Washington State voters do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is another case of the low information voters (despite education and income levels) passing a measure based on its TITLE and sound bites of what it would do, NOT on what the actual law states!
Click to expand...

Careful with the personal attacks on the intelligence of the group that is NOT responsible for the plight of the elephants, rhinos, big cats, big apes, etc.

I know exactly what the law means. Stop trading in the animal parts of endangered animals. Stop lusting after stuff that represents the last of the XYZ animals. If that means you have to use wood or plastic instead of ivory, then so be it... this is 2015, not 1710. We are a more enlightened culture that overwhelmingly frowns on using ivory and similar animal parts for stuff.

Again, anyone here think it's okay to shoot bald eagles? So far nobody has tackled that one.

And, as a reminder, your "rights" to guns has nothing to do with ivory grips and killing rhinos. I fully support the former, and do not support the latter whatsoever.

Society picks and chooses what is socially acceptable all the time. The time for killing the last remaining species has come to an end. It's no longer socially acceptable and becoming more and more unpopular every day.

From a gun ownership standpoint, I'm also glad. These big gamer "hunters" are a black eye on legit hunting and gun ownership. I'll be glad when these hunts are a thing of the past .
 
Last edited:
My objection is not with the principle of not harvesting endangered species for sport, my objection is the details of the law, and how it can be misapplied.

No, I don't think its right to shoot bald eagles, I also don't think its right to prosecute someone who picks up a bald eagle feather off the ground and puts it in a dreamcatcher.

The law COULD have been written to have the intended effect, without putting innocent people at risk of prosecution, or robbing them of the value of property legally obtained and held, but it was not written that way.

THAT is what I object to.
 
leadcouncil....you also seem to ignore the federal treaty implications with a state meddling with legal products from tribal members that have a legal right to sell ivory products to the public.
 
One problem in all this is that the elephant is not endangered. While poaching is a serious problem in some countries because of governmental ineptitude, they need to do the occasional culling of cow elephants in South Africa because of habitat destruction from over-populations in some areas.

Two things are needed in maintenance of populations of wildlife species: First is control by knowledgeable wildlife biologists as to seasons and limits, and second is the funding to combat poaching. Where such methodology is in place, legal hunters have no negative impact on wildlife populations.

Note that where local African villagers share in the money from high fees to hunt elephants, they have a vested interest in fighting poaching--at no cost to the government. Where hunting is outlawed, the poachers reign supreme.

The Washington law is the sort of thinking which enables poaching.
 
Doing a quick search on elephants alone, Defenders of Wildlife (not a pro-hunting group http://www.defenders.org/elephant/basic-facts ) estimates 450,000 - 700,000 African elephants and between 35,000 - 40,000 wild Asian elephants roam the earth. At between 5-7 tons (10,000-14,000 lbs) each and a lifespan of @70 years, eating 300-400 lbs of food EACH day. Do the math and let that all sink in.

Art Eatman is 100% correct in his previous post, but why let facts stand in the way of what "feels" right.

I am not advocating poaching or endangering a species to extinction. I am against hobbling my rights and stealing what I own under the guise of "saving" the elephant or the earth or.... whatever else a special interest group manipulates facts and lies about. What is the pie in the sky number when elephants are not endangered and an ivory ban is lifted and I can legally own what I have always owned? It is a moving target and if you ask most special interest groups, I believe they will admit there is no number for too many elephants. The endangered species list will continue to grow, but not because of less of the species, someone will arbitrarily move the number of where the line is at.
 
Last edited:
I am still hoping that someone can provide informed responses to the questions in my original post, regarding ivory on guns.

In the meantime, I think I have figured out the logic used by proponents of I-1401 as they try to explain why cracking down on old artifacts in Washington State helps to protect favored animal species now living overseas. In order to avoid highly emotional topics like hunting, poaching, and endangerment, I will change my explanation to refer to another type of valued artifact. Here goes: Imagine that I own a 99-year old Picasso painting, which I proudly display in my living room. The fact that I own this painting in Seattle increases the likelihood that armed thugs in France will burst into the Louvre and steal their Picassos. However, as soon as my painting is 100 years old, it will not matter anymore, and the thugs in France will turn to another endeavor. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
I have worked in the environmental field and love to see animals in their natural habitats. The sight of a wild animal is a thrill to me and the last thing I could imagine doing is killing one for sport. However, I have absolutely no problem with others doing so within the parameters setup by wildlife management authorities.

The problem we have in this country is some people choose not to hunt, so they believe no one else should either. Some don’t understand gay marriage, so they oppose gay marriage. Some people don’t own guns, so they believe no one else should own guns either.

Bottom line is people need to learn that an important part of living in a free society is allowing people to exercise freedoms you may not understand or agree with.
 
1. Apparently, if the ivory is from some animal other than an elephant, you are in the clear. See definition 73. But can you prove that? Is it possible to determine the species of origin of a piece of ivory that has been removed from its source? If someone wanted to prosecute a seller of ivory, would it be up to the prosecutor to prove elephant origin, or would the accused have to prove the opposite?

2. You are in the clear if you can document that the ivory is at least 100 years old, and if the ivory is less than 15% by volume of your gun. See section 3(2)(a). Good luck on documenting anything more than 100 years old. And how do you measure the volume of a gun? Does the volume include the empty space in the bore and chamber and the empty space inside the frame between pistol grips? If those empty spaces are part of the gun’s volume, then I am guessing that a pair if ivory pistol grips might meet the threshold of being less than 15% of the gun’s volume.

3. You cannot “sell, offer to sell, purchase, trade, barter for, or distribute” your ivory gun grips, but you can still legally leave ivory to someone in your will. See section 3(2)(c). Of course, it would be valueless to them, because they could not sell it.

4. There may be an out, but I am not sure, in section 3(2)(e), which indicates that your ivory is in the clear if it is “expressly authorized by federal law or permit.” Can anyone comment on whether that might include elephant ivory gun parts?
Click to expand...

Cjwils, I will try to answer as I read the law in regards to ivory handled grips on a gun. Since the law is quite vague and open to much clarification, I could be mistaken.
1. I am not a DNA expert, but probably could be DNA tested (at the expense of ruining the grips) for species and probably age dated. My assumption would be that YOU have to prove that it is legal and bear all the expense.
Interestingly, Smokey Mountain Knife Works sells some Mammoth Ivory handled knives. http://www.smkw.com/webapp/eCommerce/products/Case/Case®+Mammoth+Ivory+Half+Whittler/CA3585.html I wonder if your sales receipt would be enough proof this is not modern elephant or is this now a banned item in WA state?
2. Good question and point. I thought of that and my volume and surface math skills are not up to wanting to figure that out right now. I would once again assume it is just the external surface area of a gun, but the law does not make this clear or address how one figures this out.
Yes, there is very little clear, acceptable documentation that survives 100 years to go with an artifact.
3. Correct, I guess you are left with sentimental value.
4. I THINK the expressly authorized by permit only applies to individuals, like natives, that are allowed by law to possess objects no one else can legally own.
 
leadcounsel
I'd like my children to be able to see these creatures in the wild before the hunters kill them all.
Click to expand...

All due respect to a noble cause: if you think that hunters are the problem, you don't understand the problem.
http://warisboring.com/articles/tan...t-killer/?mc_cid=df02d23911&mc_eid=60686bf977

Here's the pertinent part of the article as relates to your assertion:
PHP: 
Poachers have slaughtered around 100,000 of Africa’s estimated 500,000 elephants in just the last few years. Revenue from bloody ivory sales funds terror groups including Al Shabab and the Lord’s Resistance Army.

If you can show me where all of Africa sold (and filled) more than 100,000 legal hunting licenses, then your argument has a leg on which to stand.

I"m not for the hunting of endangered species; nor am I ever planning on going to Africa to hunt, but you should aim before your fire.
 
Here's another question, as I read the quoted portions of the law, it appears that it is NOT the IVORY which has to be 100 years old, but the "bonafide antique" that the ivory is part of.

Just for the sake of argument, one could have 100+ year old ivory on an antique that is less than 100 years old.

Also, as I read the law, ivory from an elephant killed LAST WEEK would be legal, if part of a 100yr old antique (repair/replacement).

This is the kind of thing I meant about the WAY the law was written.

DNA testing could definitely establish the species the ivory came from.

Radio Carbon Dating MIGHT establish the age, BUT I do not know if the accuracy of the testing is sufficient to establish a 100 year range. At one time, Carbon-14 dating was only "good" for +/- 500 years. I know they have improved it since then, but I don't know how much.

AND, BOTH these methods are destructive tests. The tested sample is destroyed during the test, in order to obtain the results.

SO, to prove via lab tests your ivory is elephant, and its age, a portion of your ivory grips or inlays will have to be cut out, and destroyed.

SO, even if you do this, and prove you are NOT breaking the law, your property is PERMANENTLY DAMAGED. And, of course there is the question of who pays for this...

Noble ideal, BAD LAW!!!!!!!!
 
Again, anyone here think it's okay to shoot bald eagles? So far nobody has tackled that one.
Click to expand...

Indian tribes are allowed without issue.

You really need to let go of your liberal, emotional, knee-jerk reaction to things not based on facts or sound economics.
Why is Paul Allen allowed to have so many yachts polluting the oceans? Boy's ego gets hurt every time Ellison or someone else builds a bigger one....boo hoo Lead Counsel. Stop trying to be a dictator over everyone

OP, as to your question, take the grips off and sell them if you are very concerned you might have some criminal liability; same for any chess sets or similar goods. I am sure someone will buy them.

My wife had some solid ivory bracelets that were exquisitely handcarved in Thailand. Didn't want them anymore (they were her mother's but didn't fit), so she sold them on Ebay. They were from the 50s.

No big deal.
 
I am starting to think like 44 AMP regarding the language in section 3 (2)(a) about age. It says "The covered animal species part or product is part of a bona fide antique, provided the antique status of such an antique is established by the owner or seller thereof with historical documentation evidencing provenance and showing the antique to be not less than one hundred years old...."

I have a S&W Model 1 revolver with ivory grips. I have a history letter from S&W stating that my gun (identified by model and serial number) left their factory on a certain date in 1877. However, the letter says it left the factory wearing wooden grips. The ivory grips were installed at an unknown later date by someone else. Based on the quoted language above, I think I am in the clear with this gun, because I have definitive documentation that the gun itself is more than 100 years old. I don't think the exact language of the law requires me to prove the age of the ivory.
 
zincwarrior said:
I thought the ivory trade was already illegal.
Click to expand...
It is, under federal and international law. However, AFAIK the prohibition does not apply to "pre-ban" ivory items, only to most items made after the ban was enacted.

The critical thing about this legislation is that it locally prohibits trade in many ivory items that are already in the United States and were originally purchased when the trade was still legal.

(FWIW this is an eerily similar situation to AWB-type laws as enacted in some states. Think of an ivory domino set as being the same as a 30-round magazine.)
 
Last edited:
I thought the ivory trade was already illegal. If not ashame its not.
Click to expand...

There is a Federal ban on importation of ivory, as I understand it......

Maybe Washington (the State) noted Washington's (the bloated bureaucracy) inability (or unwillingness) to enforce many of Federal Laws already on the books, and wanted a stick of it's own ..... or maybe they just wanted another stick..... Power always lusts for More Power ......
 
Cj, I would not hang my hat on that 1877 pistol with ivory grips meeting the statute because the pistol is over 100 years old. It's the ivory that is the subject of the new ban, not the pistol. I don't see how getting around the law by hanging new ivory on an antique would be a valid argument, which is essentially what you've got.

You need to find a receipt in your family records that predates 1915, if you want to prove the ivory grips meet the statute.

Question: is the 100-year test dated back from passage of the law, 2015? Or is it like a Curio and Relic, constantly moving forward each year? Seems to me it's a moving datum point, given the language cited above. Those tusks your Granddad got in Kenya in 1950 could be perfectly legal in 2050, if you want to wait.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
I thought the ivory trade was already illegal.
It is, under federal and international law. However, AFAIK the prohibition does not apply to "pre-ban" ivory items, only to most items made after the ban was enacted.

The critical thing about this legislation is that it locally prohibits trade in many ivory items that are already in the United States and were originally purchased when the trade was still legal.

(FWIW this is an eerily similar situation to AWB-type laws as enacted in some states. Think of an ivory domino set as being the same as a 30-round magazine.)
______________
Click to expand...

Thanks.
I don't see this helping the issue they are trying to help.
 
FITASC, you miss the point when you advise people to sell their ivory. The new law in Washington state does not criminalize possession of ivory, but it does criminalize sale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top