If you examine the history of enforcement actions involving parts, pieces, whatever, of protected species, you will find that the burden of proof issue has not been the determining factor--the government has not assumed a burden of proof, but has written the rules to work against persons who owned pre-endangerment items, persons who might have picked up items from naturally deceased animals, and persons who might own and/or offer for sale items that resemble parts of endangered or protected species but did not derive from actual members of those species. The violator is often put in a position at the minimum of losing their property, but more seriously perhaps being offered a plea deal and accepting a criminal and civil penalty, or otherwise going to trial and risking a prison term. The last two outcomes brands them as felons, after which they lose a lot of rights that most of us cherish.

An example that I learned about recently: An artisan who carved imitation eagle talons from left-over pieces of big horn sheep horns had his inventory confiscated at a trade show. While they did not bring legal charges against him (perhaps in recognition that he was not really dealing in eagle talons), his property was taken and no inventory of the confiscated goods was provided to him at the time. He actually did take it to court and got his property back, after which the officer who had taken it confronted him outside the court and said "Well, you got away with it this time."

Granted--when it comes to species in North America, I suspect there are plenty of people who would be willing to deliberately go after and take protected species. And the authorities' distrust of all who might have such items or materials is in part a consequence of those people who would purposely violate the law and lie about it. The rules and procedures seem to be written to treat everyone as if they fall into this category--and that approach certainly makes for a high success rate for the enforcement agencies. Whether it is good law enforcement or fair to the unwitting citizen are good questions.

So--whatever comes of the proposed ban on ivory sales--it is worth noting that the proposed restrictions placed all the burden with the person who might want to dispose of ivory, and the strictures were spelled out in such a way that it was virtually impossible for most of the legacy ivory in this country to be cleared for legitimate sales.

Ironically, one of the loopholes in the ban would have allowed U. S. citizens returning from overseas assignments to bring ivory back into the U. S. as part of their household goods. Note who this favors: primarily returning government officials and perhaps military personnel. And note further--there was no specification that they had to prove that their ivory was "antique."

To fight with the people who make the rules & that you pay taxes to........probably not the best business decision you can make.
How many here are willing to wait for their knives while this goes to court? The list of aggravating things that our Government can do to a business owner is overwhelming.
this is just another time stamp in the Randall time line of this hasn't been done since....