A friend forwarded this alert from the National Rifle Association. A bill in the Vermont legislature will impact chess set collectors who trade in ivory sets from the 19th Century and earlier. Also, Mammoth ivory is not causing the death of mammoths that died thousands of years ago. Collector sets of chessmen are now made of this legal ivory. House of Staunton presently sells mammoth ivory sets. What follows is the core information from the NRA press release:
[i]This Wednesday, March 23, the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs will hear House Bill 297, sponsored by Representatives Kurt Wright (R-Chittenden-6-1) and Joan G. Lenes (D-Chittenden-5-2). H. 297 would prohibit the import, sale, offer for sale, purchase, barter or possession with intent to sell any ivory (defined to include mammoth ivory), ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or rhinoceros horn product, with limited and narrow exceptions. It is vital that you contact the Chair of the Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs, Senator Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland), TODAY and urge him to OPPOSE H. 297.
H.297 was introduced with the intent of curbing poaching of elephants in Africa and helping to end the illegal ivory trade. Unfortunately, H.297 would not accomplish its purported objective, but would instead harm those who have no part in these activities; firearm owners, sportsmen, hunters, recreational shooters and gun collectors who have legally purchased firearms (knives, jewelry, antiques and other items) that have incorporated ivory features for decades…[/i]
An “originalist” would have to torture the text, maybe even waterboard it, to discover mammoth bone ivory tucked into the wording of the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution.
That apparently is a problem. I would think some kind of Wooley certification system is needed. But, antique chessmen should not be restricted and that has been a problem for collectors. Makes no sense to ban the sale of those sets which is what this bill would effectively do.
There are very few “legitimate ivory” situations in the world. The harvest of whalebone and elephant bone for the purpose of making trinkets to man’s vanity goes on unabated in spite of the work of policing agencies. Even the mammoth bones that have been taken and used for chess sets is coming under scrutiny by the Russian government. The loss of these bones for scientific research is one issue. There is also the issue of substitution of mammoth bone for ivory in order to get around laws and regulations. Being facetious does not diminish the importance of the topic. The phrase “poached elephants” struck me funny and I could not resist. No moderator objected to the joke. The priggishness displayed by this complaint over a joke is ironic as Mr. Bachler does not hesitate to insert jokes and puns in other threads.
There is no question that there is a significant problem that is many faceted. The irony is that with global warming, the permafrost is melting causing more and more mammoth bones to become uncovered. I don’t know how many of those finds are of archaeological/anthropological significance. I suspect that if Putin & Co. could make a significant amount of money from the sale, they would be doing it.
The most significant issue for chess collectors is that of antique sets from the 18th and 19th centuries that are of known provenance and have no impact on the present poaching situation.
Puns, whilst said to be the lowest form of humor, are amongst the funniest for those who are not humor impaired. I found nothing wrong with the post complained of.
The state house bill, HR 297, appears to be a form of ex post facto law. It punishes that which was once completely legal. The problem is that the continued sale of even old artifacts whets the appetite of potential purchasers. It is also difficult to determine what is old ivory and what is new. There are process to antique or age items to make them seem to come from an earlier time. The law tries to put an end to the market in ivory by throwing a blanket over the whole. The poor, rich people who have ivory chess sets will no longer be able to sell them to other rich collectors if the law is passed. I don’t think I will shed any tears over them. The idea of ex post facto laws in principle does bother me, though. That is not a general practice and runs against values the Founding Brothers and our Constitution established.
I doubt that there are enough high end chess collectors to drive the market in ivory chessmen production from current ivory poaching. I also think that one can determine the providence of most old chessmen and if not still make an informed judgment about whether they are genuine antiques or not. I don’t think such a ban will affect the poachers at all, except to make them more determined by driving up the price of illegal ivory. It’s likely to be about as successful as the war on drugs. I wonder how many ivory chessmmen collectors are resident in Vermont. Not many is my guess. Personally, I’d much prefer the Wedgewood Shakespeare chessmen. House of Staunton had a set a few years back. I think they wanted $20K for it.
I think you’re right. Ex post facto would criminalize the PAST sales of these items. To criminalize future sales may have an economic impact on the products in question, but nobody is at risk of prosecution unless a NEW sale happens.
The NRA approach to these sort of bills is to apply a “slippery slope” approach to point out that the implementation by the government will affect past sales and previously legitimate activity as well as future sales. Why one needs to add ivory to a weapon is beyond comprehension, but some gun enthusiasts like to jazz up their high caliber semi-automatic weapons while they traipse around the woods attempting to kill small game or deer during the appropriate season.
Hawaii is in the process of doing similar legislation, according to AP. There is some discomfiture by those who do scrimshaw using various types of bone, including mammoth bone. It appears that the bill, even with exemptions, will inhibit the scrimshaw industry. The article did mention attempts to antique newer pieces of bone to make them look older and skirt regulations. Dating the bone is not an exact science yet.
In the 18th and 19th Centuries many products were made from or ornamented with Ivory. In the case of chessmen, it is not all that difficult to discern the provenance of antique sets. There may well be attempts to create fake antique chess sets, but I like to think that intelligent people can find a way to carve out exemptions rather than a complete ban. I’d like to know more about why mammoth ivory is a problem.
