Federal Judge Declares Onerous provision of Minnesota Coin Bullion Dealer Law Unconstitutional!
Tomthecoinguy
Posts: 849 ✭✭✭✭
The long-awaited decision on the Constitutionality of the Minnesota Coin Bullion Dealer law was issued by Judge Nancy Brasel yesterday. She granted some of what we wanted but not all of it.
The big win was that she Struck down section 80G.07 PROHIBITED CONDUCT. This provision laid down a lot of onerous rules that governed coin dealers. The worst of which was the receipt requirement. The law required a dealer to issue a receipt for every transaction which is not practical, or even wanted by most customer, at a busy coin show. Ancient coin dealers complained about this because it required you to state the precious metals content, which is often unknowable for ancient coins. If you failed to issue a receipt, you could be subject to a $10,000 fine for each receipt!
Section 80G.07 also had other provision specifying deliver timeframes, customer complaint handling, Commerce department subpoenas and other things like that. I have attached a copy of that section of the law. That section of the law is now gone!
The other good change the judge made, is a change to the Coin Show exemption in the law. There is an exemption if you do less than 12 coin shows each year in the state of Minnesota. This meant that if you are a MN resident and do just one show outside of the state, you would have to register. The judge changed the law so a Minnesota dealer can go outside the state, without triggering the registration requirement. This means you may get to see yours truly, at a coin show outside the State of Minnesota.
The bad part is she rejected our void for vagueness argument. She also ruled that the Minnesota Coin Bullion Dealer law was not preempted by existing federal law, which we also disagree with.
One thing we knew going in, is this was just the opening round, and that win or lose there was going to be an appeal. I am happy to see we got the worst provisions of the law struck down, and we also think we are setup well for an appeal.
Comments
Has anyone estimated the amount of money the State of Minnesota has lost because of this assinine law? They have created a black market, and have also lost out on revenue to vendors and associated businesses like hotels, restaurants, auto rentals, etc. by having shows cease to be held in the land of 10,000 lakes.
I worked at a bullion mint that sold nationally, and we would tell Minnesotans that we couldn't sell to them. Some customers would either have us send their order to another state, where they would pick it up from a sibling or child on their next visit, or have their sibling or child order from another state, then have it shipped to MN.
Did you receive an award for attorney’s fees?
good work. Didn't you catch flack from a few forum members about persuing this?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Not yet, but if it holds up on appeal should get attorney's fee in the end. My lawyers are working on contingency, so they are anticipating an award or they don't get paid.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Most were supportive of this lawsuit, I don't think anyone was against it, some might have questioned the chance of success perhaps.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Great work... Time consuming and expensive to fight these issues. Good luck on appeal. Cheers, RickO
Awesome news and congrats on scoring a win for liberty.
Did the decision, address at all, the inability of a Minnesota resident to purchase coins online from an out of state dealer?
Visit USPatterns.com
They don't have a problem with me!
Yes, the decision did address that. Unfortunately the judge got that one wrong.
She said, "Although some out‐of‐state bullion dealers may determine that the benefits of doing business in Minnesota do not outweigh the costs of complying with the requirements, these minimal requirements do not seriously impede interstate commerce. The Dormant Commerce Clause, after all, “protects the interstate market, not particular interstate firms, from prohibitive or burdensome regulations.” Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Md., 437 U.S. 117, 127–28 (1978);
This could be a potential point for an appeal, but we will probably focus on another area in the appeal where we found some really great case law supporting our position. This error by the judge won't really matter if the appeals court strikes the whole law.
I think what bothered me the most about this part of the decision, is she did this in a motion to dismiss. She did not give us the chance to show evidence to the extent of this problem.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Congrats and hope you have future success!