Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of California Ivory Ban

California State Flag
California
KnifeRights.org
KnifeRights.org

Gilbert, AZ -(AmmoLand.com)- The Ivory Education Institute, a California-based non-profit, has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality, under California’s constitution, of California’s ivory ban (AB96) that was enacted last year and which goes into effect July 1, 2016.

AB96 outlawed virtually all trade in ivory, regardless of its source or age, as well as 10,000-year-old fossil mammoth and mastodon ivory, including any object with even the smallest amount of ivory included – so all ivory and mammoth ivory handled knives are devalued to zero.

Click here to read the complaint.

Knife Rights is not a party to the lawsuit, but we hope their challenge is successful.

About Knife Rights:

Knife Rights is America’s Grassroots Knife Owners Organization, working towards a Sharper Future for all knife owners. Knife Rights is dedicated to providing knife owners an effective voice in public policy. Become a Knife Rights member and make a contribution to support the fight for your knife rights.

For more information, visit www.KnifeRights.org.

Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Raymond Don Caruso

I am a scrimshaw artist working exclusively in mammoth and fossil walrus ivory for forty years, with no interest in anything not fossil. My livelihood has just been taken from me for no logical reason other than” people don’t know the difference” which strikes me as odd, as it is easy to discern if you are familiar with the materials.i was told to “do something else” by the congresswomans office, but this is what I do best, I don’t understand how saving elephants which I support is helped by banning woolly mammoth.

Matt

I was told I can’t even order a pool cue since the joint and ferrules would be ivory and the cue would take a year to build so I am not allowed to even order it. My local Assemblyman confirmed the cue to reach me by 6/30/16…….aren’t ex post facto laws unconstitutional?