Guitars and Guns -- Are your stocks and grips legal?

The Wall Street Journal has had some very interesting articles concerning the Feds using different laws to make headline cases. Like the article that started this thread, the WSJ had one back on July 23 titled: "As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Ensnared." The subject there was that there are so many laws that there is no way a person could know if they are breaking a law or not anymore.

One example was where the Feds tried a man for breaking a treaty even though it was repealed. This is a very disturbing time for all of us.

Realizing that any violation can cause a person to lose his "rights", everyone needs to be aware. You lose your 2nd Rights if there is a possibility that your sentence is 1 year or more. Not what your actual sentence might be.

Several people that I met in criminal justice had the thought about the general public that was "you're all guility, we just have not figured out of what, yet."
 
Several people that I met in criminal justice had the thought about the general public that was "you're all guility, we just have not figured out of what, yet."
Click to expand...
Thank you,pcb911. Well said!!

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand
Click to expand...
 
Well, I can tell you this much, if I'm taking my firearms across international borders, then compliance with the Lacey Act is the least of my concerns! ;)

This article disgusts me. From the case name, United States v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms, this carries the putrescent stench of straight-up asset forfeiture.

If they can do this to Gibson, imagine what they could do to Joe's Grips 'n Stocks? These are serious charges - felonies - with prison time and crushing fines attached. Look what they did to Mr. Vieillard (the piano guy). Fined him nearly 18 large for a misdemeanor.
 
Yet it's not even about protecting some endangered species of tree. It's about jobs in India. At least that's how I read it. India wants to make sure that the finished product is done by Indian workers. Export the product after that and there doesn't seem to be a problem.

Again, it comes down to the Government, in this case, the Justice Department, cracking down on private companies over a mythical duty to adhere to a foreign law.

No charges have been brought and never likely will but, Gibson won't be getting their stuff back and neither will India. It will sit in some government storage facility rotting away.

Some people like to spice up their guns with exotic woods and some people make a living custom designing stocks and grips for our guns. Now we have to worry about our government shaking us down because, we as the buyer of the finished product or the buyer of the raw wood didn't follow the export laws of another country?

Is it possible that you could get caught up in some government crack down of exotic wood importing and end up defending yourself in order to keep your 2nd Amendment rights? Normally I would say that's crazy talk but I wouldn't have thought our government would be raiding Gibson for wood and guitars either.
 
Actually, I gather the "endangered species" thing is conjecture on the CEO's part. He doesn't know what he's charged with because the Feds won't tell him!

I'm sure the Fed lawyers are working on a charge, however, it just takes time. Thus the stay they (the Feds) requested on their first court case against Gibson two years ago!
 
Another thing that is in the WSJ, is the official notice of confiscation of money and items for ATF, IRS, and DEA. Last week there was over half a page of 9mm submachine guns with serial numbers that were taken by the Feds for some reason or another.

It reminds me of pirates the way they grab anything they want and you have to fight and spend money to get back your property.
 
Apparently, the Lacey Act has been the law since the early 20th century but applied to animals and animal products. In 2008 it was expanded to include plants.

There is an FAQ page about the Lacey Act here: http://www.eia-global.org/lacey/P6.EIA.LaceyReport.pdf

According to this FAQ page, the term “'Illegally sourced' is defined by the content of sovereign nations’ own laws." In other words, it is the law of the other country that determines whether the wood is lawful or not. And, it doesn't have to be endangered or protected. A "log export ban" by the country of origin make the wood "illegally sourced." Gibson's CEO seems to think the latest raid is aimed at this since Gibson imports certain wood blanks and finishes them here.

A few points worth noting:

1. If you "knowingly" trade in a prohibited wood, it is a felony and up to $250,000 fine per individual or $500,000 per corporation.

2. An "unknowing" violation can be either: (a) a misdemeanor and fines of $100,000 individual/$200,000 corporation if the person did not engage in "due caution" or (b) if there was "due caution" used, forfeiture of goods.
 
We are now subject to the laws of foreign countries????

Are you going to go to jail because you bought a Norinco made in China?

Why not? Chinese citizens are not allowed to own guns.

What about all those Winchesters made in Japan?

What if you drive your Japanese made car faster than the speed limit in Japan?

What about, what about, etc., etc., etc.

These “what if’s” might seem silly now but the “Indian rosewood” law sounds silly, also, and look at what happened to Gibson.

It’s a long list of countries we’re dealing with and the Feds are on it.

This could get, and probably will get, very serious.
 
Well, I think it applies to plants (wood) and animal products (ivory) which are defined by the other country as being "illegally sourced."
 
chicago style?

Not to get the thread off track, but one interesting thing not mentioned in the WSJ article is that the Gibson CEO is a known Republican contributor. The CEO of Martin, the main competitor of Gibson who uses pretty much the same wood stocks in their guitars, but hasn't been similarly raided, is a prominent Democratic contributor (big one too I believe). Wonder if there might be more news here yet.
 
Here is my problem with the whole thing.

You have armed agents runing folks out of buildings for the sake of agreement with some foreign law. What the hell kinda justification are they going to have when someone gets killed over god 6@#%ed rose wood guitar necks. Whether by use of force on someone fed up and resisting or just an accident. Our governmet willing to hurt our citizens because India said the wood was illegal to sell in their own country.

Man my stomach turns just to think about it.
 
Last edited:
The Philippines have a law banning the logging/cutting of certain trees. I happen to have those certain trees on my property. (I own a small coconut farm :D) I want to remove these trees and use the wood for building a drying house. The paperwork involved in extremely complicated and costly.

I wonder if I would be subjected to a raid on my house here in the U.S. if I was caught with a spice rack made from a limb that fell off the tree? I may be wrong, but this seems to be what the federal government is alleging. Am I missing something?
 
I wonder if I would be subjected to a raid on my house here in the U.S. if I was caught with a spice rack made from a limb that fell off the tree? I may be wrong, but this seems to be what the federal government is alleging. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Killing or possession of endangered species is by permit only. It is like collecting bald eagle feathers from under a nest. Just because the limb isn't on the protected tree or the feather isn't on the bald eagle does not make the limb or feather no longer protected.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
It is like collecting bald eagle feathers from under a nest. Just because the limb isn't on the protected tree or the feather isn't on the bald eagle does not make the limb or feather no longer protected.
Click to expand...

Charles Dickens said:
The law is a ass, a idiot.
Click to expand...

If someone can explain the logic of this law, I'll be hanged. The feather, which is neither eagle, nor part of an eagle, having been cast off as part of said eagle's natural life cycle, is an eagle. Similarly, the fallen limb, which is without qualification no longer part of the tree, is a tree.

Oh, yes, I get it. We can't know if that nefarious hiker found that eagle feather on the ground or throttled the eagle and all its young to acquire it, but sheesh! To paraphrase Cool Hand Luke, "sayin' it's the law, boss, don't make it right."
 
I can explain this quite simply. There is a huge market for many of the endangered species and their parts. People will claim the parts are cast-offs, isolated finds, etc. when they are not. The goal of the law is to squash the whole custody chain from complete living animal to ground up tiger baculum powder final product. It is all taboo until the species recovers, except by permit.

Those fallen limbs, when it comes to being a commodity, strangely "fall off" in record numbers for no apparent reason.

If you can't have it at all, it saves on a lot of the problems being brought up here about proving provenance.

The sad thing is, there are far too many nefarious hikers that will throttle and eagle for a feather or who would gladly shoot some rare animal to just be able to say that they killed one.

With that said, if you don't like the law, now is your chance to shine. What are YOU doing to try to change it? Have you contacted your representatives? Have you looking into whatever other efforts are being put forth to change the law? What are YOU doing about it?
 
The law vs reason...law wins..

unless/until a court decides otherwise. One of the disturbing things about the Gibson case is that property and assets are siezed, and they cannot do anything much until they get charged with something.

The whole "prove to us that you did NOT do something" attitude is the mentality of tyrants. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty, for some things, still, but for others, sadly the only innocence you have is the word "alleged" in news reports. Everything else you have to fight the system for.

Don't file your taxes? Prove to the IRS that you had no income!

Got an ivory bead on the front sight of that 90 year old high end sporter rifle? Prove to the govt that you didn't kill an elephant and mount it there yourself last week!

This may be politically motivated, but don't jump to conclusions. Administration supporters who break these laws suffer as well. Anyone remember back during the Clinton years, when an avid Hillary fan made a dream catcher and sent it to her? Turned out that it had eagle feathers, which, IIRC the lady picked up from the ground at a zoo. She was arrested.
(cannot now remember if there was prosecution or not, but I do remember that lady got arrested for having the feathers).

I understand the blanket nature of these laws, and the reasoning behind them. I can even accept the idea that making posession (however obtained) illegal keeps those limbs from "falling off" in large numbers. However, reason says that when a judge hears the details of the case, a decision can be made that you did just "find it on the ground".

BUT, until charges are brought, you will never even see a judge, and the judge will never see your case!

It seems very, very wrong to me that property can be siezed without charges being filed. It ought to be procedure that property cannot be siezed without charges. After all, if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, charges can be filed, THEN property siezed. If there is not enough evidence of a crime to file charges, what right (and overriding interest) can the govt have to sieze property? Morally, none, in my opinion.

Sadly, however, in the last couple decades, laws have been written, and some even passed allowing and even requiring the govt to do just that!

One bit of the Clinton crime bill (which I believe did get thrown out before passage) allowed the govt to sieze assets of people under investigation!

Would you like to have your bank accounts frozen while the govt ponders if you have committed a crime? Already you can be banned from flying (without any recourse as far as I know) if your name get put (rightly or wrongly) on a certain list, one that is not available to the general public.

A piece here, a piece there, pretty soon, you are talking real infringement.
 
44Amp, the woman who sent Clinton the dream catcher was Peg Bargon back in 1994. Feathers weren't just from an eagle, but from several protected birds. Not only that, but she had lots of other feathers at her shop and was engaged in the selling of dream catchers made from the feathers of protected species. She was actively engaged in the procurement and selling of the feathers of protected species - trafficking. She received probation and a $1200 fine. She got off easy, a slap on the wrist because the judge did listen to her circumstances. She could have been charged individually for each feather.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...199_1_pardon-convicted-hillary-rodham-clinton

Bill Clinton did pardon her.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-01-21/news/0101210442_1_clemency-grants-pardons-conviction/2
 
Maybe I'm just dense and don't understand. But, don't we have something called the Fourth Amendment which protects us from unwarranted search and seizure? If no U.S. Law has been broken, then how did they get a darn warrant? Or did they even have a warrant? The story didn't seem to mention that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top