tazzboy Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2010/08/09/daily19.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingarmadillo Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Sounds to me like some of the feds just want high end Gibsons without paying for them. I'd assume that it works like a drug property confiscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackie Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 only 6 guitars........wooooo federal case ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitartabguy Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Sounds to me like some of the feds just want high end Gibsons without paying for them. I'd assume that it works like a drug property confiscation. Lol, sounds about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman5293 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I find this to be complete and utter bullsh!t!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zippy Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 only 6 guitars........wooooo federal case ! ......your tax dollars hard at work.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrosurfer1959 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Trying to prove a point again they probably spent a million dollars in American tax payers money to investigate one of the few companies that actually care about the hardwood environment and these geniuses seize six guitars. They need to fire all these special needs enforcement agents and worry about real crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WahKeen Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 If they try to take it even further and come to my house, they'd better pack their lunch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnastynebr Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Whats next, a federal indictment for that short trout I caught last spring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Idiots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigh Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 It's a witch hunt. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olioli Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Quick quick buy them while you can! Future US made rarities! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Sounds like they basically found nothing except a few pieces of ebony, and that nobody could prove that those few pieces were legal or illegal. Sounds like Gibson didn't do anything wrong and that they couldn't prove anything. Thanks, Gibson, for doing the right thing by cooperating. Y'all turned out to be the good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 "...investigation by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The century-old Lacey Act combats trade in illegal wildlife, fish and plants, and underwent an expansion in 2008 to include timber and wood products. ... Feds want company to forfeit guitars made with ebony - Nashville Business Journal" Hmm... they just picked up wood products. Could it be someone at USF&W is trying to make a name for himself? They want possession? I think, If I were Henry J., I'd take 5 of my most trusted lawyers, then ask for a last look at them for a serial number inspection, or.. whatever. Then in a single chorus, El Kabong them all on the concrete floor, then hand them back to the evidence room attendant. What they said was, they wanted possession of them. No one said they had to be operational. I didn't know Ebony was on the protected list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 It was wrong and Gibson should have known better. tsk,tsk,tsk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff-7 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I would sleep better at night if the USFW was down fighting the remnants of the oil spill rather than going after a few pieces of ebony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Oh BOY, Wooppee...Let's make it harder and harder, for USA companies, to build their own products, here... then...maybe ALL guitars will HAVE to be made out of mystery wood, and IN CHINA...Like EVERYTHING else is, these days! Sorry...I feel a real "Rant" coming on, so I'll stop here! ;>b CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimbabig Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 "...investigation by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.The century-old Lacey Act combats trade in illegal wildlife' date=' fish and plants, and [u']underwent an expansion in 2008[/u] to include timber and wood products. ... Feds want company to forfeit guitars made with ebony - Nashville Business Journal" Hmm... they just picked up wood products. Could it be someone at USF&W is trying to make a name for himself? They want possession? I think, If I were Henry J., I'd take 5 of my most trusted lawyers, then ask for a last look at them for a serial number inspection, or.. whatever. Then in a single chorus, El Kabong them all on the concrete floor, then hand them back to the evidence room attendant. What they said was, they wanted possession of them. No one said they had to be operational. I didn't know Ebony was on the protected list. Why not just take off the fretboards? or were they also seizing the guitars with "rare woods" so they'd need the whole guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I would sleep better at night if the USFW was down fighting the remnants of the oil spill rather than going after a few pieces of ebony. Yeah, and how about the "Fed's" securing our borders, and siding with Arizona, to uphold the laws already ON the books, instead of suing them? #$%^&*~!!! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowdiddley Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Yeah' date=' and how about the "Fed's" securing our borders, and siding with Arizona, to uphold the lawsalready ON the books, instead of suing them? #$%^&*~!!! CB[/quote'] Wont happen with before 2013. Priorities are all screwed up in our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surveyor Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Maybe Nobama can just invite Henry over for a beer or two and get everything worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WahKeen Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Yeah' date=' and how about the "Fed's" securing our borders, and siding with Arizona, to uphold the lawsalready ON the books, instead of suing them? #$%^&*~!!! CB[/quote'] Here are some laws already on the books. It might tickle the bone. From LegalZoom: Women and the Law Not surprisingly, many of the antiquated statutes passed in the late 1800s and early 1900s were aimed at protecting the fairer sex from unwanted attention or less-than-flattering reputations. For example, an old city ordinance in Cleveland, Ohio prohibits women from wearing patent leather shoes in public. The reason? Shiny footwear could afford a nearby gentleman an unintentional peep show. In many parts of the country, the price of beauty can be stiff. Women in Florida, for example, can be fined for falling asleep under a dryer in a hair salon. And if you're a single thrill-seeker, head some place else. The sunshine state also prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sundays. Forget about trying to publicly adjust your stockings in either Dennison Texas or BristolTennessee. Performing such a lewd act could land you a sentence of up to twelve months in the state penitentiary. If you're a woman living in Michigan, you might want to check with your husband before heading to the hair stylist. According to state law, your hair belongs to your spouse and you'll need his permission before you can alter it. When visiting Charlotte, North Carolina, don't plan on packing light. According to city law, you must be swathed in at least 16 yards of fabric before stepping out into public. Even in fashion forward New York City, there are laws concerning how a woman dresses. In the Big Apple, wearing clingy or body-hugging clothing carries a $25 dollar fine. Not all old laws aimed at women are intended to preserve their virtue, however. Some were apparently designed to promote household hygiene and public safety. For example, Pittsburgh has a special cleaning ordinance on the books that bans housewives from hiding dirt under their rugs. And in Memphis, Tennessee, women can't drive a car unless there is a man with a red flag in front of the car warning the other people on the road. That last one is hillarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 LOL...wasn't really what I was talking about, BUT...they were funny/entertaining. ;>) CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Beaurocracy gone mad. I understand trade in endangered species must be carefully controlled but this case is completely ridiculous. Gibson should have removed the fingerboards from the necks and handed over the six slabs of ebony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Beaurocracy gone mad. I've said it for years, when I'm President I'll be taking laws OFF the books. John Stossel has a neat rule for the legislature; For every new law they want to pass, they should remove five laws from the books. Best example I can think of? 22,000 gun laws in the USA. Think there may be some redundancy? I could cover EVERY conceivable contingency with 22 laws, and ENFORCE them, while guaranteeing 2nd Amendment Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.