Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ned Ward]

Robin Williams does a great Charlton Heston: "Guns don't kill people; apes with guns kill people..."

[Charlie Zureki]

And this is why we have a judicial branch to arbitrate when the executive branch forgets that founding document. (I probably need to stop now before I offend somebody).

I won't argue fine points of law since I am not a lawyer, and defer to how impractical it is for government to root out and find individual instruments, while touring musicians presenting these same instruments to customs over and over, seems to be playing the odds in a form of russian roulette.

The referenced article mentioned that this is affecting touring muso's. Times change and we must also. If I owned some rare vintage instruments that might be impounded, I sure wouldn't gamble with losing them.

JR

  JR.  the Executive (and Judicial & Legislative) Branch(es) having been snubbing their nose at the "Founding Documents"  for a LONG time.  It AIN'T Nothing new, and does not specifically apply to one Administration or branch of Government. But, as you've said, let's stop now, because we don't want to offend EVERY party.

   No, I don't think anyone ever suggested that anyone is going to go door to door searching for guitars, whose woods are of questionable practices, trade, transactions, or...whatever..., but, they may take the opportunity to seize instruments as occasions arise...with provenance be damned.

   Fighting an American Agency in court (even if clearly right) is an expensive and time consuming proposition. This Gibson issue is clearly a form of discrimmination that could be implied, if other Guitar makers, or even other instruments (woodwind, stringed) and their makers are not under the same scrutinization.

    How has the American People allowed the system to be turned upside-down? When, even clearly in the right, the citizen has been forced to legally fight for what is Guaranteed theirs? When, under the protection of some agency, the agents of this Agency can violate one's rights and is not subject to prosecution?


  I don't think any clear headed individual has a problem with restricting or banning endangered wood products, but, enforcement, needs to have specific criteria, especially to protect an individual.

   Hammer

   
   

[John Roberts {JR}]

---clip--
   Fighting an American Agency in court (even if clearly right) is an expensive and time consuming proposition. This Gibson issue is clearly a form of discrimmination that could be implied, if other Guitar makers, or even other instruments (woodwind, stringed) and their makers are not under the same scrutinization.

--clip---

  I don't think any clear headed individual has a problem with restricting or banning endangered wood products, but, enforcement, needs to have specific criteria, especially to protect an individual.

   Hammer

   
 

I am not a fan of regulatory reaching, but that a topic for another time and place.

I did not get a sense from the article that Gibson was being discriminated against, as much as they (regulators) had some reason for kicking those particular tires.

It seems enforcement should be associated with damping or preventing the illegal behavior. Impounding classic instruments owned by individuals does not damp new harvesting of restricted forests. Prosecuting manufacturers who buy and use this illegal wood seems like it would better support the intent of the restrictions (saving those trees so somebody can hug them at some future date.)

Laws are blunt instruments (Law is blind), which is why our founders tried to limit their scope and reach, but again I wax philosophical.

JR

[Charlie Zureki]

I am not a fan of regulatory reaching, but that a topic for another time and place.

I did not get a sense from the article that Gibson was being discriminated against, as much as they (regulators) had some reason for kicking those particular tires.

It seems enforcement should be associated with damping or preventing the illegal behavior. Impounding classic instruments owned by individuals does not damp new harvesting of restricted forests. Prosecuting manufacturers who buy and use this illegal wood seems like it would better support the intent of the restrictions (saving those trees so somebody can hug them at some future date.)

Laws are blunt instruments (Law is blind), which is why our founders tried to limit their scope and reach, but again I wax philosophical.

JR

  "Laws should be razor sharp."  and "Justice is blind".

   Hammer

[John Roberts {JR}]

  "Laws should be razor sharp."  and "Justice is blind".

   Hammer

Perhaps that's why they've grown to so many pages, while in many cases the laws just set up regulatory structures and tell them to flesh out the details, without the check and balance of the legislative process.

Sorry, I definitely shouldn't confuse law with justice.

JR

[Charlie Zureki]

  "Laws should be razor sharp."  and "Justice is blind".

   Hammer

Perhaps that's why they've grown to so many pages, while in many cases the laws just set up regulatory structures and tell them to flesh out the details, without the check and balance of the legislative process.

Sorry, I definitely shouldn't confuse law with justice.

JR

    It's ok... Many of our leaders confuse law with self interests.

  I'm done.

  I just hope that civil servants don't overstep the intents of the existing law....not like it hasn't happened before....

   Cheers,
   Hammer

[ProSoundWeb Community]