Yes, I noted that wrinkle myself!  Not a minor expense either.  I wonder how many people realized how much it would cost to obtain the original sights that had been removed prior to the sale?  The federal policy seems to state it is the seller’s responsibility.  In this case, I suspect the auction house was caught in the middle of the change in policy.  I know I have several Winchesters with ivory insert front sights, and can only imagine the efforts to legally transfer them now.  That in effect just reduced their value were I so inclined to sell!

Tim Tomlinson

It’s simple, the federal law on ivory is one of the very few that puts the full responsibility of proving the ivory is over 100 yrs old and was a factory part to the gun at that time, and was imported at the proper time, on the individual person rather than on the government to prove it is not. I also know personally that agencies have a tight budget and will only work the cases that are worth it for them, unless of course you are the unlucky one the agent chooses to make an example of.   Like any law enforcement agency, you cannot get everyone, nor would you want to, so you do what you can. Politicians make the rules, officers only try to enforce what they can. Officer discretion will usually be the determining factor. I know for a fact of one auctionhouse locally already fined 10k for a first offense selling undocumented old ivory. Probably was over 100, but no documentation. That house will not sell any now, even if you have the documentation. It will only get worse most likely.   There is no doubt in my mind that the others will fall in line also soon or be fined administratively also.