Federal Law Question

[tom19176]

I normally answer NY law questions here, but I would like to see what those of you in the know think about this use of a federal law. Almost all knife dealers that sell automatic knives ( and many others who just sell knives), all seem to quote this law:

public law 90-351 title iii u.s.d. section 2511

They state they are selling under this law and the buyer is solely responsible for all legal compliance. The law they refer too basically concerns the gathering of evidence by means of communication and how it can or can not be used. I am not sure if some lawyer has told them they need to post this to some how ward off legal action being taken against them? It makes little sense to me. Bernard Levine did not get their use of it either, nor did the five US attorneys I have had the chance to ask.....Any one have some non guess insight into why they quote this law?

I always laugh at the fact they try to push off all liability on the buyer when the buyer at best only has local law compliance. The dealer carries the full weight of the sale being offered and in many cases the use of the USPS for banned items.....I hope someone out there reading this has some interesting insight! Thanks!

 

[richard thurman]

I just dont sell to new york and that solves my problem.

 

[glistam]

I chalk it up to many auto sellers being, as a general rule, incompetent on legal matters combined with the federal government's extremely limited enforcement of 15 U.S.C. § 1242 that allows various sales practices and claims to go on more or less unchecked.

These sellers appear to simply cut-and-paste from other sellers, and/or take random bits from forums that look "official." Popularly repeated bits of "law" grow into full blown urban legends (for example that you have to wait 24 hours to report a missing person) and spread like a virus.

We can start with the fact that "public law 90-351 title iii u.s.d. section 2511" isn't even a correct notation. It's two difference laws. "Public Law 90-351" is the "Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968," now codified as 42 U.S.C. 3711. It has to do with various Justice Department programs, including grants, handgun sales, wiretapping, Miranda warnings etc. "title iii u.s.d. section 2511" isn't even a real statute. That is, Title III of the United States Code does not have have a section 2511 (it stops at 456 and covers presidential powers). The closest thing I can find that makes sense with what you said about evidence and records is 18 U.S.C 2511 which is the federal wiretapping law.

This is not an isolated case of a complete fabrication/misread being put out there as a real law and remaining unnoticed for decades.

 

[tom19176]

Thanks for your review as I felt the same. It makes me laugh as these guys openly break the law then hide behind a disclaimer that a judge would laugh at in court. Now I am a knife guy like everyone else on here, so I would like to see the laws changed, but that said, they have to be followed while they are in place. I get offended by sellers who are breaking several laws telling their customers what the "law" is and how they are following it. If they are sending certain items accross state lines and then using the USPS they are guilty of at least two federal crimes. Then there are several states these days ( not just NYC) that are going after them on state law crimes. I would love to see someone clear up this issue for the dealers as you said they are putting mis information out there and that hurts the cause of understanding laws.

Rich T, not selling to NY stops them from going after you, but it does not allow you to send switchbldes over state lines to anywhere else , so I am not sure what you mean. Keep selling them with in the state of Florida and you are safe ( as I understand it), but send them over state lines as the course of delivery of a sale, and you are breaking a federal law.....Sad but true Rich.

 

[Watchful]

I agree with Glistam; that disclaimer looks exactly like the kind written by a business owner who, because he deals with contracts, fancies himself a lawyer. A real lawyer almost certainly wouldn't have written that.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse; someone claiming upfront he's ignorant of the law won't help him either.

 

[milesofalaska]

This is not an isolated case of a complete fabrication/misread being put out there as a real law and remaining unnoticed for decades. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; someone claiming upfront he's ignorant of the law won't help him either. It makes me laugh as these guys openly break the law. I would love to see someone clear up this issue for the dealers.
I comment on the above statements made. I have a friend who is a judge who long ago explained “It is our responsibility to know what the law is, but it is not the laws responsibility to inform us what that law is” . Or even give us access to what the laws are, or even give an honest answer if you ask. Clear up issues? Maybe that is not the governments goal. In an ideal situation from the governments standpoint is misunderstanding fear concern anger. In an ideal situation we are all criminals. In this way the government can pick and choose who to arrest when and why. If we are not wanted (now) we are allowed to do ‘whatever’. Until we are a threat, or have information or are useful in some way, then there is leverage and plea bargaining. We turn in our neighbor etc.
Those who say “I just get along with the government, do what I’m told, and everything is fine” I can see how that might solve problems for the government. When there is a knock on the door in the night and someone is carted off screaming they must deserve it and it’s not my business. Thank God it’s not me. It’s obviously ‘one of them’. The bad guys. Till it’s your door they knock on.
My judge friend also said “Even I do not know what the laws are, and I studied it all my life. I rely on a lawyer looking it up in a book and showing it to me, and I verify it is written. It is impossible to know all the laws.” He has not been a judge for a while…. It would be impolite to ask why. He only added we lost our constitutional rights. We no longer have them. I might be wrong, it’s only an opinion. But it does explain some of the puzzlement I am hearing here.