Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="imrich, post: 1354856, member: 22331"]A Stretch Of Imagination It would take a stretch of imagination to believe that if I bought a Hammer made in China through eBay from an intermediary, that would constitute a commerce exchange of items qualified to have the hammer stamped "copy". However, in a distorted current application of law towards non-monetary items (e.g. Ron Paul token, a loaf of bread, etc.), you would be correct that the hammer should have a "copy" stamp if it was advanced as something the Judiciary would find as a medium of exchange. They've already shown disregard for the normal requirement of "authorized exchange medium" to deem an item an "imitation numismatic item", or counterfeit. Although I purchased/received the items directly from China, after due consideration, I believe that by an extended understanding of the commerce cycle, both yours and rim's cents arguments are partially valid. This understanding may provide reasonable cause to admit that objective evaluation may deem me wrong, to which I humbly defer. Only adjudication, or explanation by the statute authors would determine intent and meaning, but after the recent counterfeit hearing, I know that I may be wrong. Thank you both for your reasonable explanations of understanding. :bow:[/QUOTE]