How does the one-party consent apply to automated calls conducted by an unsupervised bot? So, for example let's say you call a hotline and before any human employee picks up, you are talking to a pre-recorded voice. Can the other party record that part already without you giving consent?
I think there is a valid reason to use your right to record conversations. Namely when someone from a government organisation or a company promises or tells you something on the phone, only to deny/nuance that after the fact. It's incredibly realistic that this happens every day (happened to me in my university; I was allowed to do something, only to have more conditions added after the fact, telling me that I didn't understand correctly). So if you're in a vulnerable position, it's a very good idea to record the conversation.
I'm not 'Murican by the way, but it's legal in my country as well.
The "legally steal someone's house" thing reminds me of a story we have with our neighbor.
Basically since my parents moved in here, we've been using this road to drive down to one of our fields. It is right next to our land and the neighbor's fence is on the other side of this road, so we assumed it was ours.
A few years ago, the neighbor told us we couldn't use the road. The law says if we use that road 10/15 years in a row, we get an automatic easement to drive there. However, a few years earlier, my dad was sick in the hospital and we couldn't farm the fields that year.
The story goes a lot longer, but it basically sums up to "for a few years, summer breaks weren't fun."
It won't hold up in court, there was a guy here who tried to say people couldn't swim in the creek on his land, they all joined up to take it to court where the judge said "they've been using it longer than you've been here you can't do that"
@@ralcogaming7674 : It appears the judge in that case doesn't understand what "private ownership" means.
(unless, of course, waterways are not privately ownable in whatever state this incident took place.)
@@deusexaethera Missouri and legally they aren't unless it's man made. For example if you build an irrigation ditch and people try to swim in it they can't. The issue with this particular case was that people had been swimming there for over 30 years this guy moves in and tells them they can't. Since it was being used by the public for so long it was essentially considered public property.
just hoping someone will help, there is a criminal syndicate operating in Jamestown, NY and originating from Las Vegas, NV. Please help!!
Adverse Possession is more often used to settle property line disputes when the perceived and the actual property lines differ in significant/meaningful ways, i.e. half of your driveway is on my property and has been for 20+ years and I want to store cinder blocks on my half after that drunken political debate we had last week.
Alright dude, the clip of Growlithe lighting up that Team Rocket balloon definitely caught me off guard, nearly spit coffee all over my screens lmao
It was so ridiculously unexpected, well done XD
Listening to this is helping me in a issue I am having with family, I do understand it’s a broad net but gives me the things I need to look up in my state of what I can and can’t do.
Adverse possession was my favorite part of my Property Law class because of how absolutely bonkers it is.
It's not in any way bonkers... If you CAN'T care for your property for more than TWENTY years well... it's good that it goes to someone who DO.
i remember talking to a friend who lived in one of the prairie provinces here in canada, and flamethrowers were (at the time, haven't checked recently) considered legal because they were the most effective way of controlling certain pests like an invasive species of locust that would otherwise decimate farmers crops.
The reason they had flamethrowers in the movie The Thing?
In arctic conditions, flamethrowers are a de-icing tool.
I find interesting the "Right to Steal property" bit, as in my country (Colombia) there's something very similar and that it actually happened very often before. In Colombia, if you occupy a property for at least 10 consecutive years, without a specific document saying you're a tenant paying rent, you can then claim the property as yours. This usually happened when the lease agreement was verbal and the payments in cash, as there would no be physical evidence of the contract. With these circumstances and after 10 years, the tenant will be effectively able to claim ownership of the property as "possessor", and if the actual owner of the property fails to provide a lease document or rent payments proof, he/she will lose the deed of the property.
There have been cases where homeless people would effectively claim ownership of an "abandoned" house after ocuppiying it for that period of time, with the owner just completely oblivious about it either because they are living abroad, in another city or straight out dead.
The origin of this law is also very similar to the one in the USA.
Loved your disclaimer!
I worked with a pharmacist that used his flamethrower to clear snow....
Also, I love the concept of squatting rights 😄 I've not heard of it happening in any recent years, but I love that it's still technically a thing.
Yeah a guy got a huge house for about $30 because he was a squatter for over a year. The $30 was for the paper that he had to get to change the home title
Very rarely used, I imagine.
Yeah small business owners lose income when homeless "move in". Or there have been people who "sold" someone's home while they were gone and couldn't get it back for a lot of time. Squatting rights are disgusting....
I have an ex who grew up in a squat in New York in the early 2000's.
It still happens but you don't hear about it. It's like a hung jury. They just hope we don't know about it.
@@thoughtsofaveteran I'm sorry but if you haven't visited your property in over a year, do you actually need it? My guess is the homeless man is making MUCH better use of a place... What's disgusting is the number of empty houses sitting around as "investments" while people are freezing to death on the streets
That dilemma when you want to watch the rest of the video, but you also want to leave early to start acquiring your future property as soon as possible, given it takes decades...
I was in construction when I was younger. Roofers used "flamethrowers" often in my experience.
Always interesting, thanks.
The most common exercise of adverse possession is when a fence is put up incorrectly, and one home owner takes up land from the other.
I read a case where two neighbors were living under this condition for 2 decades. One of the sold their house, and the new home owner found out the fence location was giving the neighbor more land than what was in the property line document. He tore down the fence to try and put up s new fence to take back the property, but leaned he lost ownership of that strip of land cause of adverse possession.
That's fine for the new buyer. He likely has title insurance and they need to pay up.
If not he can sue the seller. He didn't own what he sold you. That's a contract violation.
I "lost" my portion of a house through adverse possession (though there were a lot of other circumstances that made exercising my claim to it unrealistic), via not even knowing it was mine until after the period in my state had passed.
New favorite channel. These are answers i didnt know i wanted until i had them
3:57 In my glassblowing class back in college, we used propane roofing torches (we call it the fluffy torch) for cooking food and heating glass. TIL it's considered a flamethrower.
it's funny how they'll let you have all these projectile and other long distance weapons but they tend to draw the line at blade weapons, like swords, that are certainly less lethal than a gun or flamethrower. I've heard that New York state used to have a ban on nunchucks until it was overturned in the courts on the grounds that it violated the second amendment, because arms, short for armaments, are not just guns, but any weapon.
Grenades are banned in new York, but not grenade launchers
@@devincetee5335 A gun without a bullet is just a fancy tube.
If I remember correctly, the definition of nunchuck was very broad in that ban. I recall someone doing a comical demonstration of all the things that could be considered nunchucks. Tried to find it and instead found a case where a guy was charged for owning nunchucks made of foam and plastic--so probably a toy or replica of some tv show prop. Seriously guys, why.
Technically the Federal Government doesn't want to BAN any ownership of any weapons... There are simply certain certifications (and therefore classes and other requirements) before you're allowed that ownership, and should you ever fail to comply to the specifics of the certification (like a minimal eyesight need and you go blind), you're legally required to relinquish ownership (read "sell off") all such weapons as covered by the certification.
A LOT of people seem to think you can't possibly privately own a fully automatic fire-arm, for instance. The reality is that with a few hours of school and testing, including in person physical training and demonstration, you CAN get an FFL (Federal Firearms License)... AND then you can own as many machine guns and as much ammunition as you like... not even a smith or technician, just collect and curate...
The fed's don't want that to go away, because they want to encourage further refinement and development of military technology, and it's cheaper to produce domestically than import... It ALSO has the side effect that FFL certified curators can form groups and set up operations for the public to feed their own fascinations at paid events and shooting ranges like Knob Creek, in Kentucky... among other places.
What you do with that information, of course, IS on you. It's not legal advice either... simply a statement of facts as I've observed them. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 Doesn't the machine gun still have to be from before like 1980 or something though?
Objection: 'Please consult with your attorney, who isn't me-'
I presume this means you aren't taking any new clients? :)
Ah well not like i could afford your rates anyway.
Kind of an interesting hypothetical. Might be as simple as:
You and I, being typical and representational of LE's average viewership, have no preexisting attorney/client association at this video's time of release. Perhaps this needn't preclude the possibility of a FUTURE consultation, at which time he'd draft proper clauses reconciling any apparent contradiction into the contract.
This may also cover viewers who do so happen to have retained him in the past.
Or perhaps by releasing the video, he's declining consultations from any who wish to exercise the freedoms detailed therein.
So glad my econ teacher showed you in a class. Love this channel.
This makes me want to exercise these rights even more
I've always assumed that the thinking behind allowing flamethrowers was something along the lines of, "Either you know exactly what you're doing and aren't likely to be a problem, OR you have no clue what you're doing and will only be a problem very, very briefly."
Bill of rights 2 electric boogaloo KILLED me
I'm using all of these, thanks Legal Eagle!
I insist. This series of videos is SOOO MUCH FUN TO WATCH!
2:18 - Not true, Title II firearms require the *notification* of a local Chief Law Enforcement Officer or the Attorney General. There’s a massive difference between notification and approval.
I used a Firearms Trust and did not have to notify anyone of my SBR and Silencer.
@@samuelcalkin3516 if you bought them on a form 4 from an FFL, they handle that step of the process for you
I’m a real estate photographer, and I’ve actually seen a case of Adverse Possession. I think my state likes to call it Hostile Use. The neighbor knew that a driveway extension was over the lot line to his vacant lot, but never said anything until the home was listed. He raised holy hell but lost the little chunk of land.
U can get a steel pipe with a propane fitting. From home depo for 30$ in pa, personally use em to thaw large material stacks on winter. Same for bringing bundles of shingles to a workable temp, and melt snow off roofs in winter for repair.
I'm in the middle of REA licensing and just went over Adverse Possession and I thought it was very interesting. The acronym to remember it is ECHO: Exclusive, Continuous, Hostile, and Open. I love that you just happened to cover it at the same time, that's fantastic.
The first one reminds me of a StackOverload post asking about making a thermite flamethrower... to melt snow, obviously. The top answer concluded with "And then there will likely be other safety-, legal-, environment- and relationship-with-neighbours -related issues that alone would make this a very bad idea."
> The first one reminds me of a StackOverload post asking about making a termite flamethrower... to melt snow, obviously.
That sounds like a terribly tiny flamethrower.
Now, a THERMITE flamethrower ...
@@MrMartinSchou ...I blame autocorrect.
@@null7581 We already have fireflies, firetermites is just the next logical step.
For whatever it's worth... (and ffs, check your local and state laws of course FIRST)... I already had a DAMNED EFFECTIVE flamethrower. Pressure and flow regulated (independently), and a top range over 100 feet. It ran on ordinary Kerosene, but would function fine with Diesel or even plain veg-oil if push came to shove.
It's since been scavenged and recycled for other purposes, BUT I remember quite well how to build it... AND for more viscous fluids (say... motor oil, napalm, etc...) the only thing it would need would be attuning the nozzle and possibly, the hose to accommodate higher pressures and thicker mixes... along with probably a longer "warm up" time. ;o)
i'm just spreading the word, there is a criminal syndicate operating in Jamestown, NY and originating from Las Vegas, NV. Please help!!
You know it’s gonna be a good one when he personally reads the disclaimer
It was so trippy seeing the Nebula ad with you in it for your own video. And yes I did watch the whole thing haha
I looked into adverse possession back in my homeless squatter days. It's almost impossible to pull off in the US.
President Biden, being from Delaware, might be said to have been correct in his statement that flamethrowers and bazookas are prohibited, speaking from that perspective... Though it would be preferable for a Federal official to not mix up Federal laws with those of his home state...
Fortunately the president doesn't often walk the streets personally enforcing the laws of the land. When it comes to setting actual policy there's several layers of advisers and lawyers telling him what he can and cannot do.
He super wasn't mixing it up. He just doesn't know the gun laws or the data. Most liberals, basically all gun control liberals, don't.
@@userJohnSmith what data would that be? Where can the rest of us find it? The federal agencies who want to do studies have been prohibited from doing so by Congress.
@@davidgoldstein729 Except they all have, the FBI has great stats, and oh.... You've heard Bloomberg's propaganda.
Seriously why would it be ok to pay doctors to study crime statistics?
@@davidgoldstein729 oh, you mean the studies they aren't allowed to do after concluding that self defense wasn't a valid use for firearms since there were hundreds of thousands of crimes every year but only a few hundred people killed by people defending themselves?
Can't imagine why people would object to funding studies that were that obviously biased.
lol, I remember all the fuss with Elon's "flamethrower". If I recall correctly the reason the law stalled was because the way it was written it would also make all sorts of other unintended things illegal like blowtorches. Really that "flamethrower" was more akin to a really poorly made blowtorch with a stock than a proper flamethrower.
Elon: Putting gun furniture on a patio torch and calling it a flamethrower. Then probably massively over charging, not sure, didn't check the pricing.
Yea, thats exactly what it was.
New York has a history of writing absurd gun laws. I am reminded of a few years ago when they banned handguns of a given magazine capacity, or greater.
... They had to hurriedly rewrite the law when they found out they had just banned police sidearms... 😂
@@Caseytify Police shouldn't have firearms so I'm all on board with that.
Isn't "The Right to Steal Someone's House" sometimes called "Squatter Rights"?
My parents would rent a 'flamethrower' from a local store - it was a long aluminum wand connected to a propane tank - used to burn webworms out of trees in the backyard. I didn't know it could cook delicious steaks - thanks for giving me this useful and entertaining tidbit of information.
“Don’t get a flame thrower” proceeds to list several very practical reasons to own a flame thrower. He right too, my family owns a “little” butane one ( about 18 inches ) and it’s a great little tool for lighting up the sauna or defrosting snow and ice. We live in a relatively mother part of the U.S.
Butane torch isn't a flamethrower
I paused to read the Second Amendment text and I'm so glad I did. I needed a good laugh this morning!
Thanks for the tip!
Merica! Gotta love our freedom! 🇺🇸
For real laughs check out the 1st and 14th Amendments. Comedy gold!
guns don't work against mafia people, there is a criminal syndicate operating in Jamestown, NY and originating from Las Vegas, NV. Please help!!
If I learned one thing from Saving Private Ryan, its never stand next to the flamethrower guy in battle.
I loved the asterisks at 0:18
To be fair, Musk's device really *isn't* a flamethrower... it is just a seriously overpriced and compact roofing torch.
With that said, any old idiot can build a flamethrower himself. Just a pump and metal pipe, and some kind of ignition source. Mixing napalm is not hard either.
As I understand, places which regulate flamethrowers often define a "flamethrower" as a device which specifically uses liquid fuel to throw flames.
Yeah, I checked into the laws... and built a flamethrower, myself. It's not quite so simple as a pump and metal pipe, but YOU GET TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH...
I needed it for the vegetation thing... Wild roses had overtaken the bank above our new house when my mom moved it... AND those things were like trying to mow through barbed wire... Even the top of the line weedeaters couldn't take them with brush-cutters!!!
SO a machete and flamethrower became my "go-to" method... along with a common garden hoe for keeping a fire-break... AND for two summers, I'd religiously go "scorched earth" on that bank twice a week, deteriorating what brambles and brush would even try to return (g__ d___ roses weren't all that was a problem)... AND on the third year, my stepdad and I walked the bank with weedeaters and had an easy time of it...
BUT... Maybe I shouldn't have done that.
The state has a park not far from my house, so several of their rangers were within easy driving distance and (no doubt at all) got a chance to see my methods of ridding us of those briars and roses... all the way to the grass overtaking it and the current state that it's in...
They seemed to miss the detail that you absolutely MUST let the fires burn out ON THEIR OWN... you just keep the fire-break and let the fire burn, no matter how long it takes. It's part of why I was slow and careful and took 2 YEARS to clear about half an acre... They set up and grid layout in twine in the nearest several fields to my house, and went "scorched earth" to save fuel and time and equipment over running the tractors and mowing. As soon as the growth turned black (charred down) they put the fires out!!!
I still don't know how they got the idea that I was only saving cash on fuel or mowing... let alone time....
AND the WORST clsterf*** of gnarly weeds and god awful mess quickly overtook the fields, reducing fairly well loved play fields to a snarled menace to anyone who tried to venture into it, and anyone with allergies for at least 20 miles downwind... That was nearly a decade ago, now, and those fields still haven't fully recovered from the carnage.
A flamethrower can be a DAMNED USEFUL tool in the right hands, just like a hammer... BUT in the wrong hands, it's only a self destructive implement of death and agony... ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 Terrific story. Obviously, what I said would only get you a rudimentary device. It might still work, though. And, in all honesty, a blow torch is probably an easier and equally effective way of setting things on fire.
How did you build your flamethrower, and what fuel did you use?
@@dannypipewrench533 The pump pressurized, just like the old-school gasoline blow-torches (which I still DO have and works)... AND yes, for the record, those are WONDERFUL 1800 - 2200 F fire-starters, capable of sweating copper for hours at a time if well tuned... just joint after joint like clockwork... I can keep 3 assistants scrubbing fluxing and fitting as fast and hard as they can go with mine until the fuel gets low...
In any case... the pump on mine pressurized the fuel reservoir with air... I ran mostly K-1 or K-5 as they were cheaply available at the time... BUT it could run cooking oil, too...
The real trick was keeping a pilot light that would heat the fuel coming through the tubing to the nozzle BEFORE it got to the nozzle, so I ran a series of coils of the fuel tubine around the cast-iron "barrel of the thing, since cast iron takes a while to catch heat, but retains the stuff like a son of a bitch. It was a tad ugly with the fuel line running straight forward over the top from the flex-hose to the very front of my barrel, then wrapping the barrel snug as it coiled back, BUT it served as a crude "sight" and you really didn't need more than crude... I used a metal bowl and rag soaked in Kerosene to pre-heat, and a small hose tapped behind the trigger-valve allowed me to run the pilot light under/into the barrel on the same single reservoir as the thrower, itself... SO you'll want just enough spacing between those barrel coils to let some airflow (induced by heat) and holes should be drilled to the LOWER half of the barrel, this also helps induce airflow toward the "muzzle" (or "business end") so you're not entirely reliant on fuel pressure for the throwing... It doesn't sound like much until you start playing in napalm and thicker fuels, where even air resistance can give you issues... If you can find them anymore, the older all-metal insect sprayers have a decent metalic nozzle that's relatively adjustable, to keep from a lot of design engineering and machine work... AND to get you started without a whole lot of math and trials and errors...
Should you decide to play at getting an old gasoline blow-torch running, DO NOT FORGET that stupid sheet-metal cowling. I know it rattles and seems less than useful, but the induction it causes is a MAJOR timesaver getting to operating temperature, and making the little bastard work at its optimum... and you might want ear-plugs. They're louder than you'd expect... haha.
Play safe. I went to practice at a local abandoned quarry several times before I felt confident to try it even in my own front yard. ;o)
The Federal government also doesn't regulate air rifles, including high powered semi automatic air rifles , though certain states do regulate them. There are compressed air rifles with the legal ability to hunt deer (which in many states there's a minimum required lethality for hunting deer to avoid inhuman hunting). The lethal range of these kinds of rifles are more limited than a traditional firearm due to lower muzzle velocity, however in contrast they are near silent, far more silent than a silenced firearm. There's video on UA-cam of a hunter shooting a deer in a field without scattering the rest of the herd.
It's also important to note flame throwers are also useful for getting rid of things like killer bees, which is the stories I've heard of why they're legal.
Yep. Criminals who aren't allowed to own firearms can legally own and use air rifles and pistols.
Technically speaking air guns are actually capable of higher muzzle velocities than combustion firearms because they aren't limited by gun powder's burn-rate/detonation speed. The most ridiculous examples are "light gas guns".
“I’m Saul Goodman, did you know you have rights? The Constitution says you do.”
So interesting. I work in B2B sales and am constantly making cold calls using a platform called Outreach. We have it set up to record our calls so that we can listen again later and take notes, see how we can improve, etc. -- obviously the recordings are only used for educational/training purposes. Can definitely attest to the fact that in some states it lets you record the call while in others it prohibited! My calls to NC & OH are always recorded! MA & WA? Not so much because they have the two-party law, as I learned from this vid!
You should make a video on the legality of Teslacoils. They cause massive RF interface and powerful EM fields that destroy electronics
Finally! Legal Eagle talks in more detail about the laws regulating the second amendment! And yeah, California's take on flamethrowers is possibly the best. "Want one? Ask the professionals tasked with putting out fires and, oh yeah, using flame throwers to fight fires!" It's pretty cool in my opinion.
Well if the professionals were allowed to do their jobs in California they wouldn't have to fight fires as much because controlled burning is a tactic to mitigate wild to mitigate wildfires. Which they aren't often allowed to do because that costs money that the cities don't want to pay. I'm surprised that people haven't sued the state for negligence. And other people really shouldn't have a say on what you as a person are allowed to buy. Imagine having to go to an ER doctor to ask if you can buy alcohol because they are the ones who have to deal with the aftermath of a wreck due to drunk drivers. You may not drink and drive you may have no intention of drinking and driving. But because other people may commit criminal acts. You have to ask and may very well be denied by professionals. That's just punishing law abiding citizens for the crimes of others and I do not agree with that.
@@SuperRandomNinja1 Fire isn't as stable as a drunk idiot, which is saying a lot.
Other people should absolutely have a say in what an individual can and cannot buy. That's what restrictions are all about. Unless you think it's ok for a 6 year old to buy a bottle of vodka? How about someone who's on their 18th DWI/OWI conviction owning a car?
Or even less restrictions around owning and discharging a firearm? I live in a state where firearms (and firearm safety( are a part of our yearly cycle, hunting season being what it is around here. There's always at least one story where some idiot puts a bullet into someone's house (but luckily I can't think of one where someone got hit within the last 10 years or so).
I do think that it's a very slippery slope to regulate who can own what, but just blanket saying that it's wrong? It's like saying that everything needs to be regulated, it's not a black and white thing and we should definitely be constantly looking at our regulations and restrictions to see if it is appropriate.
You do realize that banning flamethrowers does nothing to prevent criminal murders... as guns were before and are still to this very day:
A: Cheaper
B: Legal (2nd Amendment)
C: Waaaay more effective at killing individuals and groups at a time.
D: Does nothing to prevent arson as matches and lighters are always gonna be cheaper (heck even a magnifying glass can do it if you know what your doing with it)
All of those are so obvious children can think of them.
All California has done is damage legitimate business opportunities from entrepreneurs and businesses which create jobs and make it harder for Farmers to control there farmland making them rely on pesticides which pollute and degrade the crops and soil quality.
"California's take on flamethrowers is possibly the best" could not be further from the truth you deluded soul.
@@SuperRandomNinja1 Well, the money isn't really an issue, it's the environmental laws that prohibit a lot of the planned burnings.
@@bluebird838 from what I've read it's a money issue but it could be both.
My gardening magazine advertises the "Weed Dragon" weeding torch. It's advertised to clear weeds from driveway cracks, but also to kill poison ivy without chemicals.
My family owns 3 flamethrower(s)
Most of my family are farmers who regularly have to battle various plant life that spurs out and attacks both crops and can poison our cattle. We do regularly controlled burns approved by the county and township to prevent such incidents. We even do contract work for the local townships to do burns for the roads.
Flamethrowers or how I trained my cat to go Woof
OBJECTION: Some of the adverse possession requirements are interpreted VERY differently from the way you described. Open and notorious usually means what you said, but sometimes its the exact opposite.
Can you elaborate?
@@ArcanineEspeon Lookin into it; its mostly that it varies between jurisdictions. Apparently in the UK there is no specific requirement that adverse possession be "open and notorious"; merely that the owner not kno theyre there, they stay there long enuf, and that they intended to possess the land... That is until 2002 when an extra requirement got put in which effectively made it the same as requirin it be open and notorious. After ten yrs of adverse possession a person then must inform the registrar of the national land registry who then informs the rightful owners who then have two yrs to act on your adverse possession of their lands.
Which almost guarantees that adverse possession cant happen unless the land is truly abandonwd and the rightful owner has either died without passin on the lands or otherwise just completely gives up on the property and just willingly lets it happen. Which ofc, almost nvr happens.
Its worth noting too, most adverse possession claims are made against ones neighbours and to do with fences and sheds bein built over property lines. The whole steal an entire house thing is prty much nonexistent when it comes to actual use of the law.
And in the cases of property lines bein redrawn after fences were placed wrongly... While that is technically open and notorious bcuz the neighbour cud at any point get a land surveyor to confirm what is and isnt their land or yours; it wud take them actually noticing the fence was over their property line in the first place for them to ever investigate it further. So at least in the cases of fences/sheds/etc and to do with neighbours; its very rarely open and notorious in the traditional sense of such but the law doesnt truly require it to be obvious. It requires it to have been discoverable by the landowner without any attempts to obfuscate it.
For example, hidin in attics to claim adverse possession wud nvr succeed bcuz of the attempt to obfuscate it, but living in a tent and then later a small shed youve built on someones many acres of unused forest land... Is not attempting to hide it even tho youre in the middle of nowhere and no one cud possibly truly think of that as "open and notorious" in the common sense of what those words mean, but in the legal sense it counts.
0:55 that legal jarkin bit 🤣 reminds me of HL
0:49 Missing comma in "attorney who isn't me" leaves open the possibility that you are also my attorney.
one right any American has is the right to represent themself in court which bay be good but your average person may not understand certain legal facts about the crime they are accused of
Yeah you are gonna lose, if I was a divorce attorney I don’t think I’d do my own divorce.
there is almost never any good reason to represent yourself, you could accidentally incriminate yourself while an attorney always has plausible deniability of his client
Yeah, I don’t get why that’s still a right. Has that ever worked for someone who wasn’t already a lawyer?
@@esteemedmortal5917 freedom
worked well for that avanaughty guy didnt it.
There's so much deliberate legal misinterpretation involved in stripping control of state militias from the states and establishing a federal military. The individual states are supposed to control their own citizens, and regulate their own militias, with no federal say - and that's just ignored.
And when either of the two parties or the Pentagon take control and destroy the Republic, they will most assuredly take the National Guard under Federal command.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson... the gifts that keep on giving!
@@edwardmiessner6502 the national guard IS under federal command. That's why a few states have established "state guards" to full the gap left once the feds took the national guards from the states.
@N Fels That is literally what the Second Amendment was for. At that time the Constitution of the United States protected states from the federal government, it didn't protect individuals from state laws at all.
The original purpose of the amendment finally got a bullet in the head in 1980s-2000s, when legislation and courts affirmed that even when a state had a domestic emergency, the federal government could deprive the state of its National Guard and deploy it elsewhere.
The NRA banged their drum on an individual right to own and use firearms since the 70s. But federal courts were unanimous that no such right existed in the Constitution until SCOTUS ruled otherwise in 2008's DC v Heller.
I would look into Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15/16 of the Constitution which explicitly provides congress a say over the operation and use of state militias.
Article 1, Section 8. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article 2, Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Another really helpful use of flamethrowers is for brush clearing.
Cactus needles have a really high surface area relative to their mass, low water content, and stick out away from the plant, meaning a quick pass with a flamethrower can de-needle a huge patch in a real short time. Then you can go after the paddles with axes/shovels or let livestock eat them.
I learned about adverse possession from my dad, who pointed out the signs on railroad crossings. That's so the railroad doesn't lose title to the little bit of track crossed by the public road.
"LEGAL EAGLE DA FLAMETHROWAH! The kids love this one!" Great work as always mate and as an Australian, interesting to see what kind of legal quirks America has compared to us on the far side of the Pacific.
1:05 - Right n°1 - Owning flamethrowers & other deadly weaponry
4:40 - Right n°2 - Secretly record your conversations with 3rd parties
8:15 - Right n°3 - Stealing someone's house
11:15 - End roll ads
Thank you
The meow sound in the flamethrower section had my cat running, eyes huge, into the room to stare at the computer speakers and take up a fighting stance!