Gibson Guitar gets back at the govt.

It will take a lot of sales to make up for the 10mil in legal expenses that They lost.
 
If the Government goes forward with their stupidity on the propsed Ivory ban it will most likely wind up the same way. Costing all of us Ivory workers millions of dollars in legal fees just to be able to continue doing what was already legal. At least Gibson had deep enough pockets to stop it. I am not sure we Ivory workers will have deep enough pockets, because the Ivory use is even more of a hot buttom than wood is.
 
They won't ban Ivory. No way. Just try to imagine how many high dollar collectibles made with at least some ivory in them are owned by wealthy people. Gawd, the list is near endless. The rich will never let that happen and the rich pretty much control the government.
 
bruppert said:
They won't ban Ivory. No way. Just try to imagine how many high dollar collectibles made with at least some ivory in them are owned by wealthy people. Gawd, the list is near endless. The rich will never let that happen and the rich pretty much control the government.
Click to expand...

LOL... because the rich and famous NEVER get away with doing anything illegal...
 
bruppert said:
They won't ban Ivory. No way. Just try to imagine how many high dollar collectibles made with at least some ivory in them are owned by wealthy people. Gawd, the list is near endless. The rich will never let that happen and the rich pretty much control the government.
Click to expand...

Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head with that statement.

Let's first say that Gibson was out-of-pocket around 5 mil to perhaps 10 mil. They spend 3 mil on legal representation. The rest are numbers pulled from the air. Quite frankly, when lawyers see a fish of a company as large as Gibson, the legal costs go up exponentially. I base that on experience from dealing with lawyers and being in business for 40 years. There is nothing lower than an attorney. Well, perhaps a car salesman. :grin:

Regarding the ivory that Hightower is talking about...
The bozo who circulate that email about the proposed ivory ban was beyond the point of being called a bozo; I would think that AH would have been more appropriate. Let me bring all of you up-to-date. Another ivory dealer used fear mongering to disrupt the market with circulating an email that a 'committee' was recommending that the President ban all ivory within the USA. This meant that any ivory ever brought into the USA would become illegal. Even with the liberal Obama administration, I could never believe or see that law passing. All one had to do was look-up and review who the 'committee' was comprised of. You could see for yourself that it was a group of Chicago politicians who were making the ridiculous recommendation. I could never see the Feds raiding the palatial estates, orchestras and other piano owners of their ivory keyed piano's. The thought of that law passing was not even on the table and the pinhead who circulated it was clueless.

More relevant though is perhaps a law banning interstate commerce of ivory products between states. So, if the ivory is in Florida, then it can only be bought and sold within the state of Florida. I wouldn't put that law past the Feds.

You know what - it doesn't matter what we think as the Feds are going to do whatever the Feds want to do and let the marketplace fight them over it. As Hightower pointed out, no one in the ivory business has the deep pockets as did Gibson. There is no 'Gibson' sized company in the ivory business to defend any actions the Feds impose. It's just a matter of time before all the tree huggers and ignorant/misinformed elephant lovers get their way with passing some more restrictive ivory law that will do nothing to protect the Elephant.
 
Joe Barringer said:
Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head with that statement.

Let's first say that Gibson was out-of-pocket around 5 mil to perhaps 10 mil. They spend 3 mil on legal representation. The rest are numbers pulled from the air. Quite frankly, when lawyers see a fish of a company as large as Gibson, the legal costs go up exponentially. I base that on experience from dealing with lawyers and being in business for 40 years. There is nothing lower than an attorney. Well, perhaps a car salesman. :grin:

Regarding the ivory that Hightower is talking about...
The bozo who circulate that email about the proposed ivory ban was beyond the point of being called a bozo; I would think that AH would have been more appropriate. Let me bring all of you up-to-date. Another ivory dealer used fear mongering to disrupt the market with circulating an email that a 'committee' was recommending that the President ban all ivory within the USA. This meant that any ivory ever brought into the USA would become illegal. Even with the liberal Obama administration, I could never believe or see that law passing. All one had to do was look-up and review who the 'committee' was comprised of. You could see for yourself that it was a group of Chicago politicians who were making the ridiculous recommendation. I could never see the Feds raiding the palatial estates, orchestras and other piano owners of their ivory keyed piano's. The thought of that law passing was not even on the table and the pinhead who circulated it was clueless.

More relevant though is perhaps a law banning interstate commerce of ivory products between states. So, if the ivory is in Florida, then it can only be bought and sold within the state of Florida. I wouldn't put that law past the Feds.

You know what - it doesn't matter what we think as the Feds are going to do whatever the Feds want to do and let the marketplace fight them over it. As Hightower pointed out, no one in the ivory business has the deep pockets as did Gibson. There is no 'Gibson' sized company in the ivory business to defend any actions the Feds impose. It's just a matter of time before all the tree huggers and ignorant/misinformed elephant lovers get their way with passing some more restrictive ivory law that will do nothing to protect the Elephant.
Click to expand...
You are right. I got another letter this morning saying that the government has changed directions and are going to try to pass a ban to stop all interstate commerce of all types of Ivory. I guess the government thinks that way we can still sell our items within our own state and therefore are not basically making our items worthless like the total sale ban would have. This has been the case with Asian Elephant Ivory for a long time, but now they desire to do it with all types of ivory. They could make a ban on all import and export of all types of Ivory and that would make more sense, even though I don't agree with that either.
 
cueman said:
You are right. I got another letter this morning saying that the government has changed directions and are going to try to pass a ban to stop all interstate commerce of all types of Ivory. I guess the government thinks that way we can still sell our items within our own state and therefore are not basically making our items worthless like the total sale ban would have. This has been the case with Asian Elephant Ivory for a long time, but now they desire to do it with all types of ivory. They could make a ban on all import and export of all types of Ivory and that would make more sense, even though I don't agree with that either.
Click to expand...

The gooberment is as dumb as a box of rocks. Oh, my apologies to the rocks.
 
Joe Barringer said:
[...]
Regarding the ivory that Hightower is talking about...
The bozo who circulate that email about the proposed ivory ban was beyond the point of being called a bozo; I would think that AH would have been more appropriate. Let me bring all of you up-to-date. Another ivory dealer used fear mongering to disrupt the market with circulating an email that a 'committee' was recommending that the President ban all ivory within the USA. This meant that any ivory ever brought into the USA would become illegal. Even with the liberal Obama administration, I could never believe or see that law passing. All one had to do was look-up and review who the 'committee' was comprised of. You could see for yourself that it was a group of Chicago politicians who were making the ridiculous recommendation. I could never see the Feds raiding the palatial estates, orchestras and other piano owners of their ivory keyed piano's. The thought of that law passing was not even on the table and the pinhead who circulated it was clueless.

More relevant though is perhaps a law banning interstate commerce of ivory products between states. So, if the ivory is in Florida, then it can only be bought and sold within the state of Florida. I wouldn't put that law past the Feds.

You know what - it doesn't matter what we think as the Feds are going to do whatever the Feds want to do and let the marketplace fight them over it. As Hightower pointed out, no one in the ivory business has the deep pockets as did Gibson. There is no 'Gibson' sized company in the ivory business to defend any actions the Feds impose. It's just a matter of time before all the tree huggers and ignorant/misinformed elephant lovers get their way with passing some more restrictive ivory law that will do nothing to protect the Elephant.
Click to expand...

The current information we have is the President's Advisory Council will be recommending that Fish and Wildlife Services adopt a regulation banning interstate trade/transport in Elephant Ivory. This has the potential to be far more devastating than you might imagine. It would immediately preclude the possibly of buying, selling, or trading in Ivory outside of one's own state. Additionally it would essentially prohibit giving or bequeathing any Ivory object to anyone not living in your own state.

The problem for us is the difficulty in challenging a law that has been enacted in the manner they intend - that is, creating an "Administrative Regulation". This is a sneaky, nasty way they have of creating new laws without having to pass the approval of congress or the courts - although technically the approval of congress is supposed to be required. In practice, however, congress rarely pays any attention to "in house" regulatory actions and that means there is every possibility Obama will succeed in getting this regulation in place - even though the legality of it fails on several constitutional points.

Some of us are working on the issue as I write this, and do not intend for it to happen without a fight. Ultimately, even if enacted, the law will fail under legal challenge. For many, many decades the Supreme Court has held that government interference and/or attempts to control basic property rights amounts to "constructive seizure" or "constructive taking" under the fourth and fifth amendments. These basic property rights especially include dictating how or to whom one can sell, give, trade or bequeath legally owned property.

Our goal is to prevent this unfair and unreasonable proposed regulation to be enacted in the first place. Like all proposed regulation, it will have to published in the Federal Registry for a period of at least 30 days, allowing for "public comment". The agency in question (FWS in this case) is required by law to consider these public comments in making their decision(s). As that time draws closer I expect we will have several detail "comments" available for concerned citizens to submit; I will make an effort for anyone so interested to have access to that material at that time.

In the meantime, public comments on how bad our government is or how stupid they are or how they'll get away with it no matter what we citizens do... none of these things can help our cause, and some may even be harmful.

TW
 
Thomas Wayne said:
The current information we have is the President's Advisory Council will be recommending that Fish and Wildlife Services adopt a regulation banning interstate trade/transport in Elephant Ivory. This has the potential to be far more devastating than you might imagine. It would immediately preclude the possibly of buying, selling, or trading in Ivory outside of one's own state. Additionally it would essentially prohibit giving or bequeathing any Ivory object to anyone not living in your own state.

The problem for us is the difficulty in challenging a law that has been enacted in the manner they intend - that is, creating an "Administrative Regulation". This is a sneaky, nasty way they have of creating new laws without having to pass the approval of congress or the courts - although technically the approval of congress is supposed to be required. In practice, however, congress rarely pays any attention to "in house" regulatory actions and that means there is every possibility Obama will succeed in getting this regulation in place - even though the legality of it fails on several constitutional points.

Some of us are working on the issue as I write this, and do not intend for it to happen without a fight. Ultimately, even if enacted, the law will fail under legal challenge. For many, many decades the Supreme Court has held that government interference and/or attempts to control basic property rights amounts to "constructive seizure" or "constructive taking" under the fourth and fifth amendments. These basic property rights especially include dictating how or to whom one can sell, give, trade or bequeath legally owned property.

Our goal is to prevent this unfair and unreasonable proposed regulation to be enacted in the first place. Like all proposed regulation, it will have to published in the Federal Registry for a period of at least 30 days, allowing for "public comment". The agency in question (FWS in this case) is required by law to consider these public comments in making their decision(s). As that time draws closer I expect we will have several detail "comments" available for concerned citizens to submit; I will make an effort for anyone so interested to have access to that material at that time.

In the meantime, public comments on how bad our government is or how stupid they are or how they'll get away with it no matter what we citizens do... none of these things can help our cause, and some may even be harmful.

TW
Click to expand...


Tom,

I already said all that in one sentence: "More relevant though is perhaps a law banning interstate commerce of ivory products between states. So, if the ivory is in Florida, then it can only be bought and sold within the state of Florida. I wouldn't put that law past the Feds".

You state that "some of us" and "our goal" - are you working on this with other like minded individuals or is there a mouse in your pocket? :grin:

Bottom-line: if they enact the law, ivory is done for. In fact, ivory is done for period - like it or not. I'm one of the strongest proponents for the use of ivory and for obvious reasons but the end is near my friends. The marketplace is smaller and smaller each year as new generations enter the market. My generation will still use it but younger generations want no part of it, hunting or "dead animal parts" regardless how well documented and pre ban the stuff is. That's the bottom-line here folks.

I agree that they shouldn't be able to enact "constructive seizure" or "constructive taking". However, talk to some people who have had eminent domain enacted upon their land and let me know how they feel. I am well aware that this is not an eminent domain issue but am just running the comparison that the government can and will do anything they want. Sure we can fight it and probably win but it's getting more and more difficult as time moves forward. It's an uphill battle.

What all this does is put the kibosh on the product which even if overturned or never enacted leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

The real question is.....
who will be here to buy all these ivory products in 20 or 40 years and will they even want it and be willing to pay a premium for it? I won't be here but younger generations will and younger generations for the most part don't want anything to do with dead animal parts.

In the famous words of whomever said it first...
The handwriting is on the wall.

That's all folks!
 
Last edited:
Joe Barringer said:
Tom,

I already said all that in one sentence: "More relevant though is perhaps a law banning interstate commerce of ivory products between states. So, if the ivory is in Florida, then it can only be bought and sold within the state of Florida. I wouldn't put that law past the Feds".
Click to expand...

Um, actually Joe, that's two sentences. However, I completely acknowledge you are both succinct and thorough in describing the problem(s). Possible solutions... not so much.

Joe Barringer said:
You state that "some of us" and "our goal" - are you working on this with other like minded individuals or is there a mouse in your pocket?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a number of us working in concert on a solution to this looming threat - and no, I do not have a mouse in my pocket.

Joe Barringer said:
Bottom-line: if they enact the law, ivory is done for. In fact, ivory is done for period - like it or not. I'm one of the strongest proponents for the use of ivory and for obvious reasons but the end is near my friends. The marketplace is smaller and smaller each year as new generations enter the market. My generation will still use it but younger generations want no part of it, hunting or "dead animal parts" regardless how well documented and pre ban the stuff is. That's the bottom-line here folks.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you believe you have a direct line on foreseeing the future, but on this particular issue, Joe, I don't think you would know the "bottom line" if it bit you on the, um... bottom.

Joe Barringer said:
I agree that they shouldn't be able to enact "constructive seizure" or "constructive taking". However, talk to some people who have had eminent domain enacted upon their land and let me know how they feel. I am well aware that this is not an eminent domain issue but am just running the comparison that the government can and will do anything they want.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Supreme Court will be relieved to know you agree with the decision(s) they have consistently upheld in hundreds of cases since the late 1880's. And, actually, laws governing eminent domain - primarily the Fifth Amendment - may play a very big role in this effort.

As for the position that the [federal] government will "do anything they want", the many hundreds of Supreme Court rulings that went against the government since before 1800 to date suggest this is hardly true.


Joe Barringer said:
The real question is.....
who will be here to buy all these ivory products in 20 or 40 years and will they even want it and be willing to pay a premium for it? I won't be here but younger generations will and younger generations for the most part don't want anything to do with dead animal parts.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but if you're right there will have been a unprecedented change in human nature that I personally doubt will occur.


Joe Barringer said:
In the famous words of whomever said it first...
The handwriting is on the wall.
Click to expand...

The first person known to have said, "The handwriting is on the wall" was the prophet Daniel, whom Babylonian king Belshazzar tasked with interpreting a cryptic message mysteriously written on the palace wall. That writing was "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin (מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין), which Daniel interpreted as notice from God (if you will) that Belshazzar had been measured by God and found wanting, and that his kingdom would be taken from him and divided. According to the historical record Belshazzar died that same night and Babylon was sacked and divided between the Medes and the Persians.

Your incessant pessimism notwithstanding, I much prefer the Yogi Berra [attributed] quote, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Joe Barringer said:
That's all folks!
Click to expand...

That would be from the famous Porky Pig, but the correct quote is, "Th-th-th-that's all folks!".

TW
 
Heres a thought, what if, one of us sells a cue, with ivory of course, and it was sold the same year that this so called "ban" could be passed, whats the gov't gestapo's going to do? We could be facing issues with proving what year a cue was made, where did the ivory come from? Sounds a little far fetched? Nope I wouldn't doubt it for a second.

Its going to be a sad day if it comes to it.
 
Hi,

This thread begs the question that I have been pondering for a long time.

What's the deal with the very popular Elephant Ear wraps that everyone loves including yours truly. Is it actually from an elephant or is it just something else everyone calls EE.?

If it is from the Elephant why are not the comrades running the Federal Gov making a pissy fit over its marketing.

One thing is for sure, if we had more libertarians representing us in the congress these type of conversations would not have any relavency. Make no mistake dems and reps are not your friends. They just stag a scripted Punch and Judy Show in lock step with the propaganda machine called the press.

When ever they do anything, the people of this county lose more and more. Once a right is given up you will never get it back barring a revolution.

Tell everyone you know to elect liberatarians to represent them. They will be passionate about protecting your constitutional rights and not letting silly bills like Ivory Banning get any traction.

JMO,

Rick
 
scdiveteam said:
Hi,

This thread begs the question that I have been pondering for a long time.

What's the deal with the very popular Elephant Ear wraps that everyone loves including yours truly. Is it actually from an elephant or is it just something else everyone calls EE.?

If it is from the Elephant why are not the comrades running the Federal Gov making a pissy fit over its marketing.

One thing is for sure, if we had more libertarians representing us in the congress these type of conversations would not have any relavency. Make no mistake dems and reps are not your friends. They just stag a scripted Punch and Judy Show in lock step with the propaganda machine called the press.

When ever they do anything, the people of this county lose more and more. Once a right is given up you will never get it back barring a revolution.

Tell everyone you know to elect liberatarians to represent them. They will be passionate about protecting your constitutional rights and not letting silly bills like Ivory Banning get any traction.

JMO,

Rick
Click to expand...


Libertarian, LIBERTARIAN!!! I'd rather have a sister in a whore house as a libertarian in my family tree.

Dick
 
rhncue said:
Libertarian, LIBERTARIAN!!! I'd rather have a sister in a whore house as a libertarian in my family tree.

Dick
Click to expand...

I guess if a 20 trillion dollar national debt with an economy heading for hyperinflation is acceptable to one, by all means keep a two party system in place.

We live in a time where liberty and attention to using our constitution as the benchmark for conduct by elected official should be the test. Legislation from bench decisions and a president circumventing congressional authority like he is a dictator should never be tolerated.

The problem as I see it is that most people are complacent and put their heads in the sand or are brainwashed by the two party misdirection.

There are thousands of pending bills just like this ivory ban that are examples of power being exercised on the public for no good reason. The erosion of rights in the name of altruism is pure evil from my seat. Atlas Billiards, Joe B and Gibson Co were just doing their business as usual when the government took them for a ride. That is pure evil in my book. Their intention is to destroy.

JMO,

Rick
 
Last edited:
Thomas Wayne said:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Barringer View Post
Tom,

I already said all that in one sentence: "More relevant though is perhaps a law banning interstate commerce of ivory products between states. So, if the ivory is in Florida, then it can only be bought and sold within the state of Florida. I wouldn't put that law past the Feds".

Um, actually Joe, that's two sentences. However, I completely acknowledge you are both succinct and thorough in describing the problem(s). Possible solutions... not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Barringer View Post

You state that "some of us" and "our goal" - are you working on this with other like minded individuals or is there a mouse in your pocket?

Yes, there are a number of us working in concert on a solution to this looming threat - and no, I do not have a mouse in my pocket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Barringer View Post

Bottom-line: if they enact the law, ivory is done for. In fact, ivory is done for period - like it or not. I'm one of the strongest proponents for the use of ivory and for obvious reasons but the end is near my friends. The marketplace is smaller and smaller each year as new generations enter the market. My generation will still use it but younger generations want no part of it, hunting or "dead animal parts" regardless how well documented and pre ban the stuff is. That's the bottom-line here folks.

I appreciate that you believe you have a direct line on foreseeing the future, but on this particular issue, Joe, I don't think you would know the "bottom line" if it bit you on the, um... bottom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Barringer View Post

I agree that they shouldn't be able to enact "constructive seizure" or "constructive taking". However, talk to some people who have had eminent domain enacted upon their land and let me know how they feel. I am well aware that this is not an eminent domain issue but am just running the comparison that the government can and will do anything they want.

I'm sure the Supreme Court will be relieved to know you agree with the decision(s) they have consistently upheld in hundreds of cases since the late 1880's. And, actually, laws governing eminent domain - primarily the Fifth Amendment - may play a very big role in this effort.

As for the position that the [federal] government will "do anything they want", the many hundreds of Supreme Court rulings that went against the government since before 1800 to date suggest this is hardly true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Barringer View Post
The real question is.....
who will be here to buy all these ivory products in 20 or 40 years and will they even want it and be willing to pay a premium for it? I won't be here but younger generations will and younger generations for the most part don't want anything to do with dead animal parts.

Maybe, but if you're right there will have been a unprecedented change in human nature that I personally doubt will occur.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Barringer View Post
In the famous words of whomever said it first...
The handwriting is on the wall.

The first person known to have said, "The handwriting is on the wall" was the prophet Daniel, whom Babylonian king Belshazzar tasked with interpreting a cryptic message mysteriously written on the palace wall. That writing was "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin (מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין), which Daniel interpreted as notice from God (if you will) that Belshazzar had been measured by God and found wanting, and that his kingdom would be taken from him and divided. According to the historical record Belshazzar died that same night and Babylon was sacked and divided between the Medes and the Persians.

Your incessant pessimism notwithstanding, I much prefer the Yogi Berra [attributed] quote, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Barringer View Post
That's all folks!

That would be from the famous Porky Pig, but the correct quote is, "Th-th-th-that's all folks!".

TW
Click to expand...


Tom,

I knew I'd get an interesting and witty reply from you. I was going to explain the "handwriting on the wall" but I didn't think anyone here would understand it much less would care so that's why I went with whomever said it.

Cabin fever huh.

I'm not going to address your dissertation as you and I will just go round and round and round. Thank you for the history lesson back to 1800.

I will address one statement (yeah, yeah I know it's two) where you state that you believe I have "incessant pessimism" and where, "I appreciate that you believe you have a direct line on foreseeing the future".

Like it or not, I am a realist.

I have never been nor will ever be a pessimist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the use of ivory is declining as well as the availability. I believe I have more experience in this field than most actually do since I buy and sell more ivory in one month than any cue maker in their career.

We deal and talk with knife makers, gun stock makers, musical instrument manufacturers, private parties, cue makers, furniture makers and restorers to mention a few. The general consensus is that the demand for ivory knife handles, the demand for ivory gun handles, the demand for ivory furniture inlays, etc, etc has been steadily declining.

We are getting more and more ivory tusks offered from heirs who "do not want it around" their home therefore they want to sell it. The term "dead animal parts" keeps popping up. People today don't want it around. That's a fact and the reality of the current climate.

There are fewer and fewer men going to Africa hunting elephants. Big game hunting as sport is on the decline. The pre ban ivory on the marketplace is very limited. You cannot satisfy demand with a finite supply so prices should go up; correct? Incorrect. Prices cannot go up when there are fewer and fewer buyers. The price today is no different than it was 10 years ago or even 15 years ago. The sad fact is that ivory buying prices have declined as less is available. Something is wrong with that scenario. It's called lower demand.

We sell hundreds of ivory ferrules per month and our business is still doing quite well. I firmly believe that at some point in the future, there will be little demand for ivory in products as younger generations do not want "dead animal parts" in the homes and hobbies.

A woman is running a business for 20 years. In a non related issue, she applies for tax exempt status then gets audited in both her personal and business taxes. She then gets numerous visits from the FBI and OSHA not to mention a pinhead of a senator or congressman (or whatever that clown is) writing letters, bla, bla, bla to know it was a witch hunt by the Taxocrats. Some things are just plain obvious without proof and without using a crystal ball. Foreseeing the future in this issue is a no-brainer, quite obvious and reality.

I understand that many cue makers make a living selling cues and cues that are 'works of art'. The fact remains - ivory use is on the decline. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top