Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2172762, member: 28107&quot;]With all due respect, if anyone is being overtaken by emotion or bias, it is not the posters critical of his work. Rather, many people seem to struggle with one of the most fundamental and well accepted principles of statutory and administrative regulation interpretation:&nbsp; When the law is unambiguous, it needs no interpretation and it speaks for itself.&nbsp; You and the others reading in an intent element (i.e. whether he intended to defraud or not) are either incorporating elements from different offenses (not permissible) or incorporating your view of what you think Congress was trying to accomplish.&nbsp; The plain meaning of the statute is unambiguous and the other analysis is contrived and not relevant.&nbsp; Moreover, if we seek to ascertain what Congress meant, looking to the other statute in the same chapter of related offenses, 18 USC 487, would suggest that it means much more than you claim.</p><p><br /></p><p>In any event, I would be very interested in knowing whether there is anyone here who agrees with Carr&#039;s analysis who a) dislikes his work and/or b)does not actually own some of his fantasy overstrikes.&nbsp; It seems to me that people who have paid premiums for his pieces have a bias because the legality of their coin (and ultimately money) would be in question if Carr is wrong in light of new legislation meant to fortify the HPA that would seemingly prevent the sale of the said pieces.&nbsp; In other words, if Carr&#039;s argument is wrong, you stand to lose.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edited to add:&nbsp; The Collectible Coin Protection Act prohibits the sale of pieces that do not comply with the HPA and/or those that are counterfeit (if the pieces were ever adjudicated as such).[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in