Ivory grips legal?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim K

Member.
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
17,847
There have recently been articles about items made from ivory, some even a century old, being confiscated and the owners fined under laws intended to protect elephants from poaching.

What is the law regarding ivory (real elephant ivory, of course, not faux ivory) grips? What proof would be acceptable to show that the grips on any given gun are antique and outside the purview of the law? Is any ivory product safe, when antique pianos worth thousands of dollars have reportedly been seized and destroyed because their ivory keys really are ivory?

How old do ivory articles have to be to be legal and how in the world can the age be proven. Just because ivory grips are on a gun made in 1870 doesn't mean they are that old.

Jim
 
If you think it's a cause for concern, how about retiring the ivory grips and replacing them, just for shooting in public, with something else?
Then you can still keep them, still enjoy the gun without worry and avoid any hassles from anyone who thinks they know more legal stuff than they actually do.
At least until you can find the legal evidence, one way or another, to avoid being hassled.
Here's one of many articles and opinions on what's legal:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/chattanooga_200804A10.html
 
Last edited:
It is not illegal to possess ivory. If you have or can get ivory grips, it's legal. The illegal thing about ivory is harvesting it.

I'll never have a set of real ivory grips because they are really terribly expensive.
 
That isn't the case anymore if the Gov choses too press it.

Suggest you get current on the latest regulations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/chattanooga_200804A10.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tes-rules-wildlife-trafficking-ivory-science/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban...-ivory-rules-put-elephants-at-increased-risk/

Where this leaves us all with 100+ year old Ivory grips?
Or 45 year old ivory grips?
Or a 150 year old Bowie Knife?
Or a modern 0&U high grade shotgun with an ivory bead sight is unknown at this time.


These elephant ivory grips where made by me, out of old ivory bought from an estate sale 20 years ago.
The ivory is of unknown age.

image.jpg

The dead guy had a cigar box full of it he used to make hand inlayed cribbage boards with, 50 years ago.

But I couldn't prove it is pre-1989 if my life savings depended on it!
Which, it would be if I were arrested for it and had to prove it!

Thankfully, I have seen no reports of the new law being enforced on gun or knife collectors, yet.

But it is still a new Federal law now, and could be unforced at the next gun show you try to sell an old gun or knife at.

rc
 
Owning Ivory is perfectly legal AFAIK. I think it has to be of a certain age though. I think I remember (don't quote me) reading something about a date in the 70's or 80's.

I have recently gotten into using, and collecting, straight razors. It is fairly common to come across vintage razors with Ivory scales. They are bought and sold all the time. It is a beautiful natural material. I do agree with modern laws aiming to conserve animals. But what is out there already is out there. Nothing you or I can do about that. I would enjoy owning a nicely crafted 100+ year ivory razor. However, anything in reasonable condition commands a higher price than I can justify. Oh well.

Ivory pistol grip are equally as appealing.
 
I haven't heard of current owners of ivory having a problem, but some folks who travel internationally with ivory may have a problem when returning. (Musicians are one group I've heard of that's affected - some musical instruments have ivory parts or inlays.)

I understand some auction houses have stopped handling ivory - for example, some Chinese chess sets have ivory pieces, and they don't want to deal with potential problems in buying and selling these.

But I haven't heard of anyone having a problem with owning ivory chess sets, pianos with ivory keys, or ivory gun grips.
 
OK, say that around 1998, a gun company offered, as an option, genuine ivory grips. People bought guns with those grips, and the grips appear to be genuine ivory, or at least a natural product. The buyers did not get any documentation as to the source of the ivory, the date it was harvested or imported, or the nationality of the elephant.

Now it appears that those grips are illegal to sell, and that the gun would be illegal to sell unless the grips are removed.

This from the Forbes site:

"The Advisory Council recommended prohibition. In mid-February the administration issued its new plan, which was as close as possible to a total ban without being a total ban. (The new administration policy also applies to rhinoceros.) In practice, virtually every collector, dealer, auctioneer, and other person—who may simply have picked up or inherited some ivory—in America is banned from selling ivory items, even if acquired legally, owned for decades, and worth hundreds or thousands of dollars. Indeed, the collective value of that property runs into the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Every flea market, junk shop, estate sale, antique store, auction showroom, and antique show is at risk of raids, confiscations, and prosecutions. And not one additional elephant is likely to survive as a result.

As an administrative pronouncement, rather than legislative enactment, the rules could change. However, the guidance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the federal government will target almost anyone attempting to buy or sell ivory of any sort.

First, no imports are allowed, not even antiques. Until now the latter could be brought to America with a CITES certificate. After all, no one is likely to mistake an early 18th century ivory chess set or beer stein as made of modern ivory. Nor does it matter in which country, say Britain or America, an old piece of ivory resides. Now U.S. collectors are cut off from the rest of the world, for no purpose."

So, no, the government is not going to break down doors and seize ivory grips or antique chess sets. But those guns, or any guns with ivory grips, cannot be sold, since no one can show absolute, incontrovertible proof that the grips on that Colt Paterson were not made from illegally imported ivory. And if reasonable proof is furnished, the government chooses whether to accept it or not. If it decides that the proof is not sufficent, the owner of that Paterson can be imprisoned and the grips and the gun will be destroyed. Must we now remove all ivory grips before selling such guns? It sure looks that way.

Jim
 
When did we go from "innocent until proven guilty" to having to prove we were within the law when we purchased something. The burden of proof should be on the State to proove that you did something illegal.
 
We must preserve the wild life, even if we have to kill all the humans!

Jim
 
I was not referring to imported ivory. Of course, imports of any kind are going to be laded with laws.

You find an ivory gripped handgun in a shop, buy it with complete confidence you are breaking no law.
 
short barrel said:
....You find an ivory gripped handgun in a shop, buy it with complete confidence you are breaking no law.
Really? How do you know? Can you cite some legal authority supporting your claim?

This is serious business. You're telling people that doing something is legal and that they should go ahead and do it. But if you're wrong someone who took your advice could wind up in a lot of trouble.

If you can't substantiate your claims do not lead people astray with bad advice.

Jeff H said:
When did we go from "innocent until proven guilty" to having to prove we were within the law when we purchased something. The burden of proof should be on the State to proove that you did something illegal.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is merely a sort of non-technical, casual way of referring to the presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is the technical, legal rule describing the prosecution's burden of proof in a trial on a criminal charge. In a trial on a criminal charge, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The defendant in a trial on a criminal charge is presumed to be innocent, but that presumption is rebuttable if the prosecution, in the opinion of the jury, meets its burden of proof. If the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof, the defendant is entitled to a verdict of "not guilty."

However, there are many situations in which once the prosecution has put on good evidence that the defendant committed, prima facie (on its face), the elements of the crime charged, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove (or at least produce sufficient evidence, depending on the jurisdiction) his defense. That sort of thing comes up in various circumstances, mostly when the exculpatory evidence supporting an affirmative defense raised by the defendant should be within the control of the defendant.

The point is that matters relating to the burden of proof, the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion are highly technical; and these various burdens can shift as certain evidence is presented at a trial by one side or the other.
 
I was not referring to imported ivory. Of course, imports of any kind are going to be laded with laws.
Emmmm?

What kind of Ivory do you expect to find that was home-grown in the USA?

Last I checked, there weren't any Elephants, Narwhales, Hippos, or Walrus in the back yard.

rc
 
"Innocent until proven guilty" is merely a sort of non-technical, casual way of referring to the presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is the technical, legal rule describing the prosecution's burden of proof in a trial on a criminal charge. In a trial on a criminal charge, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. The defendant in a trial on a criminal charge is presumed to be innocent, but that presumption is rebuttable if the prosecution, in the opinion of the jury, meets its burden of proof. If the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof, the defendant is entitled to a verdict of "not guilty."

However, there are many situations in which once the prosecution has put on good evidence that the defendant committed, prima facie (on its face), the elements of the crime charged, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove (or at least produce sufficient evidence, depending on the jurisdiction) his defense. That sort of thing comes up in various circumstances, mostly when the exculpatory evidence supporting an affirmative defense raised by the defendant should be within the control of the defendant.

The point is that matters relating to the burden of proof, the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion are highly technical; and these various burdens can shift as certain evidence is presented at a trial by one side or the other.

Frank, I understand all that (well most of it anyway) but my point is that it seems to be a common theme in this thread that mere possession of ivory is prosecutable unless you can prove that it was purchased before some date.

Am I hearing that mere possession is res ipsa loquitor with regard to a prima facia case? I don't see how that passes the smell test.
 
I don't see how mere possession can be a crime. Sounds a little too ex post facto to my civics trained mind.
 
Jeff H said:
...Am I hearing that mere possession is res ipsa loquitor with regard to a prima facia case?...
I don't know that with regard to ivory that will be the case. But it can be the case with certain things, possession of which is illegal unless certain conditions are satisfied, it can be up to the person in possession to establish that he has satisfied whatever conditions would make his possession lawful.

My point is that "innocent until proven guilty" gets tossed around a lot without really understanding what that means and without recognizing that it's not necessarily that simple.

BigG said:
I don't see how mere possession can be a crime. Sounds a little too ex post facto to my civics trained mind.
And often folks toss around ex post facto without fully understanding the concept.

As defined, an ex post facto law is one:
...adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increases the penalty for a crime after it is committed...

  • Ex post facto essentially means being subject to criminal sanctions today for an act performed in the past which was legal when performed. That is different from from being subject to criminal liability for the continued possession of a thing after the effective date of a law making that thing illegal for you to possess.

  • One may have possessed a thing prior to the effective date of a law making possession of that thing a crime.

  • If that person had sold that thing prior to the effective date of that law, he could not be subject to criminal liability for the act committed and concluded before that law became effective.

  • If however that purported to make criminal that prior possession of that thing no longer possessed, it would be ex post facto and violate the Constitutional prohibition.

  • But instead our hypothetical law make illegal the continued possession of that thing after the effective date of the law The illegal conduct, possession of the thing, must occur after the effective date of the law.

  • What is unlawful under our hypothetical law is continued possession after the law became effective, not the possession of that thing prior to the law's effective date.

Note that I'm stating no opinion regarding the legality or illegality of possessing ivory or regarding the circumstances under which it would be legal or illegal. I'm not planning to do the research necessary to be able to properly opine on such question. I'm merely clearing up some common misconceptions about certain legal principles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top