Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shakethetrees
It was my understanding that this certification from CITES would require a much tighter set of criteria on which to award an exemption from confiscation.
The burden of proof will be entirely on the shoulders of the owner/vendor. The object itself will be almost pushed aside regarding this proof of age. It is old paperwork that they want, not expert testimony.
In today's litigious world, you can get an "expert" to state whatever you want, so rather than rely on this, they want to rely on documentation.
Remember, the objective here is to eliminate ivory or rhino horn from private possession, and possibly possession or display in most museums. If these substances and the objects made from them are entirely removed from the conscienceless of the public worldwide, only then can the elephant and rhinoceros be saved from poaching.
In other words, "Down the memory hole" with it.
& I didn't want to bring this up, but if you go back to the early 1990's and have a look at the way the Janet Reno era gun regulations were written, they were full of discrepancies and just plain bad info. .
|
Thanks STT I must raise a few points in response.
S so its an "understanding" that leads you to think certification is changing... So it may or may not be so?
Its cheaper for those that wished to forge Victorian paperwork than pay an expert, so how will they check the paperwork? ... Pay another expert to give their opinion on the paper work? I know some laws are stupid & illogical , but that really doesn't make sense & would cost them rather than you money.
I know an expert can argue anything, but that's why I said the experts they except. {Ones they presume are knowledgeable & reliable.}
I agree many laws are badly, written discussion of gun laws is obviously not relevant, to this discussion though. I could say that there sensible laws banning murder in response.... But that would be equally not relevant to the discussion of ivory laws.
Spiral