On Knives

June 13, 2009

19 CFR Part 177
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings
Attention: Intellectual Property and Restricted Merchandise Branch
Mint Annex, 799 Ninth St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20229


Dear Sir or Madam:

It is my understanding that you intend to modify 19 CFR Part 177 in direct contravention of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, in defiance of the expressed will of Congress, and despite several judicial rulings (all of which take precedence over regulatory authority) that the knives you propose to ban by fiat are in fact not switchblades.

Such regulation is not merely a bad notion, laden with fuzzy thinking at best and open defiance of congressional and judicial authority at worst, but an EXPENSIVE bad idea leading inevitably to a vast amount of litigation (in which the Administration will not prevail).

Assisted-opening folding knives whether by crank, semi-spring assisted mechanism or inertial opening all prove routinely useful as utilitarian tools facilitating independence not merely for average persons, but particularly and specifically for persons with hand or arm disability – or in the case of birth defects or trauma, the simple absence of a hand or limb. Barring them from import (and since many jurisdictions use the Customs definition as the operating definition of switchblades under said jurisdictions ordinances and statutes) possession deprives such individuals of a tool personally and professionally useful on a daily basis for many – in contravention of said American With Disabilities Act.

Further, Congress (whose proper realm any such bar to import falls under) has repeatedly declined to define such knives contraband. It is at best somewhat presumptive for an administrative agency to deign to legislate where Congress has chosen not to tread – and certainly constitutionally questionable.

Finally, courts in such diverse legal climes as California, Texas, Illinois and Michigan have all found the knives you propose to bar as “switchblades” to, in fact, NOT BE SWITCHBLADES. This should be a hint, to even a minimally competent attorney, that regulations to the contrary are an expensive invitation to litigation by the masses – litigation which, like an avalanche, will crush any potential defense.

Moving beyond the legal and constitutional reasoning why this proposed regulatory misadventure is such a very bad idea, we examine economic impact beyond the cost of litigation and damages paid out to injured parties.

Lest it have escaped the Agency’s notice, the kindest possible definition of the U.S. economy at this date is “delicate”. A more accurate description would be “in a deep and worsening depression”.

Consciously setting out to damage an already weak economy by attacking a 5.9 billion dollar industry with 3,881 direct U.S. employees and 19,405 U.S. employees in ancillary operations cannot rationally be considered a positive contribution to the national economy. Keeping those folks employed in their customary occupations, is a good thing.

In a time of unprecedented spending matched only by unusually diminished revenues, such regulation also fails to pass any rational test of economic impact on government revenue – by reducing the production of income to, in turn, be taxed.

Going further, this re-definition has a serious and negative impact on the States and local jurisdictions that depend entirely or in part on sales tax revenue for their economic sustenance. Private individuals who purchase such knives for such tasks as box-opening, portable pry bars, and general utility tools will – by virtue of such ban – not be spending on such items, and as a result, not be generating tax revenue…and are unlikely to, in these times, spend said sums elsewhere.

Additionally, such knives are very popular purchases with fishers and hunters – groups that, combined, spent nearly 65 billion in the last year and that in these economic times, under no circumstances should be discouraged from any of their spending for the foreseeable future. Aside from simple respect of such individuals as responsible adults, that 65 billion in spending is a revenue stream necessary for the survival of many state and local governments.

Exploring practicality, with knives such as your proposed ban would forbid comprising 80% of knife sales nationwide, 90% of law enforcement and emergency services carrying such knives already, a similar percentage (90%) of Active and Reserve military carrying and owning at least two such knives, and the above barely touching on said knives prevalence and utility in American society – not only does enforcement become inherently selective and discriminatory, unusually subject to use as a tool of vendetta against those held in disdain by one irritated government employee or another, but becomes sufficiently ludicrous as to make a laughingstock of the Agency, making said agency the target of such scathing contempt and general defiance as the “revenooer’s” of the Prohibition Era – likely not an agency goal.

I urge the agency to return to its’ role as an enforcement body, and abandon attempts to act as a legislative body. If definitions require change, Congress is capable of making such determinations and changes – and Customs & Border Protection certainly has sufficient to occupy it without usurping said bodies constitutional role.

Sincerely,


Gay_Cynic

Sources: http://www.tactical-life.com/online/news/us-customs%E2%80%99-attempts-to-hinder-knife-industry-with-import-regulations-knife-classifications/