I collect knives and I own pistols and rifles.
I do not live in the US.
I do participate on a few related American forums.
This is a piece of "legislation" that may affect you. It may be the forerunner to what could happen with firearms. Please study it and act. Following is a sample letter to send.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bGvbjEzQ6g
http://www.kniferights.org/
http://akti.org/
LETTERS MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE JUNE 21, 2009
[INSERT DATE]
[INSERT NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS]
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of International Trade
Regulations and Rulings
Mint Annex
799 9th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20229
Attn: Intellectual Property and Restricted Merchandise Branch
RE: PROPOSED REVOCATION OF RULING LETTERS AND REVOCATION OF TREATMENT RELATING TO THE ADMISSIBILTY [sic] OF CERTAIN KNIVES WITH SPRING-ASSISTED OPENING MECHANISMS
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regards to your proposed revocation referenced above. I am an owner and daily user of folding knives which would appear to be covered under your proposal. While I am having difficulty wading through your 63-page document and making complete sense of it, your 30-day comment period obliges me to at least let you know that it is very concerning to me on many levels and that I oppose this proposal.
In the first place, your 30-day comment period is unreasonably short. You cannot realistically expect us to actually understand all the myriad ramifications of this long and complicated proposal in a couple weeks, all the time left to me as a member of the public since I have just now found out about this proposal which was not widely circulated originally. This is made worse by your lack of an email address to send comments to as I must allow time for Postal Service delivery.
The definition of what is a switchblade has been clear and settled since the Federal Switchblade Act was passed in 1958. Your position is particularly questionable and irreconcilable because it flies in the face of virtually unanimous recent state court rulings (including several cases in California, Texas, Illinois and Michigan) where the issue of assisted-opening knives has already been decided in favor of the existing clear interpretation, that they are not a switchblade. Your convoluted reasoning for expanding this definition doesn't pass the common sense test, nor is it in line with current judicial rulings.
Even worse, it appears your proposal redefines gravity and inertia knives so broadly that many, if not most pocketknives will fall under its sweep. I and millions of knife owners will be affected. Because your "agency determination" will be used by domestic courts and law enforcement to determine what is a "switchblade" under both federal and state laws, the impact will be felt far more widely than just by importers. Many states fail to define switchblades and simply rely on the federal interpretation. This proposal would make it illegal for me and 40 million fellow law-abiding Americans to own a simple pocket knife.
Your attempt to redefine switchblades will also unnecessarily cost thousands of Americans their jobs. Many knife companies would be put out of business and their employees, dealers and others would be left jobless, needlessly doing great economic harm to our nation in a time of economic crisis.
I respectfully request that you do not proceed with this proposal, and that at a minimum, you provide a much longer comment period to allow me and my millions of fellow knife owners adequate time to properly review and comment. I also request that you allow us to submit comments via email. It is unconscionable in these difficult and technologically advanced times to force me to spend money to send my comments via postal mail.
Sincerely,
[INSERT SIGNATURE]
[INSERT NAME]
LETTERS MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE JUNE 21, 2009