California Looking To Make All Bitcoin Businesses Illegal 224
An anonymous reader writes A new law has been proposed in California that would effectively outlaw all Bitcoin-related businesses that don't first get "permission." The details are vague within the bill itself, which is part of what makes it dangerous. If you're doing anything with virtual currency, you may have to go line up in Sacramento to get permission first.
Is it sad that it is old hat (Score:2, Interesting)
To do something like this and then either never issue said permissions or arrange it in such a way that getting said permission purposefully violates some other law that they can then hit you with.
Re:Is it sad that it is old hat (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it's sadly common. Ask anyone who owns a strip club or an adult bookstore or a pawn shop, or even a bar in some places. The government doesn't usually make them illegal outright*; instead, they make them regulated. Then they draft regulations stating that those businesses can only operate in a certain zone of town. Oh, and you need a license, but it's going to run you half a million dollars, and they'll only grant one license every 10 years, or one license per 250,000 citizens (in a town of 30,000), or some other hurdle that's insurmountable enough so as to make your business effectively illegal.
Your second point reminds me of the marijuana tax stamps that are still law in 20 or so states. You incriminate yourself just by asking to buy the stamp in the first place.
*Because then the mayor couldn't accept an enormous campaign contribution in exchange for issuing a special license now and then.
Re:Is it sad that it is old hat (Score:4, Insightful)
In many of THOSE cases its government functioning as it should -- representing the will of the people in the community.
Lots of communities CITIZENS don't want strip clubs or pawn shops or porn shops or Walmarts or whatever; but they aren't illegal and the community can't outlaw them outright.. so the local government's mazes of red-tape to make opening such a business in the community difficult are simply a reflection of what the community wants implemented with the tools they have available to them.
Not always, of course, but often.
On the one hand its annoying if you want to open such a business; on the other hand... why exactly shouldn't a community be able to decide what businesses it does and doesn't want within its borders? It raises all kinds of genuinely interesting questions about the role of local government.
Re:Is it sad that it is old hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of communities CITIZENS don't want strip clubs or pawn shops or porn shops or Walmarts or whatever; but they aren't illegal and the community can't outlaw them outright.. so the local government's mazes of red-tape to make opening such a business in the community difficult are simply a reflection of what the community wants implemented with the tools they have available to them.
This is pure and complete bullshit. If the community's citizens didn't want such a business there, the business would get no customers and close down naturally. What actually is happening is that a cabal of Bible-thumping prudes who wish to impose their sense of morality upon others forces these laws through in order to control the larger population.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that works for crack houses and drug dens, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing that. I was pointing out that the GP's point that the citizens didn't want these things is wrong - it's some citizens who do not want it.
Re: (Score:3)
You only need about 1000 customers to run a successful bar. That's a tiny fraction of the population of most cities.
Yes, but quite often the number who don't want the bar is even less. A very vocal minority rails against what they find immoral while dismissing claims that people want it - because if they want it, those people are dirty immoral deviants and should be ignored, anyway, right? This is the tyranny of the minority, and it happens constantly in politics.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In many of THOSE cases its government functioning as it should -- representing the will of the people in the community.
No, commerce represents the will of the people in the community. If you put up a strip club and nobody shows up and it goes out of business, that is the will of the community. If you want to put up a strip club and the government says no, that may or may not be the will of the community. I live in a town where government generally does the opposite of the will of the community. They imported a shitload of derelicts some decades ago (literally deliberately moving criminals and wingnuts into Clear Lake, CA) a
Re: (Score:3)
No, commerce represents the will of the people in the community. If you put up a strip club and nobody shows up and it goes out of business, that is the will of the community.
If 95% of the people don't want it in the community, the remaining 5% that patronize it can still keep it thriving; especially if its bringing traffic from outside the neighborhood its actually in as well.
Commercial viability vs the will of the community are not necessarily in alignment either.
If you want to put up a strip club and the government says no, that may or may not be the will of the community
Of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your second point reminds me of the marijuana tax stamps that are still law in 20 or so states. You incriminate yourself just by asking to buy the stamp in the first place.
Supreme court tossed this out. Besides, near as anybody can tell, all the tax stamps sold have been to stamp collectors and people looking for curiosity items. So not much good.
The peoples republic of... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Papers Comrade!"
Enjoy. You made it that way.
Re:The peoples republic of... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be worried than when they're done with it, registering a domain name will require permission.... setting up a website in the US will require permission. Maybe registering on a website could require permission.
Permission (Score:3)
"line up in sacramento first" (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternately, don't do business in California.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternately, don't do business in California.
NewEgg has a warehouse in City of Industry. Wonder how this will effect them.
Re: (Score:2)
NewEgg has a warehouse in City of Industry. Wonder how this will effect them.
Probably not at all. This is a proposed law, and it is unlikely that it will be passed. Most bills never become law. I don't see who would benefit from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, this one just might..... Bitcoin is one of those scary new techie things the government officials will feel a need to reign in on. Wouldn't want Californians to get hurt
Re: (Score:3)
Well they can move it to Canada. The government here doesn't really care as long as:
1) It's legal
2) If you're mining, you pay capital gains over $5k earned
3) You preform due diligence and pay your taxes if they apply on BT transactions.
Many merchants never touch a bitcoin (Score:5, Informative)
NewEgg has a warehouse in City of Industry. Wonder how this will effect them.
It probably wouldn't even if passed. Many merchants who "accept" bitcoins in fact never touch them. They pay a bitcoin exchange to do so. The merchants tell the exchange the $ amount. The exchange creates a payment address and a BTC amount to give the buyer. When the coins show up at this address and are verified the exchange credits the merchant's account for the exact amount of $ originally stated by the merchant. The merchant does all pricing and accounting in $ and has no risk from BTC price fluctuations.
It seems the only thing necessary would be for the exchange not to be in California.
Re: (Score:2)
So... Wouldn't the bit coin exchange be barred from doing business with those Californian companies??
Why? The business and the exchange did not perform any transaction in bitcoins. The business asked the exchange to collect some number of dollars from a person, much like they ask VISA to do so. Only the exchange and the buyer are performing a transaction in bitcoins.
Re: (Score:2)
So... Wouldn't the bit coin exchange be barred from doing business with those Californian companies??
That would clearly be stepping on the toes of the feds, because it would clearly be interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cali wants to be a dictatorial state, let 'em. The whole state will dry up and blow away soon and this benighted attempt to control a non-sovereign borderless non-currency becomes a moot point.
Unfortunately the people who leave California due to it being so screwed up keep moving to other states and then pressing for similar laws in that state.
Re:"line up in sacramento first" (Score:5, Informative)
People keep saying that. California is doing fine. And will continue to do so in the future. If you lived there, you would understand.
I live in California, and I certainly don't understand. Every year, California becomes more and more anti-business. Companies are leaving the state. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in America. There are still many business here, including many "hubs" for tech, entertainment, aerospace, etc. But we are slowly choking the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Re: "line up in sacramento first" (Score:4, Interesting)
You nailed it. Been here for over 40 years and have owned several businesses. Each year the state comes up with new taxes and restrictions that seem aimed at killing new businesses. Hell, even Hollywood doesnt do business here anymore. Some irony in that at least. If anyone wants to know why its so jacked up here just watch the video feed of the morons in Sacramento while they are in session and just passing laws with zero input or discussion. Their standard nice is to pass a law that won't hold up in court just so they can say they did something. And of course the legal challenges cost the taxpayers millions if anyone has the money to challenge them. Boutique legislation at its finest.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, even Hollywood doesnt do business here anymore. Some irony in that at least.
There's even more: the money is going from CA to .ca! It's not just leaving the state, it's leaving the country. Thanks, California, for helping to make the USA grate. California is fractally corrupt. From a distance, it looks corrupt. Then you get your nose really up into it, and it's corrupt all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in CA too, and I agree. The businesses that are still here are here because it costs money to move. Unless you're starting up yet another Twitter clone with someone else's money you'd be daft to start you business here.
Re:"line up in sacramento first" (Score:5, Informative)
I used to. I was born there. Moved out awhile back when it became apparent I'd never be able to own a house that wasn't less than a 2 hour drive from work. I did live there, and I did not understand.
Perhaps if you lived somewhere else *you'd* understand.
Re:"line up in sacramento first" (Score:4, Funny)
That's why your entire population is moving ...
I wish they would move faster. 'Cause it's fucking impossible to find reasonable housing here in southern CA.
Re: (Score:3)
People in California are reproducing at a faster rate than people are moving, so the population isn't going to be decreasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish more people would leave, its getting crowded here. But, alas, idiotic opinions on slashdot don't translate into reality.
-Matt
Re: (Score:3)
Vested interest opinions rarely make any sense, generally being based on desires and propaganda, rather than facts. It is hardly surprising that governments would ban ponzi currencies. Every time some crazy new scam comes to and end, those who thought they were going to end up get rich quick millionaires run around screaming about, freedom and the right to lie, cheat and steal and fraud is protected free speech and, and, and, what ever else they can scream about in the childish rage about being cheated fro
Re: (Score:2)
So. Again. What about bitcoin is a ponzi scheme?
yeah, California is falling apart (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the state, it's deeply in debt and politically utterly dysfunctional. Educational performance has fallen to nearly the bottom of the nation. The infrastructure is falling apart. Taxes are sky-high. The prisons are overcrowded and an embarrassment to the nation. Everything is regulated, from putting a shed in your backyard to how the hens are kept that produce your eggs. People and businesses are moving out of the state if they can.
California weather and scenery will mean that it will always remain a playground for retirees and the wealthy. And its widespread crony capitalism will keep some corporations around. But anybody with half a brain, and anybody who actually wants to innovate and accomplish something will move elsewhere.
Re:yeah, California is falling apart (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, Wells Fargo's California Economic Outlook report for last month starts off "California’s economy continues to power forward, with many of the Golden State’s largest and most important industries gaining momentum over the course of 2014."
https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/downloads/pdf/com/insights/economics/regional-reports/California_Economic_Outlook_02242015.pdf
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's your explanation. They're trying to run out the riff-raff.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just the wealthy elderly. Just the wealthiest few percent. This is a pattern throughout a lot of coastal areas and big cities.
Re: (Score:2)
People and businesses are moving out of the state if they can.
I wish that were true. Then I could drive around the bay area on a weekend without getting in a traffic jam.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but a debt of 130 billion on a Gross State Product of 2 trillion hardly counts as 'deeply in debt'.
As most economic illiterates, you confuse debt with interest. Debt is irrelevant. What is relevant is being able to service that debt; California has had its troubles in that area, but mostly because idiots like you managed to shackle the government's tax-raising powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Still a trifle on a 2.2 trillion GDP. And I noticed you glossed over the fact that static debt numbers are meaningless, it's the debt service that counts.
Nope, you don't get to do that. Local debts are the responsibility of the local authorities, you don't get to add them to the state debt. And If they have enough tax base
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yeah, California is falling apart (Score:4, Funny)
And they will try to get someone to paint a warning on the Sun that it contains agents known in the State of California to cause cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:yeah, California is falling apart (Score:4, Insightful)
Except due to loopholes, corporations pay far less. And I quote from Citizens For Tax Justice [ctj.org] (and I've seen far less flattering numbers, like most companies pay 5% or less, but they probably included unprofitable ones that don't pay any taxes - this study only included profitable companies).
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has corporate headquarters in Cupertino, CA, but its cash management division operates from a shell company in Nevada, which has no corporate taxes, to avoid California's 8.84% corporate tax rate. Never mind that Apple also collects $400M in R&D tax credits from California.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-apple-dodges-billions-in-taxes-2012-4 [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That is sooooooooooo insanely cool!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I was born in Santa Cruz in the late seventies, and California has a whole hell of a lot wrong with it, most of it political. I actually miss the days when it was full of hippies, which were winding up right around the time I was born.
Re: (Score:3)
Baloney. People who hate on California have never lived here.
We don't need to. We see Californians all of the time, that's enough.
Ever heard of the term "Californication"?
Are we supposed to form our opinions of the pros and cons of the States based on the Red Hot Chilli Pepper's creative works?
Re:yeah, California is falling apart (Score:5, Informative)
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/... [taxfoundation.org]
California ranks #4 in terms of overall tax burden, just behind NY, NJ, and CT.
California also has the top marginal income tax rate in the country; even worse if you life in SF.
Facts, you should try getting them sometimes.
Oh, and if you make less than $150k/year, you are barely middle class in the Bay Area.
But you're right: economically, Alabama is pretty lousy too. The fact that California sucks doesn't mean that some other states suck as well.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet all 4 of these have a GDP per capita higher than the US average. Apparently the facts say that this tax burden isn't so crippling after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not about the money, its about what the money can buy. You even said it yourself with your last line:
This means that for almost all of CA, a $100k/year household income is sufficient to live a VERY solid upper-middle-class to middle-upper-class living.
100k/year in a place like Alabama affords you a 4,000sqft home within 30 minutes from best jobs and economic centers in the state. If you live in other areas in Alabama, people can afford a good middle class living on $50k/year and even less if youre smart. Support positions that don't require physical presence are frequently moved from CA to the east coast and the cost savings is on the order of
Unconstitutional? (Score:2)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:5, Informative)
The guy who wrote the original piece does not understand the Legislative process. He does not understand bills.
This particular law is supposed to make any BTC-based business acting like a wire-transfer service follow the same laws dollar-based-witre-transfer-services follow. Since paying for things, and accepting payments, do not result in you having to register you McDonald's as a wire transfer service and comply with financial regulations; most BTC-using businesses will be fine.
If you were setting up a newer, better Mt. God, or a tumbler, or something like that you've got extra paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens ARE allowed to trade in whatever means you desire. however those that operate businesses have reporting and legal obligations. you can trade in potatoes and Spanish onions as your currency if you want, but even then expect regulations if you make transfers between people and in and out of other currencies possible.
Re: (Score:2)
To figure out the exact implication for those folks you'd have to get a finance guy and a lawyer to read the bill.
I suspect that the applicability would depend on how easy it was to turn those dollars into real money (i.e.: if you can withdraw Linden Dollars as USD it's a problem), and how common hacks around the system are. So if people start using their Second Life accounts to wire money to the cousins in Peru it's likely Second Life will have to comply.
Regardless, if you're as rich as Blizzard you damn w
Re: (Score:2)
Try taxing, "I'll fix your car if you mow my lawn."
What? That's not even a difficult example. You value the car repair based on the flat-rate time estimate and the average price of auto repair in your region, and you value the lawn mowing based on the average price of getting that done, and then you tax people accordingly. Note I'm not saying that this should be done, only that it's easy to value if you are informed about the activity.
Re: (Score:2)
World of Warcraft Not Affected (Score:2)
The proposed law specifically exempts gaming pseudo-money. Section 26000 of AB 1326 states: "Virtual currency shall not be construed to include digital
units that are used solely within online gaming platforms with no market or application outside of those gaming platforms."
The author is not an American... (Score:5, Informative)
Or is so unfamiliar with the US Political process they really shouldn't be commenting on bills. In Westminster-style democracies a bill being introduced by the government has a virtually 100% chance of becoming law, so it's very important when such a bill is introduced. But in the US there is no body in the state Legislature with the same role as the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, so all bills are the equivalent of Private Member's Bills in Canada/the UK/etc.
Which means that it's very important to know who sponsored this bill? Are they a Republican or a Democrat? What's their political point of view on the issue? What are their relationships with the rest of the State Assembly? The Senate? The Governor? These are all very important facts that the original story does not tell you, probably because the author does not know how the US Legislative process work.
The answers seem to be this was authored by Matt Dababneh, who represents a slice of the "Valley Girls" Valley in greater LA. He's a Democrat. The latter is good for the bill's odds of passage, the fact he has no Senate cosponsor is not because if it's not introduced in the Senate it can't become law. His point of view seems to be that you can use Bitcoin as a money-transfer service so any business based on changing dollars into BTC should follow the same banking rules that write-transfer services do.
Re: (Score:2)
...the fact he has no Senate cosponsor is not because if it's not introduced in the Senate it can't become law.
Can someone explain this quadruple negative? I'm not sure I understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Reads well to me - to become law it needs to be passed in the Senate. To be passed in the Senate, it needs to be introduced by a Senator, no one else can introduce a bill into the Senate. And this bill has no Senator signed on as a sponsor of the bill, so it can't be introduced into the Senate, so the Senate cannot pass it, so it cannot become law.
WARNING: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
> cause untraceable transactions
And this differs from cash, how? And...what's so untraceable about bitcoin, considering every transaction *permanently and publicly stored*. It's such a pain in the ass to anonymize [bitcoin.it], that even Dread Pirate Roberts seemingly got sick of it.
Re: (Score:3)
> cause untraceable transactions
And this differs from cash, how? And...what's so untraceable about bitcoin, considering every transaction *permanently and publicly stored*. It's such a pain in the ass to anonymize [bitcoin.it], that even Dread Pirate Roberts seemingly got sick of it.
WhilenI agre with your comments re: Bitcoin anonymity it does differ from ash in that I need to actually hand you cash rather than make a payment from McD's via free WiFi. cash transactions are limited by the need to to a face to face exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when you fold your bills into little paper airplanes, and deliver via well aimed transfers from the tops of sky scrapers. BRING IT!
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL ... (Score:2)
Re:IANAL ... (Score:4, Interesting)
And therein lays the rub. Bitcoin wants to establish itself as neither fish nor fowl, yet seeks to become both.
Banking laws historically have been among the most useful of all laws. We only have to look back to what was going on before there were comprehensive banking laws, and what happens when we try to have "reform" of the banking laws (the 2008 worldwide crash).
If you can't trust bankers to behave, why would anyone trust a bunch of skeevy ubercoin types?
Re: (Score:2)
"Banking laws historically have been among the most useful of all laws."
No laws are useful if the government refuses to enforce them. Leading up to 2008, they weren't even enforcing laws against fraud being perpetrated by bankers. They were definitely ignoring rampant securities fraud with the CDS and MBS stuff. In the midst of the disaster, the FDIC refused to follow its "prompt corrective action" mandate. Government also refused to investigate and prosecute thousands of instances of forgery, perjury a
FALSE HEADLINE (Score:5, Insightful)
From the text of the bill:
26004. The following are exempt from the licensing requirement described in Section 26002:
(6) A merchant or consumer that utilizes virtual currency solely for the purchase or sale of goods or services.
This bill has nothing to do with people who wish to buy or sell goods or services in bitcoins. It is intended to regulate bitcoin exchanges, presumably to avoid another Mt Gox scenario. The bill is still in its very, very early stages, and so I'm sure there are problems with the verbiage. But the headline and summary are absolute bullshit, intended to drive readers into an anti-government rage, and thus generate clicks.
Re:FALSE HEADLINE (Score:5, Funny)
Damn you and your facts!
Re: (Score:3)
... intended to drive readers into an anti-government rage, and thus generate clicks.
And boy does it work!
Baning interstate commerce? (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I checked that was unconstitutional. Feds make these rules and laws
Re: (Score:2)
The amendment is based not on currency but one state imposing tariff or banning products from another. Since trading is commerce they are banning something produced in another state or country
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying bitcoin is a product?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that the use of Bitcoin isn't commerce? If it is, it clearly falls under the purview of the federal govt. and interstate commerce rules.
Shut up and drink your kool-aid (Score:2)
My state does that... (Score:2)
... with barber shops. You need a permit, and to take an exam which shows you know how to avoid electrocuting your customers with the electric clippers, and how not to transmit ringworm or scabies.
Radical stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
My state does that ... with barber shops. You need a permit, and to take an exam which shows you know how to avoid electrocuting your customers with the electric clippers, and how not to transmit ringworm or scabies.
Rats, I knew I should have checked with a lawyer before opening my Joe's Barber Shop and Scabies Quartet franchise!
retarded article (Score:4, Informative)
This looks like a simple case of a blogger not knowing what the fuck he is talking about. Nothing being banned in the legislation, seems to merely be trying to ensure virtual currency is regulated in the exact same way as dollars. If anything you could say this is a positive for bitcoin, but it seems the tards that support bitcoin look at anything that takes away there opportunities for fraud and tax evasion as the government stomping on their god given rights.
it's a matter of public safety (Score:2)
Anyway ... (Score:2)
... it's Bitcoin.
The only thing that makes less sense than Bitcoin is this goddam bill in California regarding it.
Outlaw All Non-Electronic Transactions (Score:4, Funny)
After all, what is a "virtual currency" but a "good" to be exchanged? All in-game credits should be prohibited from being used to pay for items outside the game or being exchanged for cash Trading goods or services for other goods or services? Also should be illegal, since how can the Government monitor such transactions? Cash should also be made illegal, since it can not be immediately tracked and might be used for nefarious purchases and most importantly, privately held cash destabilizes our glorious economy by keeping it out of the hands of the almighty Financial Institutions who can use it to invest in hedge funds and conduct other sound business practices like lending it out to other large institutions or buy up massive tracts of property to mortgage to Wealthy Chinese Citizens thereby keeping our economy strong.
The only legal means of paying for goods or services should be with a Chip and Pin implant on your hand or forehead.
It's only a currency if you think it is. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they've learned nothin (Score:2)
... you can't really stop a currency like this... that's sort of the whole point. You can make it less convenient but you might also make the process by which it operates even harder to monitor.
Also, the legality of such a law is dubious.
Same Old (Score:2)
FUDD (Score:2)
(FUDD = fear, uncertainty, doubt, and disinformation)
Money-transfer businesses are already regulated in California as the result of several such businesses failing. The proposed law merely adds bitcoin-transfer businesses to that category. This is a consumer-protection proposal in an attempt to prevent another Mt. Gox.
Re:As stupid as bitcoin is (Score:5, Insightful)
As is the idea of tech blogs, which are perennially stupid when it comes to actually understanding the legal system, posting articles without understanding the subject matter. If you read the text it mainly says "if you're going to act like a bank, we're going to regulate you like a bank, even if you claim cryptocurrency makes you immune because it isn't real". I don't see how it seems unreasonable. Given bitcoin exchanges' track records it seems like a downright good idea, and it might help shake off the terrible reputation that bitcoin has outside of crazy people.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you read the text it mainly says "if you're going to act like a bank, we're going to regulate you like a bank, even if you claim cryptocurrency makes you immune because it isn't real".
So to be clear, they're going to let people lend against bitcoin? Because what makes a bank is that they're allowed to take your money and then loan it out multiple times.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't loan out bitcoins multiple times. You can, however, make a paper bitcoin certificate and loan that out. The trick is convincing people that this bitcoin certificate is actually worth something.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe PayPal is already registered. Any company in the business of transferring money must register. Existing California laws require this in response to a number of cases where money-transfer businesses received payments but failed to transfer them, either because they went bankrupt or were just plain frauds. The new law merely proposes to include bitcoin transfer businesses within that same regulatory framework. This is NOT blocking bitcoin transfers; this is protecting consumers who want to trans
Re: (Score:2)
That'd a good way to get otherwise reasonable people to pass laws like this and worse "in the memory of". Its about the same with threats because with their armed state police or secret service guards at their side, they will want to prove you cannot intimidate them with threats.
Re: (Score:2)
"All vehicles must be stock. What bull."
As someone that lives in CA with a modified 750 Mercer (1950s Coventry Climax engine in it) I'm gonna say you're the one full of shit, child.
You just got pulled over because your shitty ass mods were INCORRECTLY INSTALLED. Like your fucking illegal shit-quality PINK HIDs with an excess amount of blue that hurts people's fucking eyes.
4 Cylinder at 900 horsepower? Man you're so full of shit even the noob tuners know better.
BTW We've got car shows with street exhibitions
Re: (Score:2)
All vehicles must be stock. What bull.
Yes, that is bull. As in, you are full of shit. Not only does California permit you to run pretty much anything you like if you get it approved, but California will actually let you build one full-custom vehicle in your life and drive it without crash testing, something you can't even do legally in most states. It has to have all the basic safety equipment and pass an inspection but it doesn't have to meet any of the federal crash test standards. It just needs a windscreen and a floor pan, brakes, signals,