Yet Another Amendment - Time to Write Again - Really!

aljar8 said:
Correct, and to me, that description of an AO knife is being added to the definition of a switchblade. It is held closed by a mechanism or spring, that is overcome by force to assist in opening the blade.
Click to expand...

NOPE! I'm afraid you have things turned around, sorry. This section is being added as another Exception in 15 U.S.C. 1244 - Exceptions . So all the folders that have a bias toward closure... are excepted from being considered a switchblade. Hope this explains it better.
 
If the U.S. Customs is trying to limit the importation of knives, how is adding this to the exceptions going to appease them? It's adding an exception of knives that were never included in the definition in the first place. This makes even less sense to me. It's unecessarily complicating a useless archaic law. Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sense of this solution.
 
The amendment to the Federal Switchblade Act has passed in the Senate. Next stop will be Conference Committee.

View the amendment here: http://www.KnifeRights.org/SAmdt%201447.pdf

You deserve to give yourself a big pat on the back for this. It was your letters, faxes and emails that led to this success. This amendment will stop Customs' rulemaking and protect your pocket knives with a permanent solution.

Our thanks to Senators Cornyn, Pryor, Hatch, Vitter, Risch, Chambliss, Corker, Enzi, Barrasso, Graham, Roberts, Wyden and Crapo for co-sponsoring this amendment.

We only have one more hurdle, getting through the Conference Committee. Our legislative consultants are already working on that in cooperation with the other advocacy groups and the House members who have been supporting this effort from early on. We should know by early next week what, if anything, we need to do to help that process.

It is never a done deal in politics, until it is actually done. Having said that, we have shown ourselves to be a force to be reckoned with. Right now its time to celebrate our success so far, having overcome great odds to get to this point. We'll be in touch again once we settle on the most effective strategy for the next step.

Thank you again for all your efforts and for your contributions. If you haven't yet made a contribution or become a member of Knife Rights, please consider it now. This success did not come cheap, and we are still not yet done. We still need your financial support.

Knife Rights on Twitter

Follow Knife Rights on Twitter and receive the latest updates and notices as soon as they occur: http://twitter.com/KnifeRights

Join or Donate to Knife Rights

Your membership dues help support our efforts to protect your rights. Invest a modest sum in A Sharper Future™. Join at the Benefactor level to help us even more. JOIN NOW!

http://tinyurl.com/qnu988

PLEASE DONATE TO SUPPORT THIS FIGHT FOR YOUR KNIFE RIGHTS!

http://bit.ly/Scvp9

Copyright 2009, Knife Rights, Inc.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
 
aljar8 said:
If the U.S. Customs is trying to limit the importation of knives, how is adding this to the exceptions going to appease them? It's adding an exception of knives that were never included in the definition in the first place. This makes even less sense to me. It's unecessarily complicating a useless archaic law. Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sense of this solution.
Click to expand...

"It's adding an exception of knives that were never included in the definition in the first place."

"Never included in the definition...". That's the core of the whole issue here. U.S. Customs decided to "re-interpret" the existing definition to include any knife that can be opened with one hand, because the current written law (Switchblade Act of 1958) is too vague (at least in the eyes/minds of U.S. Customs). This is why all these good folks are going to such great lengths to add this specific 'exception' to the law, as it now exists. The aim here is to prevent U.S. Customs from being able to 'creatively re-interpret' the law to their own ends in the future.
 
I just got off work & came home to good news in my inbox. :)

Thanks Doug & everyone who sent their emails/letters.:thumbup::thumbup:

I have to admit,I was a bit doubtful that we would have a positive outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top