A Different Ethical Question

[QTCut5]

John, IMO that seems like more like a branding issue than an ethical question and also what the definition of "milk" is.

[misterfix46+]

i know this post is a little late but i just joined this club and feel the need to put my .02 cents in. first according to marbury vs madison 5 US(2 cranch)137,174, 176 (1803) "ALL LAWS WHICH ARE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION ARE NULL AND VOID " our constitution says according to the 4th ammendment " "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated " this overreaching law certainly is repugnant to the constitution, WHICH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING LEGAL. you obviously meant no harm or mischief with your collection. if you had only 1 it MIGHT be looked at as something for the authorities to worry about. with a large collection, your intentions are clear. if it were me i would have kept them and IF a problem arose of it i would request a jury trial and plead my case to 12 of my peers citing the above case law and using the rock and a hard place defense your lawyer friend mentioned, which has been known to work. chances are someone on the jury will be sympathetic to your plight. well thats about .02 cents worth.

[Dave-B]

Hawaii overturned its switchblade laws last year.

https://kniferights.org/legislative-upd ... ty-knives/

[QTCut5]

Hawaii overturned its switchblade laws last year.

And that brings up another (hypothetical) ethical question (although, technically, probably more of a legal question)...

Consider this scenario: Several years prior to Hawaii overturning its switchblade laws, a collector in Hawaii was arrested for unlawful possession of multiple automatic knives. He was charged, prosecuted and found guilty; whereupon, his knives were confiscated and he was fined $1,000 per violation (which amounted to $50,000---he had 50 switchblades in his collection, which itself was worth a significant amount as many were high-end customs). Following the repeal of the law for which he was penalized, should he be reimbursed by the state and be able to sue to have his knives returned?

[Sharpnshinyknives]

Hawaii overturned its switchblade laws last year.

And that brings up another (hypothetical) ethical question (although, technically, probably more of a legal question)...

Consider this scenario: Several years prior to Hawaii overturning its switchblade laws, a collector in Hawaii was arrested for unlawful possession of multiple automatic knives. He was charged, prosecuted and found guilty; whereupon, his knives were confiscated and he was fined $1,000 per violation (which amounted to $50,000---he had 50 switchblades in his collection, which itself was worth a significant amount as many were high-end customs). Following the repeal of the law for which he was penalized, should he be reimbursed by the state and be able to sue to have his knives returned?

Not a legal expert here, but probably not since he was prosecuted according to the laws on books at that time. He should be, but I doubt that he will ever be made whole. It would be nice if they held onto them and returned them now but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Wouldn’t you love to know what they did with those knives? I bet they were divided amongst law enforcement officers and not destroyed.