Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Angel Eyes on August 26, 2011, 02:21:24 PM
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html
Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. The Feds are keeping mum, but in a statement yesterday Gibson's chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, defended his company's manufacturing policies, accusing the Justice Department of bullying the company. "The wood the government seized Wednesday is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier," he said, suggesting the Feds are using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle.
Apart from wondering why the Feds are wasting time on this, I'm also curious about the case mentioned in the article: "United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms." It seems odd to name a hunk of wood as a defendant. Any of our resident lawyers know the reason for this approach? Thanks.
-
Apart from wondering why the Feds are wasting time on this . . .
They're NOT wasting time - they know EXACTLY what they're doing.
Take this clip from Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged - the wood raid really brings this to life:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-
why does this seem like old news? i thought i heard about this a few years ago. here's the article from 2009.
http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/11/16/daily25.html
unfortunatly we can't blame this on our current president, as the lacey act was passed in 1900, with the current amendment being passed in may of 2008. so that would mean..................oh frig it, i don't even care who signed it into law, it is really dumb the way that it has been written/enforced. i can't go to canada with a guitar that has any part made of ebony/rosewood/etc? ridiculous!
-
why does this seem like old news? i thought i heard about this a few years ago. here's the article from 2009.
http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/11/16/daily25.html
According to the WSJ article, there was a second raid on Gibson this past Wednesday.
i can't go to canada with a guitar that has any ebony/rosewood/etc. rediculous!
Not exactly helping the economy either, with businesses having to spend money on lawyers and court costs in the hopes that the .gov will return their property . . .
-
Not exactly helping the economy either, with businesses having to spend money on lawyers and court costs in the hopes that the .gov will return their property . .
I'm betting that guitars that ae stolen by the government will in the end come back in the same condition as returned firearms- rusted, dented, and broken- except that a guitar with exotic inlays is going to be worth a lot more than most fiirearms- more on par with a machine gun.
OTOH, this opens up the absurdity of government regulation of inanimate object up to a much wider audience.
-
this even includes my $300 guitar that has an ebony bridge. it likely includes 90% of all guitars as most have a rosewood or ebony fingerboard. from what i have been reading, there is no provision for exotic woods in your posession previous to the amendment being passed. how would i get documentation that shows when that material came into this country?
-
Gibson has its say on the matter:
http://www.gibson.com/absolutenm/templates/FeatureTemplatePressRelease.aspx?articleid=1340&zoneid=6
The tactic of seizing the company's property and holding on to it without filing charges seems familiar. Didn't the Feds do that to J&G Sales a while back?
-
The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.) This action was taken without the support and consent of the government in India.
So we are enforcing other countries laws on our people?
Please kick this one up to SCOTUS soon before someone finds out that a romanian worker only put 1 coat of grease on a shipping container of AKs instead of the two coats required by romanian law, or that chinese workers in a TV/computer/cell phone factory had a break cut short by 30 seconds.
-
Somebody's got to stop that Rock n Roll music before it gets a foothold.
-
So we are enforcing other countries laws on our people?
That sounds familiar. If I remember correctly, this man touches on it a few minutes into his presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Incidentally, everyone should watch this entire video.
-
When guitars are outlawed, only outlaws will have guitars.
You can have my six-string when you take it from my cold dead hands.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html
Apart from wondering why the Feds are wasting time on this, I'm also curious about the case mentioned in the article: "United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms." It seems odd to name a hunk of wood as a defendant. Any of our resident lawyers know the reason for this approach? Thanks.
IANAL, but the tradition of filing charges against property vs. people is long and ignoble here in the US. IIRC, the so-called "civil forfeiture" cases ( [barf]) used to be filed that way, to prevent the property owner from being able to simply reclaim their stolen seized property, or some such bovine excrement. I remember seeing cases filed against various firearms, and quite a few against bank accounts or specific amounts of cash.
-
And the government weasels don't understand the motivations when someone decides to build a 'killdozer.'
-
Breaking news tying the Gibson Guitar raid with the ATF Fast & Furious scandal!!!!!111:
http://tinyurl.com/death-and-axes
-
It's definitely high time to dismantle all of the buildings in the United States that have used immoral "blood timber." Crimes against the environment have been rampant. The Green Police need to move on this now. If people are left homeless, no matter, there will be more jobs for the cinder block crews.
-
Breaking news tying the Gibson Guitar raid with the ATF Fast & Furious scandal!!!!!111:http://tinyurl.com/death-and-axes
Is it sad that the iowahawk satire sounds almost plausible?
-
When guitars are outlawed, only outlaws will have guitars.
You can have my six-string when you take it from my cold dead hands.
So, when only outlaws have guitars, what will they play? Outlaw Country? ???
-
So, when only outlaws have guitars, what will they play? Outlaw Country? ???
All my rowdy friends have settled down. (or died) =(
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html
Apart from wondering why the Feds are wasting time on this, I'm also curious about the case mentioned in the article: "United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms." It seems odd to name a hunk of wood as a defendant. Any of our resident lawyers know the reason for this approach? Thanks.
Forfeiture cases are captioned with the "United States vs..." what the feds are seeking to grab.
-
Breaking news tying the Gibson Guitar raid with the ATF Fast & Furious scandal!!!!!111:
http://tinyurl.com/death-and-axes
Heh-heh. He said "weapons cachet." =)
-
Heh-heh. He said "weapons cachet." =)
Gibsons are quite stylish.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html
Apart from wondering why the Feds are wasting time on this, I'm also curious about the case mentioned in the article: "United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms." It seems odd to name a hunk of wood as a defendant. Any of our resident lawyers know the reason for this approach? Thanks.
Uhhh... Dude? Where have you been? Happens all the time.
There's tons of US (or whomever) vs (inanimate object) cases. Basically, LEO folks arrest the car, cash, or whatever they want. You are not being arrested or prosecuted. You must prove your standing in court to even be a party of US vs inanimate object, which costs money. You then have to prove your innocence. Then you usually have to sue to get your property back. Oh, depending on the jurisdiction, cops and/or prosecutors get slices of the action so they are HIGHLY motivated to defend the appropriated property.
It's called asset seizure. If you think you live in a free country, you're unaware of the legal concept.
-
And the government weasels don't understand the motivations when someone decides to build a 'killdozer.'
Oh, "they" understand, they just don't care. Any such fringe right wing lunatics will be marginalized by the complicit media and labeled as a nut case.
I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.
Of course every once in a while they will cross someone that doesn't have anything to lose and doesn't have any family or loved ones to protect.