How old do you have to be to get a drivers premit in Il

yes

:)

You can get one from your school

yes

:)

Contact your local police.

You cannot own a wild animal in the US without a special premit and liscences.

usually the legal age to get a drivers permit is 16.

yes with a valid Canadian class 5 license or US equivalent

Wow first how old is this daughter, second why would you do that?

T.I. went to prison for two counts of murder and one count of possession of unlicensed firearms.

Three years ago, Gunnar began this band he calls "Scrap Metal" comprising of different singers whenever schedules premit to sing concerts wherever they can. No. That is not Terra. It is Liz Motley who works for them. Three years ago, Gunnar began this band he calls "Scrap Metal" comprising of different singers whenever schedules premit to sing concerts wherever they can. No. That is not Terra. It is Liz Motley who works for them.

30 years if illeagly modified to be full auto 0 years if you have a premit to own full auto and semi automatics are avalible to any civillian without a felony on record

Building codes are a complex subject. In addition, the relevant codes will depend on the type of remodeling and construction project you are undertaking. Before starting a building project in Toronto, you must obtain a building premit, have a review of the building plan and an inspection of the site.

depends on the state, in Missouri you have to have your learning permit atleast 6 months before your intermediate drivers licence no matter what age you are, then after you turn 18 you can get your full licence which doesnt restrict you from driving between 1-5 am or more than one un-related passenger under the age of 18.

Tracer ammunition contains pyrotechnic composition at the base of the bullet, which ignites upon firing to create a visible trace of the bullet's trajectory in flight. This allows shooters to track the path of the bullet and make adjustments if needed. Tracer rounds are primarily used for training purposes or in military applications.

No. Not on a premit. If your are over 18 years old you can go down to local DMV pay the fee if you haven't paid it already and take your Driving Test. After you complete it they will issue a temporary license. You can drive to school on that.

The state motto of Tasmania is "Fertility and Faithfulness".

There are some groups that bring animals to meetings, schools, groups, and probably just about any type of setting that is secure, I imagine. They need room that would allow them to work with the animals, and give those attending an interactive, and educational meet and greet with the animals they bring. As for just an employee, or owner keeping a wild animal in a cage in the restaurant, I would think this would partly depend on where this restaurant was located, and what the governmental policy, and requirements were. I would guess that having a caged wild animal in a restaurant would require a special premit from both the Wildlife protective agency of the local government, and the Health department of the area as well.

Open carry in the Commonwealth has been our

heritage since the Constitution was written and

adapted in Danville in the early 1800's.

Not many people open carry because we have a

CCDW law that outshines any states concealed

carry law. The Commonwealth of Kentucky recognizes

any and all state's CCW licenses/permits.

It has been discussed many times about open carry.

One of the main reasons for not doing so is that the

BG can spot their prey right off and eliminate that

threat immediately then move on to smaller prey.

Some people look at someone carrying a firearm/

weapon openly as a 'kind of show off'. Only place

that I know where you would be hasseled if you

open carry is Louisville. LEO in that area just get

stiff when they see someone who packs openly.

Of course there are areas that are prohibited from

carrying any type of firearm/weapon such as the

schools, certain colleges, court rooms, federal

buildings. A lot of buildings are posted that no

concealed firearms are allowed - big deal, just

take your coat or cover off and carry openly,

but not in the places which I mention above.

One thing, and please do not forget it! In 1956,

a court case was won by an individual who was

challenged by someone for his carrying a sidearm

in open. Moral: if you do carry openly and someone

does ask or challange you about your carrying, that

individual/group is very subject to a lawsuit brought

about for violating your constitutional right to carry

openly. That right is covered in the first section

of the Kentucky Constitution, para 1 - 7.

With today's climate after 9/11, go ahead and get

your CCDW license and don't worry about the open

carry thing. That way, only you know.

Ed

Banns of marriage were traditionally published in Catholic parishes to announce to parishioners impending marrages and to publicly solicit for any information from people who might be aware of impediments which would prevent the marriage from happening (such as previous marriage, family relationship, religious vows, etc). There was a formal system of publishing banns in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which, it seems, forbade publication of banns of "mixed" marriages, that is marrages between Catholics and baptized non-Catholics, unless the bishop decided there would be no scandal in such an announcement (CIC 1026?). In reality, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia reports that most parishes 'tolerated' such publications: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02255a.htm "Mixed marriages" were (and still are) considered less-than-optimal situations for Catholics to find themselves in, as there is a real threat to the faith of a Catholic (and their children) who enters such a union. This is the root of the 'scandal' which law referrs to. The preference was (and still is) that Catholics should marry fellow Catholics. (Nowadays seeking permission to marry outside the faith, while still considered exceptional in Church law, is a perfunctory process that most prists have been given the faculties by their bishops to premit.) The reasoning would seem to be that the union of bodies and souls in marriage is diminished and hampered when the most important thing which a couple can share in this world- their faith- is not united. The entire system of publishing banns was abrogated in the 1983 code. Nowadays, the process of examinating candidates for marriage and the publishing of banns is left to the local Conference of Bishops (Canon #1067). The norms in the United States are here: http://www.usccb.org/norms/1067.htm In these norms, there is no mention and thus <i>no requirement</i> to publish banns. Indeed, the present practice of investigation would seem to be more reliable (most notably, the testimony knowledgeable witnesses and public records which indicate if previous marriages have been attempted) than relying on banns. Further, as large and (unfortunately) as impresonal as some parishes are, and as moble as young people are, it would be foolish to rely on banns as a main source of public check-and-balance... simply stated, people generally do not know each other well enough to report impediments to their parish priest. In some places, banns are still published in one form or another. This, I think, is a good practice pastorally, even though it is not required in the United States. It would also seem a good idea to publish banns of mixed marriages, but like the publication of banns themselves, this would be soley at the discretion of the pastor unless otherwise direceted by particular law of a diocese or norms of a local confrerence of bishops.

Well, there really is not an exact answer to the question. It varies by country and even within a country some jewels are handled differently. For example, in the United Kingdom, all jewels housed in the Tower of London (the Imperial State Crown, St. Edward's Crown, the Scepter with Cross, the Orb, etc.), the Honours of Scotland (housed in either Edinburgh Castle of the Palace of Hollyroodhouse) as well as the Honours of Wales all belong to the State. These are the crown jewels which are worn by the Queen only at the most formal ceremounies (Opening of Parliament, etc.) Essentially all other jewels that any of the British royal family is seen wearling belong personally to the Queen, or have been given as gifts or loaned to other members of the royal family. Upon marriage, female members of the royal family are often gifted suites of jewels (Tiara, Necklace, Earrings, Brooch, etc.,) by foreign countries (for example when the Queen was married, Brazil gave her the Aquamarine and Diamond Suite of jewels; Brazil was one of many counties, or foreign sovereigns who did this). These gifts belong to the recepient personally. The Star of Afica, the largest cut diamond in the world at over 500 cts, was origionally a personal gift from the de Beers diamond company to Queen Alexandra or Mary (I can't recall which at the moment). The Star of Africe, along with some "smaller" diamonds are currently set in the Scepter with Cross and the Imperial State Crown. Both of which belong to the state and not the Queen herself. These diamonds as well as certain other jewels have been bequest to the state upon a sovereigns death over the years. The current Queen's grandmother, Queen Mary (nee Princess Mary of Teck) is known for having assembled perhaps the largest collection of family jewels ever. Even after later monarchs giving tiaras to their daughers and granddather's or daughter's in law, the Queen is still believed to have the largest collection in the world. And her collection doesn't even count all the jewels that Diana was given, which are assumed to be held in trust for her sons (likely Harry as she left the bulk of her estate to him since William would inherit the throne, and all the personal real estate properties belonging to the sovereign (including Balmoral Castle, the Sandringham Estate, Castle of Mey, and others). The only residences used by the Queen that belong to the State are Buckingham Palace (which was once private but was gifted to the nation), Windsor Castle, and The Palace of Hollyroodhouse in Scotland. The British royal website actually gives a decent bit of information on what belongs to whom. It's interesting to note that in the past, all taxes collected on behalf of His/Her Majesty (as it still is) went into the accounts of the sovereign who was then responsibile for paying for military defense, parliament, public works, and everything else. Begining with George III, such income (also including revenue from the crown estate which owns vast land holdings, mineral rites under the sea bed, unmarked swans, whales,and many other things) has been deposited into His/Her Majesty's Treasury controlled by parliament in exchange for a "Civil List," of annual payment/salary for the Queen. She herself then pays her husband and all other members of her family for their work carrying out state visits, etc. Do some research because you'd be shocked at how little the Civil List payment is. If I recall correctly it's about 10million USD, but it's expensive to be her and have to buy clothes that you can't wear publically again to do her day to day job. The only person who she does not pay is The Prince of Wales who receives his income from the traditional holdings of the Duchy of Lancaster, which owns vast farm land, residental properties that area leased, etc. As I said, the Civil List has been used since George III in the 1700's. However, it has been up to each successive monarch to choose to continue this method or revert back to control (which at this point in time would likely cause a constituational crisis). Should the British monarchy ever be abolished, the question would remain would those holdings be returned to the sovereigh.

As for other countries...bitterness often times overpowers right and wrong. When Greece was in need of a sovereign but didn't have a royal family, they elected George I as King of the Hellenes (the Greek people) from the Royal House of Denmark. He moved to Greece to take the throne and brought with him his personal property to use in his homes. The Greek people "gave" him as a gift a royal palace and the option of his being responsible for the costs of government and he wouldn't have to pay any person taxes on his income, OR he could pay taxes and they would pay for government costs. He chose to not pay taxes and went on to build a dynasty. He reigned of over 50 years and purchased/built other palaces and furnishings as well as decades of gifts to him and his family. A son and three grandsons became king in a very short time, with some being deposed, replaced, and then even put back on the throne again. Eventually in the 1940's the royal family was ordered not to leave Greece and although there was a new form of governent the monarchy wasn't officially abolished until the 1970's. When it was officially abolished the family was exiled and not alled to take with them any of their property which they had owned previously, bought, inherited or was given...and to top it off they spent 70 years or so paying for all government operations. Talk about being screwed over! As of a couple years ago, the former King Konstine II and his siblings and heirs won a court case at the International Court of Human Rights and was awarded a pathetic sum of roughtly $8million....considering the estate is worth conservatively $500m it's a bit unfair.

Like the UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherland's all have both state owned jewels and privatly owned jewels. A good rule of thumb is that if it's not being worn for coronation, openings or parliament or the like, then it's privately owned.

Principalities like Monaco and Liechtenstein own their jewels personally. Liechtenstein is a good example of the closest thing to absolutism in Europe today. All the land that makes up Liechtenstein was purcased by the first princes, The County of Vaduz and a smaller Lordship which was united by decree of the Holy Roman Emperor and named Liechtenstein after the castle in Austria where the family had came from. In fact, they ruled the territory for over 100 years before anyone from the family ever visited it...and was another 20 years or so before a ruling prince ever stepped foot in the principality. My point is, they OWNED the entire country. Today, they have a constitution that was origionally adpoted in the mid-1800's but the sovereign prince recently regained many powers previously invested in their assembly/parliament. In fact, it was reported that he threated to sell the country to Bill Gates and premit him to rename it Mircosoft if the powers sought was not restored to the prince. If he truly made such a statement, it worked, as their laws were amended in his favor. They also have the biggest royal family in Europe, because by law all legitimate descendants in the male line are entitled to be styled HSH Prince/Princess of Liechtenstein. Currently every living member of the House of Liechtenstein descend from a prince who lived in the mid to late 1800's. There are currently over 100 male princes not counting at least that many female princesses. He's also the 4th wealthiest head of state in the world, with a net worth of about $5Billion, larely from banking ventues. Liechtenstein is a tax haven and at about 62 sq miles one of the smallest sovereign states in the world.

Germany royal families who lost their thrones generally kept their property, jewels, etc., and are infact allowed to retain their titles but as a surname. They are allowed to adjust the title if for daughers so there aren't cases where a girl is Alexandra, Prince of Hanover!