Recent revisions to 1900's Lacey Act require that anyone crossing the U.S. border declare every bit of flora or fauna being brought into the country. One is under "strict liability" to fill out the paperwork--and without any mistakes.
It's not enough to know that the body of your old guitar is made of spruce and maple: What's the bridge made of? If it's ebony, do you have the paperwork to show when and where that wood was harvested and when and where it was made into a bridge? Is the nut holding the strings at the guitar's headstock bone, or could it be ivory? "Even if you have no knowledge--despite Herculean efforts to obtain it--that some piece of your guitar, no matter how small, was obtained illegally, you lose your guitar forever," Prof. Thomas has written. "Oh, and you'll be fined $250 for that false (or missing) information in your Lacey Act Import Declaration."
Raid on Gibson Guitars
- Bond v. U.S.
- A Poster Child for Overcriminalization: The History of the Lacey Act
- Opposing FCPA Overcriminalization
- The Detrimental Effects of Extreme Deterrence
- The Bond That Ties: A Case-Study in Federalism
- Debate Concludes: The need for a reasonable mistake of law defense
- Reply: Never underestimate a defense lawyer's imagination
- A Debate: The need for a reasonable mistake of law defense
- Follow the debate: Overcriminalization is a problem, but a 'mistake of law defense' is not the right solution
- New Featured Discussion: Reconsidering the 'mistake of law defense' in the battle against overcriminalization
- Teen Sexting, Youthful Mistake or Felony?
- New Podcast: Federal overcriminalization hurts Ohioans
- Illinois, Chicago treats small businesses like they're a problem
- A better solution to prison overcrowding
- Whose Intent is it Anyway? The Case for State Flexibility in Criminal Law