URGENT NJ ALERT: Call/Write Gov. Christie to Veto Draconian Ivory Ban Bill TODAY!

[Bigfatts]

Some of the comments imply that large amounts of ivory are still being imported legally. I thought all ivory importation with very few exceptions (like hunting trophies) were already forbidden. I can't see large amounts of ivory being brought in falsely as hunting trophies. I've never had the priveledge of hunting Africa, but browse around on Accuratereloading and you'll see just what a pain it is to bring home CITES listed animal trophies, it's often expensive and very time consuming to get all your papers in order. Anybody have any clarification on this? Are they being brought in as antique artifacts or art? If that's the case it would be much easier to impose a ban on importation of all non trophy ivory. I say non trophy because I think it would hurt the hunting business if hunters couldn't bring home their trophies, thereby lessening the value of the huntable elephants, thereby decreasing their safety. Again, this is all supposition on my part. Clarification is appreciated.

 

[Gadfly22]

In regards to the bold highlight above, how could you possibly tell from looking at a knife where it was actually made? Knives do not possess identifiable markings or details that PROVE where they were made.

I have a SAK in my pocket right now, and I bet it's made in Switzerland. Also shipping manifests will show country of origin. And recall that the real issue is whether a material is ivory or not ivory. Don't get lost in the hypothetical.

There are factories throughout the world. No government is going to admit that it permits child labor. And no company is going to admit that it uses child labor. A factory can print anything they want on a knife, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Just because a knife has a country of origin marking on it that says it was made in Japan, doesn't mean it wasn't made by children in India. It doesn't cost any more to print "Made in Japan" on a knife than it costs to print "Made in India". That's the problem with dishonest people- they act dishonestly.

Again, you're lost in the hypothetical. No one has to "admit" that ivory is ivory, because it will look like ivory or not ivory.

Instead of banning all ivory, and turning law abiding people into criminals, there should be reasonable means written into the law to differentiate between the bad ivory and the good ivory. A perfect example of such a law are the Class 3 firearms laws in this country. It is illegal to import automatic firearms into this country, but it is legal to own an automatic firearm present in this country before that ban (if you have the right permit). The government could just as easily banned the ownership of ALL automatic firearms in this country, but they didn't. Instead they created a means to tell the difference between illegal post-ban firearms, and legal pre-ban firearms.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, it's not so easy to tell "good" ivory from "bad" ivory. It requires close examination not conducive to potentially large shipments of ivory. And you can still own your ivory just as you can still own your pre-ban firearm. But I don't know firearms law -- can you sell or trade that pre-ban firearm?

Since fossilized ivory can be carbon dated, and since the ivory from animals other than elephants can be easily distinguished from elephant ivory, I don't see why the lawmakers can't come up with something better than just a blanket ban. Unless they are only interested in passing some kind of "feel good" law that lets them pat themselves on the back and say "Look how great we are, we're saving the elephants", instead of putting some effort into the law and coming up with something reasonable.

The answer to your question is pretty self-evident: carbon-dating isn't free or fast. (http://c14.kiev.ua/cost.htm -- the 130 euros for bone translates to about $177 per test on a sample) Moreover, it's only accurate within 40,000 years, and many mammoth remains fall within that time period. So, given the expense of your suggested solution, I think the proposed law more reasonable than trying to implement carbon-dating.

 

[ins0ma]

This is probably the best summation in the thread. I've actually learned a thing or two about the ivory trade in reading this, thanks everyone.

From Googling, the evidence contradicts much of what you say. Are you a dealer in ivory?

It is easy to see that tons of illegal ivory are being seized in the US every year.

NBC reports that the US is the second largest consumer of illegal ivory in the world. Our actions as consumers support a $10 billion industry that funds narcotics, arms and human trafficking.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/u...send-message-poachers-traffickers-f2D11594098

In one bust in 2011, a ton of illegal ivory was seized in Philadelphia.
Another ton was seized in New York in 2012.
Six more tons were seized near Denver last year.

US Fish and Wildlife says: ”…we believe a substantial amount of elephant ivory is illegally imported and enters the domestic market. It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from elephant poaching. Our criminal investigations and anti-smuggling efforts have clearly shown that legal ivory trade can serve as a cover for illegal trade. As just one example, Service and state officers seized more than two million dollars-worth of illegal elephant ivory from two New York City retail stores in 2012.”
http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html#11

Our current laws don’t protect elephants. It’s time to draft effective laws. Tens of thousands of African elephants are killed each year — 8 out of 10 African elephants are killed by ivory poachers. Major terrorist groups get massive amounts of funding from this poaching. At this rate, central African elephants will be completely gone in 10 years.

We don’t have a lot of time to get this right.

 

[Shotgun]

Sorry but I just think that Knife Rights trying to defend Ivory looks bad. Most people will not read the details. They will simply see a "knife owner club" that is trying to keep using Ivory for the handles of the knives they like to buy.

I want no part of this. Thanks.

Maybe stick to actual "knife rights".....not handle material rights.

I agree. If a knife lobbyist has this hard a time getting knife aficionados on board just think what people who hate knives think.

 

[killgar]

The answer to your question is pretty self-evident: carbon-dating isn't free or fast. (http://c14.kiev.ua/cost.htm -- the 130 euros for bone translates to about $177 per test on a sample) Moreover, it's only accurate within 40,000 years, and many mammoth remains fall within that time period. So, given the expense of your suggested solution, I think the proposed law more reasonable than trying to implement carbon-dating.

A SAK is just one knife out of thousands of different knives sold by hundreds of different companies, manufacturers, etc. And if a person can falsify documents for imported ivory, they can certainly falsify documents for knives. Like I said- dishonest people will do dishonest things. And although I have no experience falsifying shipping documents, I doubt it's very difficult for those with a financial motivation.

And my hypothetical is a direct comparison to the topic of ivory. There is an abominable practice that we want to prevent (ivory poaching, child labor), it's not always possible to tell the difference between the illegal product and the legal product ( ivory, knives), And a blanket ban of either product (ivory, imported knives) would criminalize activity in cases where no crime had been committed. Like I said, a direct comparison.

As far as the expense of carbon dating, $177 isn't much compared to the cost of an antique piano, or a set of antique billiard balls, or a custom-made knife with fossilized mammoth ivory for it's handles, etc, etc. I imagine that if the owners of such items had the choice between paying $177, and waiting a little while for the results in order to get their items certified as legal, or completely losing the monetary value of their items, that they would pay it. After all, just having antiques appraised, certified or auctioned, costs money.

And the "ivory" from other animals has a different grain, cell structure, and growth pattern than elephant ivory. All it takes to tell the difference is the human eye or a magnifying glass. So that wouldn't cost much at all or take any time.

You say that this ban is necessary because it's too difficult and time consuming for law enforcement to tell the difference between different types of ivory. But law enforcement is willing to spend time inspecting shipments of all other manner of items looking for counterfeit goods (clothes, shoes, etc, etc, etc). What we don't do in this country is ban the import of all those types of items just because their job is time consuming and includes some difficulty. Again, to say "It's too tough to keep the bad stuff out, so lets just ban all of it" is a bad motivation for a law.

And yes, it IS legal to sell pre-ban automatic firearms in this country. But they can only be sold among other Class 3 license holders.

By the way, I recognize that we are just going around in circles. You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your mind. But every time someone posts in this thread it bumps it back to the top and keeps it alive. And that means more people will likely read it, and perhaps email the Gov of New Jersey. So that is my motivation here .

 

[leghog]

I find the continued comparisons of ivory trade to firearms trade faulty logic for a number of reasons.

 

[Sidehill Gouger]

I don't, ultimately the same people will be backing both types of bans.

 

[killgar]

I find the continued comparisons of ivory trade to firearms trade faulty logic for a number of reasons.

What I have done is provide an example of a product, a controversial product, that can no longer be legally imported into this country, but is still legal to sell in this country. I have pointed out the fact that it is possible to pass laws that prevent the importation of illegal items, but allows for the continued sale of legal versions of similar items. The Class 3 Federal firearms laws are a clear precedent where people took the time to draw a clear distinction between the legal item, and the illegal item, rather than creating an all-out ban. So I think the comparison is appropriate. But we can agree to disagree.

 

[leghog]

What I have done is provide an example of a product, a controversial product, that can no longer be legally imported into this country, but is still legal to sell in this country. I have pointed out the fact that it is possible to pass laws that prevent the importation of illegal items, but allows for the continued sale of legal versions of similar items. The Class 3 Federal firearms laws are a clear precedent where people took the time to draw a clear distinction between the legal item, and the illegal item, rather than creating an all-out ban. So I think the comparison is appropriate. But we can agree to disagree.

Still a poor comparison. One point being that one (firearms) is a case where each is individually uniquely identifiable and so registered while do so with the other (ivory) is not possible without being cost prohibitive without detracting from what makes it aesthetically pleasing to many.

 

[killgar]

Still a poor comparison. One point being that one (firearms) is a case where each is individually uniquely identifiable and so registered while do so with the other (ivory) is not possible without being cost prohibitive.

Just to give one example- I think it would be easy to have some quality pictures taken of a custom knife with fossilized mammoth scales, and have those photos legally certified, as a means of showing legal proof that said knife is legal and can be legally sold. High-resolution photographs are commonly accepted as legal proof for a variety of things in this country, one example is gemstones.

As far as ivory testing being cost prohibitive, heck, if I inherited an antique piano worth thousands of dollars that I wanted to sell, I certainly wouldn't consider spending a couple of hundred dollars for legal certification to be "cost prohibitive". But that's me.

And as far as firearms being "uniquely identifiable", I'll assume that you know as well as I that a counterfeit weapon could be made and that it could be stamped with the serial number of a firearm that is legal to purchase. After all, a gun is just a piece of machined metal parts. It doesn't have DNA, or fingerprints, nor would carbon dating prove anything. And yet, the government still hasn't passed an all-out ban.

Just because it isn't possible to absolutely prevent the import of an illegal item, doesn't mean this country bans the item completely.

 

[leghog]

Just to give one example- I think it would be easy to have some quality pictures taken of a custom knife with fossilized mammoth scales, and have those photos legally certified, as a means of showing legal proof that said knife is legal and can be legally sold. High-resolution photographs are commonly accepted as legal proof for a variety of things in this country, one example is gemstones.

As far as ivory testing being cost prohibitive, heck, if I inherited an antique piano worth thousands of dollars that I wanted to sell, I certainly wouldn't consider spending a couple of hundred dollars for legal certification to be "cost prohibitive". But that's me.

And as far as firearms being "uniquely identifiable", I'll assume that you know as well as I that a counterfeit weapon could be made and that it could be stamped with the serial number of a firearm that is legal to purchase. After all, a gun is just a piece of machined metal parts. It doesn't have DNA, or fingerprints, nor would carbon dating prove anything. And yet, the government still hasn't passed an all-out ban.

Just because it isn't possible to absolutely prevent the import of an illegal item, doesn't mean this country bans the item completely.

A "counterfeit" automatic firearm with a serial number not registered in the federal NFA registry or a duplicate serial number would be discovered as soon as the serial number were run in any transfer of the registration in the registry. Remember, the NJ ivory bill is about the transfer (buy, sell, barter) of ivory, not ownership. I seriously doubt NJ would set up such a registry with unique identification of every ivory item. Again, ivory and firearms are a troublesome comparison and just isn't logical.

 

[killgar]

A "counterfeit" automatic firearm with a serial number not registered in the federal NFA registry or a duplicate serial number would be discovered as soon as the serial number were run in any transfer of the registration in the registry. Remember, the NJ ivory bill is about the transfer (buy, sell, barter) of ivory, not ownership.

But if for example, the owner of a legal Mac 10 produced a counterfeit Mac 10, and stamped the counterfeit gun with the serial number from the legal gun, how would a Class 3 dealer know the counterfeit wasn't the genuine article if the guy wanted to sell it, much less a computerized registry. Now granted, it might be highly unlikely that the holder of a Class 3 license would do such a thing. But who knows, sometimes FFL holders break the law for the sake of profit. I haven't checked the prices of "legal" automatic weapons in this country lately, but a few years ago I remember seeing weapons that originally sold for $500-$1000 new being sold for $10,000 used. With that kind of money involved, I guess anythings possible. But this is getting off topic here.

I seriously doubt NJ would set up such a registry with unique identification of every ivory item. Again, ivory and firearms are a troublesome comparison and just isn't logical.

But maybe if New Jersey stood to make money from such a registry (having the ivory owners pay a fee, plus sales tax on the selling of such high-dollar items), then maybe they would. After all, an all-out ban on the sale of such items doesn't make them any money. And I know that state governments like to make money.

The federal government makes money off the sale of Class 3 items, state governments make money from the sale of firearms and from the issuing of CCW's. State governments are making money off of the sale of alcohol, marijuana, gambling, and in the case of Nevada, even prostitution. So who knows what the New Jersey government might be willing to do to increase revenue. From what I've seen, Jersey really needs money.

As far as the comparison being illogical, like I said, we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[Gadfly22]

A SAK is just one knife out of thousands of different knives sold by hundreds of different companies, manufacturers, etc. And if a person can falsify documents for imported ivory, they can certainly falsify documents for knives. Like I said- dishonest people will do dishonest things. And although I have no experience falsifying shipping documents, I doubt it's very difficult for those with a financial motivation.

Exactly the point of the proposed law: dishonest people will try to pass off recent elephant kill ivory as something else. Hence the broad blanket ban.

And my hypothetical is a direct comparison to the topic of ivory. There is an abominable practice that we want to prevent (ivory poaching, child labor), it's not always possible to tell the difference between the illegal product and the legal product ( ivory, knives), And a blanket ban of either product (ivory, imported knives) would criminalize activity in cases where no crime had been committed. Like I said, a direct comparison.

I have to disagree as per my counter example. Straw man arguments are weak, and yours is just such an artificial straw man, as I demonstrated.

As far as the expense of carbon dating, $177 isn't much compared to the cost of an antique piano, or a set of antique billiard balls, or a custom-made knife with fossilized mammoth ivory for it's handles, etc, etc. I imagine that if the owners of such items had the choice between paying $177, and waiting a little while for the results in order to get their items certified as legal, or completely losing the monetary value of their items, that they would pay it. After all, just having antiques appraised, certified or auctioned, costs money.

It's $177 per test per sample. Imagine trying to test a crate of separate knives to determine which is good and which is bad. Hence the reason for the blanket ban. You seriously think an importer could stand that kind of impact directly on the bottom line? Completely divorced from reality.

And the "ivory" from other animals has a different grain, cell structure, and growth pattern than elephant ivory. All it takes to tell the difference is the human eye or a magnifying glass. So that wouldn't cost much at all or take any time.

Check my site above for how difficult it is to differentiate elephant ivory from mammoth ivory. Again, you're divorced from the reality of the facts and engaging in fairy tale thinking.

You say that this ban is necessary because it's too difficult and time consuming for law enforcement to tell the difference between different types of ivory. But law enforcement is willing to spend time inspecting shipments of all other manner of items looking for counterfeit goods (clothes, shoes, etc, etc, etc). What we don't do in this country is ban the import of all those types of items just because their job is time consuming and includes some difficulty. Again, to say "It's too tough to keep the bad stuff out, so lets just ban all of it" is a bad motivation for a law.

It's never easy to differentiate a good counterfeit from the real thing. Much less so when the two things -- mammoth ivory and elephant ivory -- are so similar. And the reason for the broad ban is that it's just too expensive and time-consuming to test every possible artifact. If you'd like to start an ivory-testing fund to help defray the cost for importers, please start a crowdfunding effort and see if the few concerned care to pay the cost.

And yes, it IS legal to sell pre-ban automatic firearms in this country. But they can only be sold among other Class 3 license holders.

And how easy is it to tell a pre-ban firearm from a post-ban? Or is it difficult, so that fraud is rampant? Either way, the flaw in that law is clear: either it's easy to ascertain good from bad, or fraud is easy. Hence the need for a blanket ban.

By the way, I recognize that we are just going around in circles. You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your mind. But every time someone posts in this thread it bumps it back to the top and keeps it alive. And that means more people will likely read it, and perhaps email the Gov of New Jersey. So that is my motivation here .

Yes I realize you are in a position you never reasoned into, so I can't reason you out of it. But maybe for others, my reasoning might make a difference.

 

[Gadfly22]

And just one more point on the testing issue. If you think the people of NJ could possibly be on board for some additional tax to pay for the testing of any kind of ivory (as opposed to the proposed blanket ban), check out our budget deficit and our tax situation (esp, real property taxes). I bet the people of NJ would support a ban on ANY knife outside of a kitchen paring knife if the alternative would cost them $0.05 apiece for the expense of knife oversight.

 

[Gadfly22]

And one more fact before bed: even the $177 carbon dating test would tell you the age of the artifact (and might damage it in gathering the testing specimen of course). It's not a DNA test that would differentiate elephant from mammoth. And if you look into elephant evolution, you'll find that mammoths and modern elephants co-existed for hundreds of thousands of years. So your carbon dating might only reveal old elephant instead of mammoth anyway. And elephant of any vintage is banned, owing to the possibility of fraud.

 

[killgar]

And just one more point on the testing issue. If you think the people of NJ could possibly be on board for some additional tax to pay for the testing of any kind of ivory (as opposed to the proposed blanket ban), check out our budget deficit and our tax situation (esp, real property taxes). I bet the people of NJ would support a ban on ANY knife outside of a kitchen paring knife if the alternative would cost them $0.05 apiece for the expense of knife oversight.

Perhaps you should actually read my posts before you respond to them. Because in post #105 and #110 I clearly said that the ivory owners should pay for testing. And in post #112 where I specifically suggested that the ivory owners pay a fee for certification of their legally owned ivory. Nowhere did I say that tax payers should pay for anything. In fact, as I clearly stated, perhaps the certification fees, as well as the sales tax that the buyers of legal ivory products would pay, would help out a financially strapped New Jersey.

 

[killgar]

And one more fact before bed: even the $177 carbon dating test would tell you the age of the artifact (and might damage it in gathering the testing specimen of course). It's not a DNA test that would differentiate elephant from mammoth. And if you look into elephant evolution, you'll find that mammoths and modern elephants co-existed for hundreds of thousands of years. So your carbon dating might only reveal old elephant instead of mammoth anyway. And elephant of any vintage is banned, owing to the possibility of fraud.

If the point of the law is to prevent the sale of poached ivory, reduce the illegal ivory trade, and prevent the killing of elephants, banning the sale of fossilized ivory from animals that lived and died hundreds of thousands of years ago, will not possibly save any elephants living today or have any impact on poaching.

Whether a piece of ivory came from a prehistoric mammoth, or a prehistoric elephant, is completely irrelevant to the subject of modern day poaching. Whichever animal the ivory came from, those animals are long dead, and they weren't killed by poachers. So there's no rational reason to ban the sale of their ivory in the name of poaching.

The proposed law doesn't ban the ownership of ivory, it prohibits it's sale, import, possession with intent to sell, etc. So clearly the lawmakers see nothing wrong with OWNING ivory, or even passing it from one generation to the next, the law is intended solely to prevent any trafficking in ivory.

And as far as any damage done to a piece of ivory from testing, whether or not a person is willing to sacrifice a very small sample of their legal ivory for testing would be THEIR choice. So I see no reason why you would care about that.

 

[leghog]

But if for example, the owner of a legal Mac 10 produced a counterfeit Mac 10, and stamped the counterfeit gun with the serial number from the legal gun, how would a Class 3 dealer know the counterfeit wasn't the genuine article if the guy wanted to sell it, much less a computerized registry. Now granted, it might be highly unlikely that the holder of a Class 3 license would do such a thing. But who knows, sometimes FFL holders break the law for the sake of profit. I haven't checked the prices of "legal" automatic weapons in this country lately, but a few years ago I remember seeing weapons that originally sold for $500-$1000 new being sold for $10,000 used. With that kind of money involved, I guess anythings possible. But this is getting off topic here.

This is now just playing games with little or nothing to do with the NJ ivory bill.

Firearms and ivory remain a bad comparison.

 

[leghog]

And one more fact before bed: even the $177 carbon dating test would tell you the age of the artifact (and might damage it in gathering the testing specimen of course). It's not a DNA test that would differentiate elephant from mammoth. And if you look into elephant evolution, you'll find that mammoths and modern elephants co-existed for hundreds of thousands of years. So your carbon dating might only reveal old elephant instead of mammoth anyway. And elephant of any vintage is banned, owing to the possibility of fraud.

You can at least double the $177 cost of carbon dating for mitochondrial DNA analysis which would also require destroying part of each ivory specimen tested. Try that on your piano keys, billiard balls, knife slabs, M1911 grips, bracelets, etc. before you sell, trade, or buy them. Nothing in the NJ bill would require you to test what you already own without intent to sell or barter. Regardless, this testing would likely only be used to prosecute poachers and smugglers of illegal ivory anyway.

 

[ins0ma]

If the point of the law is to prevent the sale of poached ivory, reduce the illegal ivory trade, and prevent the killing of elephants, banning the sale of fossilized ivory from animals that lived and died hundreds of thousands of years ago, will not possibly save any elephants living today or have any impact on poaching.

I think you're missing the point here about mammoth and other non-elephant ivory. The problem is that it's difficult to tell the difference between them without expensive tests, so to reduce illegal traffic, they're making trade in all kinds of ivory illegal. If the market for all kinds of ivory disappears in the US, poachers will have less reward for their trade, which is a step in the right direction.