Am I going crazy? I provided an honest source for my point. It was pointed out the source I used is likely biased. I therefore provided a second independent source that agreed with the original source. No one has yet provided any source that disagrees with anything I stated or anything stated by either of the sources I linked. And yet is a fallacy for me to ask that someone should have a source if they are going to argue against the two sources I provided?
Your source was someone asserting, without justification, that it is illegal. That's not a legal argument. Even without considering that the source is very, very biased, it's not helpful.