Ivory Ban update - July 9, 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thomas Wayne

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This just released by the Elephant Protection Association regarding US FWS attempt to ban the sale of legal elephant ivory in the U.S.A..:

http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dda9c7b47b985ac6242f68cd0&id=428b9896d5&e=7a04d31401

The House Bill referred to in that EPA release can be found here:

http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-113hr-sc-ap-fy2015-interior-subcommitteedraft.pdf?utm_source=Ivory&utm_campaign=428b9896d5-Advisory_Council_Reminder_Reg_Published5_29_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3a7fb4a39e-428b9896d5-137073217

The relevant section of that House Bill regarding domestic legal ivory trade can be found beginning on page 59, line 15 and runs through page 60, line 6.

TW
 

bdcues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, since no one seems to have the decency to thank you for posting... guess they are saving it for Joe P.


Thanks, Thomas.
 

ELBeau

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thank you for the update and links, Thomas. I was thrilled to hear about the developments this morning but hadn't yet read about it. This is great news for the industry; I hope it is approved next week.
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Wait, I thought it was hopeless.
I'm hoping for the best as well.
Thanks TW.
 

cueman

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here is what it says:

IVORY
16 SEC. 115. None of the funds made available by this
17 or any other Act may be used to draft, prepare, imple18
ment, or enforce any new or revised regulation or order
19 that—
20 (1) prohibits or restricts, within the United
21 States, the possession, sale, delivery, receipt, ship22
ment, or transportation of ivory that has been law23
fully imported into the United States;
1 (2) changes any means of determining, includ2
ing any applicable presumptions concerning, when
3 ivory has been lawfully imported; or
4 (3) prohibits or restricts the importation of
5 ivory that was lawfully importable into the United
6 States as of February 1, 2014.



My question is: Does this mean they can't enforce a new ban or just that they will have to get the money from somewhere else to do so?
 

Joe Barringer

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was going to post this last night but I had too much going on so I'm glad to see someone else posted it. This is all good news but does it really stop the anti ivory forces and what's in the works? I don't know but I'm sure we'll find out.

Just remember, Benghazi was a spontaneous protest. No, it was a planned attack. You can keep your current health care. No you can't. The IRS targeted not for profit organizations. No, they're just "phony scandals". Hmmm, let's see.... we have a president who has repeatedly been accused of making end runs around Congress by deciding which laws to enforce.

I'm not a doom and gloom person but I don't believe anything anymore with the current administration in power. When it actually doesn't happen is when I'll believe ivory will be safe.

In any event, what about The New York Ivory Ban!
 

bdcues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was going to post this last night but I had too much going on so I'm glad to see someone else posted it. This is all good news but does it really stop the anti ivory forces and what's in the works? I don't know but I'm sure we'll find out.

Just remember, Benghazi was a spontaneous protest. No, it was a planned attack. You can keep your current health care. No you can't. The IRS targeted not for profit organizations. No, they're just "phony scandals". Hmmm, let's see.... we have a president who has repeatedly been accused of making end runs around Congress by deciding which laws to enforce.

I'm not a doom and gloom person but I don't believe anything anymore with the current administration in power. When it actually doesn't happen is when I'll believe ivory will be safe.

In any event, what about The New York Ivory Ban!

Ever heard of States Rights? While disagreeing with the legislation entirely it is certainly within each States prerogative to treat ivory or any other item, pot for instance, how that State sees fit.
 

Joe Barringer

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ever heard of States Rights? While disagreeing with the legislation entirely it is certainly within each States prerogative to treat ivory or any other item, pot for instance, how that State sees fit.


Yes, each state can do whatever they wish BUT...
Federal law trumps state law. California has a similar ban on ivory but it was already fought in the courts rendering their State law as meaningless. Who's going to step up to the plate in NY to fight it? If no one does, then anyone selling a cue or a ferrule in NY is open to State prosecution.
 

Thomas Wayne

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ever heard of States Rights? While disagreeing with the legislation entirely it is certainly within each States prerogative to treat ivory or any other item, pot for instance, how that State sees fit.

Ever heard of the Civil War? "States Rights" does not trump citizen rights guaranteed by specific amendments to the US Constitution. Any state can have their own constitutional guarantee providing greater protective rights (Alaska, for example, does exactly that), but no state can maintain laws that violate federally guaranteed rights.

Your instance of individual state laws allowing marijuana possession (and use) involves such state-granted protections [that exceed federal protections]. It doesn't cut the other way... thank God.

TW
 

bdcues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member


Ever heard of the Civil War? "States Rights" does not trump citizen rights guaranteed by specific amendments to the US Constitution. Any state can have their own constitutional guarantee providing greater protective rights (Alaska, for example, does exactly that), but no state can maintain laws that violate federally guaranteed rights.

Your instance of individual state laws allowing marijuana possession (and use) involves such state-granted protections [that exceed federal protections]. It doesn't cut the other way... thank God.

TW

then the people of NY have nothing to worry about do they? They just need a group that does not think it is a total waste of time, a fool's errand, to do something about it.
 

Thomas Wayne

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
then the people of NY have nothing to worry about do they? They just need a group that does not think it is a total waste of time, a fool's errand, to do something about it.

Any time anyone takes on the task of challenging ANY law on the basis of the federal constitution they have PLENTY to worry about - if only for the cost of litigation.

But in a perfect world a citizen would simply be able to contact a federal judge, show him the NY statutes and a copy of the Bill of Rights and the judge would declare the NY laws null and void. In a perfect world.

TW
 

Thomas Wayne

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I believe there's a federal ban on marijuana.
Signed, Colorado Residents.

Which is not being actively enforced by the feds in Colorado, primarily because they don't want to lose that fight in public. Same reason they haven't pursued ANY small marijuana possession cases in Alaska in decades. They already lost that fight in the mid-70's in Raven vs. US.

TW
 

Bavafongoul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Look....let's be clear....unless the federal Law is judged by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and thus overturned.........Federal Law is always precedent and superior to any local od state laws enacted.......you cannot pass a law that contradicts the federal law and expect to prevail if the Federal Governement comes after you.......that's just the facts of life.....but you can appeal the decision or the law thru the proper channels.


And medical marijuana or legally enacted legal marijuana at the state level...is against the law......The Feds have bigger fish to fry and marijuana is no longer the evil weed that destroys lives.....that why the Feds aren't closing down these operations. President Obama made it clear that marijuana for medical reasons or legally enacted at the state level is a low priority.


Thank you Mr. Wayne for bringing information to the Forum about the ivory ban......but people, let's not engage in a endless debate about civil liberties infringement et al. We are not at that point......the _ucking gun lobby will save us all.......isn't that a sad commentary......and remember, the cues I buy and have made are all ivory laiden......I will not buy or own another cue that does not have a ivory joint and ferrules.....


But let's allow the GOP time to straighten this out and I bet fast too because the gun lobby is more powerful than even the oil & gas or the banking lobbies......Guns will save the future of pool cues........Pretty _ucked up and keep in mind I'm a big gun owner and have CCW privileges the past two decades and still legally pack.

Matt B.
 
Last edited:

Thomas Wayne

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
[...] Federal Law is always precedent and superior to any local od state laws enacted [....]

Simply untrue. There are MANY individual state laws that contradict federal law, and take precedent over federal law within that state. I suggest you research the history of marijuana laws in Alaska, where you'll find that a local attorney named "Raven" - in the 1970's - successfully argued the Alaska State constitution offers greater protections of citizen privacy and that the federal government had/has no jurisdiction over small-quantity "personal use" possession of marijuana (plants OR harvested material) WITHIN the confines of an Alaskan resident's home. The feds have avoided any official challenge because they know they cannot prevail.

You can also learn a lot by studying the Texas statehood papers and constitution - contains many aspects that run counter to federal law, and there isn't a damn thing the feds can do about that either.

TW
 

Bavafongoul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm a Federalist....like Thomas Jefferson.......and let's face the actual facts....until the constitutionality is tested and determined by the highest court in the land........Federal law has precedence.

"State laws only govern the citizens within a particular state, but federal laws apply to all U.S. citizens. When state and federal laws clash, think of the federal law as the trump card. In theory, a state law that goes against federal law is null and void, but in practice, there's a bit more of a gray area. What it really comes down to is enforcement. If a state defies federal law, but the federal government doesn't enforce its law in that state, is federal law really the trump card?

The Doctrine of Pre-emption and The Supremacy Clause

The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution [source: FindLaw]. The supremacy cause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when you're in the state you can follow the state law, but the fed can decide to stop you.

Arizona's immigration law is a great example of the federal government fully enforcing the supremacy clause. When Arizona passed a very strict immigration law, the federal Justice Department sued them to overturn it under the supremacy clause. A spokesman from the Obama administration stated that the reason it went after Arizona is that the state law had international implications, especially in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Proponents of the Arizona law said that the state was just enforcing federal law, since the feds would not do it and illegal immigrants were costing Arizona a lot of money. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court overturned parts of the law and upheld others. The operative term here, though, is "can."

Historically, the federal government has not cracked down every single time a state and federal law contradict. If state law contradicts federal law but it's not something that affects national security or international relations, the feds might not intervene. In Nevada, certain counties have legalized prostitution, which also violates federal law, but the federal government has so far not enforced the doctrine of pre-emption in Nevada. Prostitution is illegal according to U.S. federal law, but under Nevada state law, counties with a population of less than 700,000 people can legally have legal brothels [source: Tan]. Unlike in Arizona, the federal government has not sued the state to shut down prostitution, and unlike California's medical marijuana dispensaries, the fed has not raided any brothels in the state. You could argue that prostitution is also an international issue, since human trafficking is certainly a problem that crosses state and national borders, but the federal government has not taken any action in Nevada."

The " information " is obtained thru the Internet and as far as I know and understand the application of precedence in law ....any state may enact laws that are equal to or more stringent than Federal Law on the same subject but can "never" pass laws that contradict or reduce the prescribed penalties under the Federal law if convicted.

That's my understanding of this matter.....and just saying or claiming that state rights prevail and citing that the Feds don't challenge it sounds as silly as John Boehner's lawsuit....just because someone bellows a falsehood or mistruth doesn't make it true......there's more important issues in our nation than going after marijuana laws being enacted ....which the residents of that state obviously approved............and that's the genuine reason that the Feds aren't looking to challenge states rights but when they do....they usually win.


Matt B.
 
Last edited:

cueman

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thomas, or any others with knowledge on this,

Back to the Ivory Ban.

Does this mean it cannot be funded from other places like private sources and continue on or does this table the Ivory Ban?
 

scdiveteam

Rick Geschrey
Silver Member
Thomas, or any others with knowledge on this,

Back to the Ivory Ban.

Does this mean it cannot be funded from other places like private sources and continue on or does this table the Ivory Ban?

Chris,

Presidents have bombed landscapes and killed civilian populations ( collarteral damage ) using executive order and circumventing congressional budgetary authority.

Ivory banning stuff would be a piece of cake. Ivory collectors and merchants losing wealth or assets over a stupid idea and action is not going make anyone lose a moments sleep in the White House.

Remember prosucuters love to prosecute federal lawsuits against citizens. No ivory salesmen and most ivory collectors could not afford to challenge the basis of a regulation created by executive order in the courts via contitutional review.

JMO,

Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top