Are Fireworks Legal in Your State?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
For many people, July 4th means fireworks. But before you use them, make sure they are permitted in your area and you know how to keep yourself and your friends and family safe.

Some states allow all or most types of consumer fireworks (formerly known as class C fireworks). These include shells and mortars, multiple tube devices, Roman candles, rockets, sparklers, firecrackers with no more than 50 milligrams of powder, and novelty items, such as snakes, airplanes, ground spinners, helicopters, fountains, and party poppers.

Other states only allow novelty fireworks or ban fireworks completely.

This summary of regulations is accurate as of June 1, 2013:

Alabama - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Alaska - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Arizona - Allows only novelty fireworks.

Arkansas - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

California - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Colorado - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Connecticut - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Delaware - Bans all consumer fireworks.

District of Columbia - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Florida - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Georgia - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Hawaii - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Idaho - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Illinois - Allows only sparklers and/or other novelties.

Indiana - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Iowa - Allows only sparklers and/or other novelties.

Kansas - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Kentucky - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Louisiana - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Maine - Allows only sparklers and/or other novelties.

Maryland - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Massachusetts - Bans all consumer fireworks.

Michigan - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Minnesota - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Mississippi - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Missouri - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Montana - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Nebraska - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Nevada - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

New Hampshire - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

New Jersey - Bans all consumer fireworks.

New Mexico - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

New York - Bans all consumer fireworks.

North Carolina - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

North Dakota - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Ohio - Allows only sparklers and/or other novelties.

Oklahoma - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Oregon - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Pennsylvania - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Puerto Rico - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Rhode Island - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

South Carolina - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

South Dakota - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Tennessee - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Texas - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Utah - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Vermont - Allows only sparklers and/or other novelties.

Virginia - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Washington - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

West Virginia - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Wisconsin - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Wyoming - Allows some or all types of consumer fireworks.

Learn more about fireworks safety and laws (PDF).

We welcome your comments if you are 13 or older, and hope that our conversations here will be polite. You are responsible for the content of your comments.

We do not discriminate against any views, but may delete any of the following:

violent, obscene, profane, hateful, or racist commentscomments that threaten or harm the reputation of any person or organizationadvertisements or solicitations of any kindcomments that suggest or encourage illegal activitymultiple off-topic posts or repetitive posts that are copied and pastedpersonal information including, but not limited to, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, mailing addresses, or identification numbers

In short: be nice and add to the discussion. If you continually violate this policy, we may limit your ability to comment in the future. If you have any questions or comments about this policy, please e-mail us.

Legal call to cut road deaths

20/03/13

By Paulette Flahavin

Only seven per cent of the global population are protected by comprehensive road safety legislation covering the five major risk areas of alcohol and driving, speeding, seatbelts, child safety restraints and the failure to wear motorcycle helmets.

Laws are quickly needed to dramatically cut the number of road fatalities, according to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) new report, 'Global status report on road safety 2013: supporting a decade of action'.

The number of global road traffic deaths showed virtually no improvement between 2007 and 2010, when 1.24 million deaths were recorded. Over that time, 88 WHO Member States recorded a reduction in road traffic fatalities, though in 87 other countries, the number increased.

The WHO report also finds:

59 countries that account for 39 per cent of the global population have put into place city speed limits of 50 km/h or below; 89 countries that account for 66 per cent of the global population have a drink-driving law in place; 90 countries that account for 77 per cent of the global population have laws requiring motorcycle helmets for all riders on any road and any type of bike;111 countries that account for 69 per cent of the global population have seat-belt laws that require all vehicle occupants to wear one; 96 countries that account for 32 per cent of the global population have laws requiring child safety restraints.

WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan said: "Political will is needed at the highest level of government to ensure appropriate road safety legislation and stringent enforcement of laws by which we all need to abide. If this cannot be ensured, families and communities will continue to grieve, and health systems will continue to bear the brunt of injury and disability due to road traffic crashes."

Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City and the philanthropist whose foundation funded the report, said: "The Global status report on road safety 2013 serves as a strong warning to governments that more needs to be done to protect all those who use the roads. Road traffic fatalities and injuries are preventable. This report.demonstrates that progress is being made, but we still have a long way to go."

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Is Google Abusing Its Market Power? Former Legal Allies Disagree

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota Exhibit A: In the spring of 1998, the federal government and 20 states filed a landmark antitrust suit against Microsoft. A few months later, Google was founded.

Now Google is the subject of major antitrust investigations in the United States and Europe. In the United States, regulators are expected to announce a decision within days to sue or settle, and under what terms. The European decision will come soon as well.
Much has changed over the years, but two lawyers who helped build the case against Microsoft are playing important roles once again. But this time, Gary L. Reback and Susan A. Creighton are on opposite sides.
The two lawyers, and the positions they have taken, point to some striking similarities yet also significant differences between the two high-stakes investigations — and why the pursuit of Google has proved challenging for antitrust officials.
In 1996, Mr. Reback and Ms. Creighton were partners, representing Netscape, the pioneering Web browser company. They wrote a 222-page “white paper,” laying out Microsoft’s campaign to use its dominance of personal computer software to stifle competition from Netscape, the Internet insurgent. After Netscape sent their report to the Justice Department, the head of the antitrust division ordered an investigation.
Mr. Reback is now an attorney at Carr & Ferrell in Silicon Valley, where he represents several companies that have complained to the government about Google. He does not represent Microsoft, though that company is a born-again champion of antitrust action, against its rival Google.
In Google, Mr. Reback sees a familiar pattern — a giant company trying to hinder competition and attack new markets. Google, he says, is unfairly using its dominant search engine to favor the company’s offerings in online shopping, travel and local listings and thus stifle competition from Web sites that rely on Google search for traffic.
“From my perspective, it’s an instant replay of the Microsoft case,” Mr. Reback said in a recent interview, though he would not comment for this article. “It’s the same playbook.”
Not to Ms. Creighton, a partner in the Washington office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who is in Google’s corner. She has testified before Congress on Google’s behalf and negotiated with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency conducting the antitrust investigation, and where she was a senior official during the Bush administration.
“Google’s conduct is pro-competitive,” Ms. Creighton declared in her Senate testimony last year. “Far from threatening competition, Google has consistently enhanced consumer welfare by increasing the services available to consumers.”
Ms. Creighton hits two main themes in Google’s defense. The first is the consumer benefit of all Google’s free services. The second is that the cost to consumers of switching to Internet alternatives like Microsoft’s Bing search engine, the Expedia travel site or Yelp local listings is “zero,” she said. Or, as Google repeatedly says, competition is “just a click away.”
In the late 1990s, Microsoft had its version of both arguments. Microsoft bundled a free Web browser into its Windows operating system — an added feature at no cost, surely a consumer benefit. In its trial testimony, Microsoft showed that millions of people had downloaded the competing Netscape browser onto Windows — a rival product just a double-click away.
But in the trial, the evidence taken as a whole portrayed a wide-ranging effort by Microsoft to crush Netscape. It is not an antitrust violation for a powerful company to gain a dominant share of one market and then expand into other markets. The legal issue is the tactics the dominant company employs to expand its empire. 

Dale Farm: News media win legal fight over footage

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The BBC, like other broadcasters, has a well-established process in place for dealing with police requests for untransmitted footage. Put simply - we require requests for such material to be made through the courts.

We have to consider in each case whether an order is justified and occasionally we conclude that it isn't and that it's necessary to challenge it. On Thursday a successful challenge was made which led to a significant ruling from the courts which fundamentally reinforces the independence of news organisations from the police.

BBC, SKY, ITN, Hardcash Productions and freelance journalist Jason Parkinson went to a Judicial Review to overturn a decision by Chelmsford Crown Court to grant a wide-ranging production order to hand over all footage from the Dale Farm evictions to Essex Police.

In this case the order was so wide ranging it amounted to a fishing expedition. We believe journalists must maintain their independence, must not be seen as evidence gatherers and must not have their safety compromised. There is a real concern that our crews would be prevented from doing their job if the subjects they were filming thought the material was inevitably going to be passed onto the police. All of these things would be undermined by the courts agreeing to unfocused and speculative applications for footage.

The broadcasters won the challenge and the footage as requested won't now be released.

But, more importantly that that, today's guidance makes it clear that applications must be supported by proper evidence, must be focused and proportionate and the court has acknowledged that the over-use of production orders may make it harder for the press to do its job.

This won't change the way we deal with such requests in the future - our processes are tried and tested and designed to protect the independence of our journalism and the safety of our staff, whatever the subject of the footage. This remains an important principle and one which we will continue to take very seriously.

But the BBC, and other broadcasters, have been getting an increasing number of such police requests, which most people hear little about as they pass through the courts, and this ruling will significantly benefit both news organisations and our audiences.

Fran Unsworth is head of Newsgathering at BBC News.

View the original article here