9 Insane Loopholes You Won't Believe Are Legal

You would assume this was illegal on the grounds of the longstanding legal precedent established in Terrified Civilians v. Holy Shit, a Goddamn Tank. But as long as the treads are modified to prevent road damage, you and your friends can roll up to 7-11 for a Slurpee in enough hardware to overthrow a banana republic, and no one can say a thing. Of course, the guns have to be disabled ... unless you're an American, baby.

In the Land of the Free, you just need a $200 federal Destructive Device Permit. That sounds like something the government would give Iron Man, but it's meant for bank executives with hard-ons for World War II armor. A local police chief also has to sign off on your ownership, and we're sure none have ever been coerced by having a tank barrel pointed at their office. The only way tank ownership could be more patriotic is if the guns were modified to fire bald eagles holding other, smaller guns.

As for Mr. Mead, his biggest concern is that his children will one day grow tired of looking like stone-cold badasses. Shit, man, adopt us -- you could drive us to the dentist and we wouldn't stop laughing maniacally.

We all know how prison is. Someone you don't like enters your cell, you and your buddy stab him 90 times, he dies, and you get in a little trouble. What are they going to do, charge you with murder and send you to super prison?

Nope. First of all, super prison doesn't exist. We made that up. But more to the point, inmate Antero Alaniz successfully defended himself under Colorado's "Make My Day" law, which allows for the use of any degree of physical force against someone who breaks into your "dwelling."

Real talk, Colorado: We're sure you felt cool quoting Clint Eastwood in your legislature, but having a law named after a movie quote makes other states laugh at you behind your back. We don't care how badass it makes lawyers feel -- you're one step away from an "I never treated you like a prostitute" law that legalizes brothels.

But more to the point, maaaybe you shouldn't set a legal precedent that lets prisoners get away with murdering other prisoners. We always figured that a dwelling was something you dwelled in voluntarily, even if Alaniz put a few pressed flowers on the wall and really made it his own. Alaniz's argument was that his victim was armed and all up in his dwelling, the same argument that Colorado's hobos will now use after they beat you for wandering under their bridge.

We're not fancy law-talking folk, so we're not going to question the logic of the Dirty Harry Precedent. But we will quote actual lawyers who are doing that. The prosecutor is planning to appeal because the ruling "could limit how the Department of Corrections is able to run a safe facility." We believe that's legal speak for "If you don't change this law, you might as well rename our prisons Stab Cities."

Now this may shock you, but strangers on the Internet do not always make for the best parents. Children can end up with abusive families, such as this Canadian couple, who insisted that they needed to unload their new son because he was leaving behind a swath of destruction consistent with his background as a child soldier. To be fair, he must have been one absolutely terrifying soldier if he managed to serve before the civil war in Liberia ended when he was two.

Transferring children isn't inherently illegal, as seriously ill or impoverished parents can sign their child over to a friend or family member in times of need. But adoption agencies don't have the time or resources to check on how every adopted child is doing, and terrible parents don't have the time to re-adopt through official channels because, well, they're terrible. So kids who've come to North America after being promised a better life end up getting shipped to some yahoo on Yahoo.

We fully support private nudity, but as far as we're concerned, your right to dangle your dongle ends the moment the sight of you gives us flashbacks to the time we saw our junior high gym teacher in the change room and we were forced to confront the fact that we will one day be old.

A North Carolina man has spent years taking advantage of the slim line between private and pubic public property to enjoy standing in his doorway and sharing what his mama gave him with the world. It's a sight no one wants to see, but as long as you're in your own home, you can let it all hang loose in the eyes of God and neighbors who want to get home without any mental scarring. There's not a damn thing the lawman can do.

To be fair, we understand the legal argument here. That is his doorway, behind his tree that hides some but not enough. Never enough. Less clear is the logic that allows a man to wander the streets of Topeka like it's Kansas' sad equivalent of a nude beach.

Despite walking past schools, where sexual education courses may be abruptly and unfortunately accelerated, police say there's nothing against the law unless there's a sexual element to his nudity. In other words, "If you're hard, you're getting charged. If you're soft, you can stroll off." This came as a shock to the concerned citizens who took photos of the man for what we're sure are legal purposes and will have absolutely no private secondary uses whatsoever.

The eventual explanation was so mundane that it was disappointing yet hilarious. A couple of 20-something guys wanted a place to hang out, and apparently took the expression "man cave" literally. Their knowledge of structural engineering was sound, although the fact that they weren't familiar with the concept of basements, bars, coffee shops, or anywhere else that isn't a dark tunnel suggests that they may in fact be homeless Morlocks.

At any rate, police opined that "There's no crime against digging a hole," unless you dig way too deep and end up trespassing on some Chinese guy's property. Because the lair was built on a public park, police and parks officials went back and forth on what bylaw violation, if any, to charge the men with, before finally shrugging their shoulders when they realized they had better things to do with their time. And that's the story of how Canada is pretty chill about people building supervillain hideouts on government property.

Indiana's "religious freedom" law, which, among other things, has allowed businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples, has created a lot of unintended side effects. For example, the rest of the country now hates Indiana. But there are also other, much funnier side effects, such as how the state has now been forced to recognize those who worship at the altar of Bob Marley and Oreos that have their cookie parts replaced with cool ranch Doritos.

Weed, both recreational and medicinal, is illegal in the Crossroads of Buzzkilling America. But the Church of Cannabis is arguing that, under the new law, they will be able to claim "reefer" is an essential part of their religious practices and thus free from government interference. If it works, let's all keep the strategy on the downlow from the bath salts people.

The church's founder and guy who could definitely score you a little something-something if you're in town is Bill Levin. He's currently working on securing the rock upon which he will build his church, or at least sit on at night, look up at the stars and really think about life, man. He hopes his future building will host heroin and alcohol addiction services, as well as one sweet-ass sundae bar. Levin raked in $2,000 in donations in five days, and members will be asked to pay a monthly tithe of $4.20, because of course they will. Levin hopes to build his church with hempcrete, and one of his 12 commandments is "Spend at least 10 minutes a day just contemplating life in a quiet space," and we're going to stop here before we enforce any more pot-smoking stereotypes.

But the most obvious flaw is that schools can violate someone's privacy if there's "reasonable cause," and threaten criminal charges if they don't comply. Remember, this isn't like the time your mom bugged you to accept your friend request and you relented only after adjusting your privacy settings so she'd only see pictures of your cat. If you hand over your password to someone, they can see everything. You know what we mean. Everything.

So it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which a student is falsely accused of cyberbullying, and the school digs up something else incriminating. "Why Billy, we were wrong to accuse you. Surely someone who's nice enough to help a little old lady across the street on his way to GameStop, even though he said he was home sick, would never stoop to such cruelty." Or "It's okay, everyone! Billy was way too busy having a private conversation with an adolescent bedwetting support group to call Tammy a turbo-slut. And he certainly wouldn't want to throw kidney stones in his glass house, huh?"

If there's any consolation here, it's that we doubt a state that thought this law was a good idea has any clue what social media sites their kids are actually using. "Billy, if you don't hand over your Xanga and LiveJournal passwords, we'll ask your parents to revoke your Tamagotchi privileges! We're not messing around, Billy!"

The updated law is making good progress. As for the perpetrator, he claims he did it for romantic reasons. Dude, that's not how seduction works. We would suggest that next time, he just ask someone out for coffee, but ... yeah. Never mind. Don't do that.

Her landlord is essentially running a Batman-esque gambit to evict Follingstad. When she moved into the top floor of the house, someone else was renting the main-level apartment, which made the building a multi-unit dwelling. But after that neighbor left, the landlord turned the apartment into a storage unit, and thus the house became a single-unit home. Follingstad is still legally protected from eviction, but she's no longer protected from rent increases because ... reasons? It's not clear why single-unit renters can be screwed with impunity, unless this is a very misguided attempt to make them more social. But if Follingstad somehow can't afford a 400-percent increase in rent and has to leave, the courts can only shrug their shoulders, declare it a darn shame, and pretend they've never heard the phrase "creative eviction" before.

A neighborhood supervisor commented that, while this doesn't go against the letter of the rent control law, it certainly goes against the spirit. As anyone who's ever cheated at Monopoly (i.e. everyone) could respond, that's not much of a deterrent. Follingstad is consulting lawyers but expects she won't even get her security deposit back. As for the landlord, she's presumably planning to convert the home into some form of lair.

You can read more from Mark, and learn the legal loophole he uses to avoid paying child support, at his website.

Also check out 5 Famous Works That Were Just Half-Assed Copyright Abuses and 5 Insane Ways People Trolled the System (And Won).