Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
First, 2257 has had little to no enforcement in nearly 20 years. I'm not saying that this means they won't, I'm just saying it still doesn't seem too high of a priority on anyone's list.
|
We are all guessing, but my guess is that your assessment is way off. The flurry of activity over the past 18-24 months was a result of Ashcroft having to tell Congress that there had been no 2257 activity. His excuse was that the then current law was inadequate.
Since then we have had two sets of amendments (last summer and this week), which together with the current political climate, I think will make it impossible for the Attorney General to report zero activity again in the near future. The AG has to report on 2257 activity to Congress once per year.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
The law on secondary producers is very vague and still has yet to be tested not only in our courts
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
I don't mean to discount the threat that 2257 potentially has...
|
You aren't wrong about the untested nature of the amended law, nor are you wrong about statistics being in favor of individuals. But if someone fails an inspection and is prosecuted, he/she might well have his business shut down (at least temporarily), have to finance his defense, take a public defender, or plead guilty. We can only guess at how the sentencing will go, but the possible sentence is very severe.
Everyone has to make his/her own decision, but I think a head-in-the-sand approach to this is lunacy. Either comply or modify your sites so that compliance isn't necessary. I know that quitting the country is a third option, but in all honesty, how many will actually go that far...