Washington State voters do it again

[NINEX19]

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.

[jimbob86]

why let facts stand in the way of what "feels" right.

Why? So we don't emote away our Liberty, that's why..... but there is power to be had by those herding the sheep.....

[cjwils]

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?

[BarryLee]

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.

[NINEX19]

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?

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...er/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.

[doofus47]

leadcounsel

I'd like my children to be able to see these creatures in the wild before the hunters kill them all.

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/tanz...eid=60686bf977

Here's the pertinent part of the article as relates to your assertion:

PHP Code:

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.

[44 AMP]

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!!!!!!!!

[FITASC]

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

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.

[cjwils]

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]

I thought the ivory trade was already illegal. If not ashame its not.

[carguychris]

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.)

[jimbob86]

I thought the ivory trade was already illegal. If not ashame its not.

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 ......

[kilimanjaro]

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.

[zincwarrior]

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.)
______________

Thanks.
I don't see this helping the issue they are trying to help.

[cjwils]

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.

[leadcounsel]

Elephants once numbered between 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 (edited). Hunters (there is a blurry line between hunting and poaching, and again it really is just who profits) have managed to kill 90% of them. Often for bragging rights and a few pounds of ivory. It's known that around 30,000 to 40,000 are killed every year. At this rate they will likely be gone in a few decades.

Let that sink in. Elephants. Gone. In a few decades.

Congratulations hunters. Those ivory grips and artwork sure were important.

Laws and policies have finally (in the last few years/decades) been trying to do something to stop this massacre.

Is the law badly written. Dunno. We'll see. It can be amended.

I am on the fence on voting on special ballot measures. As I contemplate it, I'm okay with special ballot measures that do not impact any constitutional rights. WA did pass an anti-gun measure last year on a ballot measure that was badly thought out and dishonest in advertising and the way it was written. That one really irked me, and directly impacts and criminalizing otherwise lawful 2A behavior and private property affected most people. So, I do not think that should have been on the ballot.

However, for tax increases and other public policy, I am generally okay with it. For this measure, yes, I'm totally fine with the state taking initiative to overlap or close loopholes on Federal and International trade bans.

Ivory may be "banned in trade" but there's enough loopholes where it is clearly still traded around the world. I've seen modern photos of Americans with their ivory trophies...

Finally, shooting an elephant or cheetah or lion or ape isn't "hunting" by any reasonable definition. You buy a ticket, pay for a guide, drive into the bush, walk around, the guide points to an elephant, you use your $2000 .300 win mag, take aim on a barn sized stationary object, and pull the trigger, ending 40 years of life. Yep. Hunting this is not.

[carguychris]

Mods please delete

[rickyrick]

Wouldn't hunting have at least some carbon offset? Since we are talking political correct this.

Hunting needs to be managed, yes. But hunting is a human right.
What a have a problem with is unknowingly becoming a criminal due to political correctness.
Now, hunting is one of those human rights that is being attacked. It will all be gone soon.
People forget that we are only animals, we have the rights of all animals. Defend our selves and get food and materials without money.

[leadcounsel]

I think you have an extra set of 3 zeroes in there. 7 billion elephants is a stretch.

Good catch! Corrected.

[NINEX19]

leadcounsel

Elephants once numbered between 5,000,000,000 to 7,000,000,000. Hunters (there is a blurry line between hunting and poaching, and again it really is just who profits) have managed to kill 90% of them.

Really? 5-7 billion? There is no science to back that up. It is pure speculation, and not even honest, plausible speculation. Those are sensationalized numbers, just to show how bad and evil "hunters/poachers" are. Keep throwing out numbers without facts and see what sticks. Do I need to define "science" for you?

It is plain to see that you are not to be reasoned with. That's fine. There are alot of people like you in Western Washington. You can sit in Tacoma and make all of the judgements on hunting you want and pass all the laws you want that apply to everyone but you, because you think they won't effect you. Similar to those that say, "why would anyone NEED a magazine over 10 rounds". I don't take personal pot shots at people, but since you have no problem doing it, I guess a bit back at you seems appropriate.

As for me, I am leaving in a few hours for elk hunting for a week. I am not exactly sure right now how many elk there are left, but the last study I know of in 1990 showed about 950,000 in ALL of North America. Is that enough for you? I am sure they numbered in the trillions at one time. I could probably find some "scientist" to back me up on that. I hope by the time I get those antlers home that you have not passed another law for me not to be able to possess them. Maybe I can only pass the mount down to my kids but not sell. Oh, I am not a trophy hunter, I hunt for food. The antlers just happen to be attached.

[leadcounsel]

@NINEX19.

1. It was a typo. Corrected. Relax.
2. Why do you possibly care if bans on already banned items is passed?
3. I have zero issues with legit hunting. I eat meat. Go hunt elk. Enjoy yourself. I have huge issues with people killed the remaining big game in Africa for sport and trophies; which is what it amounts to. It's an indefensible past time. Times change and maybe it was acceptable decades ago, but no longer. Just like many things, times and circumstances change.
4. Big game "hunting" is a detriment to the 2A. It's widely unpopular and sheds very bad light on gun owners like myself. Voters on the fence hate the practice and it alienates these voters from the 2A. Nobody is trying to ban legit hunting. But nobody has a right to go take the last elephants either.

[Koda94]

Oregon had an almost identical ballot this year, I don’t recall it passing... I admit was low on my radar. Its interesting to see the link to gun rights, a poor link at best.

you all can flame me for it but I'll chime in support for leadcounsel's opinion on the matter because as a hunter, hunting is for sustenance not trophies. Lets call this what it is its killing its not hunting it is not culling it is straight up taking another life simply because some rich person wants to say he did it and put a trophy on the wall. Its killing.

[leadcounsel]

It appears from this source that Oregon will see that measure on the 2016 November ballot. http://www.saveanimalsoregon.com/

It's noteworthy that Oregon passed a pro-2A measure this week on the ballot.http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._spending.html

Coos County gun rights: Coos County voters handily approved a symbolic "Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance" on a vote of 61 percent to 39 percent. The ordinance seeks to empower the county sheriff to declare void any law deemed to violate the Oregon or U.S. constitutions.

[Tom Servo]

Big game "hunting" is a detriment to the 2A. It's widely unpopular and sheds very bad light on gun owners like myself.

The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. Given the multitude of attacks coming from all quarters against the RKBA, I really don't see big game hunting being the one that pushes things over the edge.

Frankly, big game hunting is a huge part of the economy for many places. Money talks, pure and simple. Our state department turns a blind eye to, and sometimes cooperates with some of it, in Africa.

If one doesn't like it, that's fine. I'm not fond of some aspects either. But passing laws based on the emotions of the moment is never a good idea.

[rickyrick]

How many rich hunters are going to Africa to kill these animals? Let's have an honest assessment.

How has this impacted the animals in question as compared to poaching? In relationship to the ivory trade, marketing materials made from animals.

I don't think trophy hunting has an impact as much as poaching.

Sure it may be distasteful and some may not like it.

How much does a hunting trip like this cost? Are millions of animals killed a $50,000 a pop? At 100K animals killed that's 5 billion dollars. I'm not sure that legal trophy hunting is damaging to the population, even if shady.

I can see that ivory poaching can be harmful.

I really don't like this law, even if you feel African trophy hunting is low as you can go.

How do I determine the origins of any ivory like item if I'm not an expert. The dominos is a good example. A keepsake from granpaw can now land you in hot water.