Options
State of Connecticut attempting to pass a bill requiring recording the ID of all retail sellers
roadrunner
Posts: 28,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
While the purpose of this bill is stated as requiring the electronic recording of all non-wholesale purchases, it clearly requires sellers to provide ID and have that recorded as well.
The bill is currently under consideration by the Connecticut Public Safety and Security committee that would impose a ten day holding period on all purchases of scrap, coin and bullion - in addition to electronic filing of all purchases, photographic records of all purchases and cumbersome bookkeeping that would include recording/matching all sales (other than in-store retail) to the original purchase reports. The bill is Raised Bill #928. Watches, jewelry, and coins are included in the nomenclature. I would assume that means any coin, just no bullion related items. At what percent over spot does a coin become non-bullion? I have a feeling these types of bills will eventually be showing up in most states. If you want to sell your stuff to a local dealer, you have to provide the ID, have it recorded for 2 yrs, and have it linked specifically to the items in the transaction. They don't specifically require a soc sec # but date of birth is a minimum. Dealers will be quite busy recording these transactions, taking photographs, and providing weekly reports to jurisdictions. All this stuff first started back in the late 1970's or early 1980's when the governor had their silver stolen.
No licensee shall purchase gold or gold-plated ware, silver or silver-plated ware, platinum ware, watches, jewelry, precious stones, bullion or coins without receiving proof of the identity of the person selling the property if such person is not a wholesaler. Such identification shall include a photograph, an address, if available on the identification, and an identifying number, including, but not limited to, date of birth. The record keeping is onerous as it will require every bullion transaction regardless of size to be recorded in much detail including photographs when specific markings are lacking.
(d) Each licensee shall maintain a record-keeping system in which shall be entered in English, at the time the licensee purchases any property, a description of the property and the name, the residence address, the proof of identity as required by this section and a general description of the person from whom, and the date and hour when, the property was purchased and in which, if the property does not contain any identifiable numbers or markings, shall be included a digital photograph of such property. Each entry in such record-keeping system shall be numbered consecutively. Such number shall be visible in the digital photograph required by this subsection and shall be retained with the property purchased or received until the sale or other disposition of the property.
Public hearing is scheduled for Thursday Feb 28. Connecticut coin dealers attendance at the hearing and speaking against SB 928 would be beneficial. This will be the 4th time in 7 years such a bill has been raised. To those desiring to send an email or phone call to your State Senator and State Representative informing them of your opposition to this bill. You can identify them and find links to their web pages/email at:
Link to Bill
Contacting your representatives
Contacting board members
The bill is currently under consideration by the Connecticut Public Safety and Security committee that would impose a ten day holding period on all purchases of scrap, coin and bullion - in addition to electronic filing of all purchases, photographic records of all purchases and cumbersome bookkeeping that would include recording/matching all sales (other than in-store retail) to the original purchase reports. The bill is Raised Bill #928. Watches, jewelry, and coins are included in the nomenclature. I would assume that means any coin, just no bullion related items. At what percent over spot does a coin become non-bullion? I have a feeling these types of bills will eventually be showing up in most states. If you want to sell your stuff to a local dealer, you have to provide the ID, have it recorded for 2 yrs, and have it linked specifically to the items in the transaction. They don't specifically require a soc sec # but date of birth is a minimum. Dealers will be quite busy recording these transactions, taking photographs, and providing weekly reports to jurisdictions. All this stuff first started back in the late 1970's or early 1980's when the governor had their silver stolen.
No licensee shall purchase gold or gold-plated ware, silver or silver-plated ware, platinum ware, watches, jewelry, precious stones, bullion or coins without receiving proof of the identity of the person selling the property if such person is not a wholesaler. Such identification shall include a photograph, an address, if available on the identification, and an identifying number, including, but not limited to, date of birth. The record keeping is onerous as it will require every bullion transaction regardless of size to be recorded in much detail including photographs when specific markings are lacking.
(d) Each licensee shall maintain a record-keeping system in which shall be entered in English, at the time the licensee purchases any property, a description of the property and the name, the residence address, the proof of identity as required by this section and a general description of the person from whom, and the date and hour when, the property was purchased and in which, if the property does not contain any identifiable numbers or markings, shall be included a digital photograph of such property. Each entry in such record-keeping system shall be numbered consecutively. Such number shall be visible in the digital photograph required by this subsection and shall be retained with the property purchased or received until the sale or other disposition of the property.
Public hearing is scheduled for Thursday Feb 28. Connecticut coin dealers attendance at the hearing and speaking against SB 928 would be beneficial. This will be the 4th time in 7 years such a bill has been raised. To those desiring to send an email or phone call to your State Senator and State Representative informing them of your opposition to this bill. You can identify them and find links to their web pages/email at:
Link to Bill
Contacting your representatives
Contacting board members
0
Comments
<< <i>You should forward this info to Diane or Eloise at ICTA. These standards aren't a whole lot different than what we have in Chicago. >>
Thanks Greeniejr. I'm sure some of the lead coin dealers in Connecticut such as Sam Sloat Inc. are on top of that.
Ironic that this bill comes from the Public Safety Group. I feel safer already. There are already laws in Connecticut requiring dealers to be registered, to hold bullionesque material
for a specificed time, and make reports available to local police as required. If those laws on the books for decades now didn't make us all safer how will this one? Part of the
problem is that few jurisdictions actually enforce them. The hotel buyers frequently come into the state and pay with cash...no records, no nothing. Just a free pass.
Do you have specifics on how this works in Chicago when you go to sell a numismatic or bullion coin?
of state to dispose of goods, thus eliminating instate expenditures of hard to find dollars looking
for thieves.
bob
<< <i>That's just Connecticut's way of driving the problem out of state. Forces thieves to go out
of state to dispose of goods, thus eliminating instate expenditures of hard to find dollars looking
for thieves. bob
They already have a mechanism for this. Once or twice a month the out of state hotel buyers come into the Hartford area. They take the prizes out of state, pay no taxes of any
kind on them, and bring them back to their home states (or overseas) to sell. It's a convenient method for the crooks to sell their stuff for cash such that no trail is left. Local or state
law enforcement doesn't seem to care about these guys. I guess they'd rather have the hot stuff leave the state where it becomes someone else's problem.
<< <i>That's just Connecticut's way of driving the problem out of state. Forces thieves to go out
of state to dispose of goods, thus eliminating instate expenditures of hard to find dollars looking
for thieves.
bob
problem is there driving a lot of us honest folk out of ct ( constant taxes ) as well. merry christmas to them when i move out of here as well. have a good day
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
This legislation is driven by private for-profit businesses that charge dealers for making reports to police. Leads Online is one. They get the town to look at this as a revenue stream since Leadsonline charges $1 per item to report and kicks back a percentage to the city.
I would shine a bright light on this. This is privatized extortion, in my mind.
<< <i>This legislation is driven by private for-profit businesses that charge dealers for making reports to police. Leads Online is one. They get the town to look at this as a revenue stream since Leadsonline charges $1 per item to report and kicks back a percentage to the city.
I would shine a bright light on this. This is privatized extortion, in my mind. >>
Hardly privatized extortion, if reporting is a government requirement. Private companies can't make dealers report anything without government backing them up on it.
The point is that the government requirement is made at the private company's request.
<< <i>Hardly privatized extortion, if reporting is a government requirement. Private companies can't make dealers report anything without government backing them up on it.
The point is that the government requirement is made at the private company's request. >>
Private companies can request all kinds of things but they can't make anybody (even the government) go along with those requests unless the government decides it wants to enforce them. So- the government's enforcement is what makes a government's requirement work. It's not extortion by privatization.
edited for clarification...
<< <i>It's not extortion by privatization. >>
Perhaps not but there is a lot of wining and dining of officials to explain the 'benefits' to them.
<< <i>
<< <i>It's not extortion by privatization. >>
Perhaps not but there is a lot of wining and dining of officials to explain the 'benefits' to them. >>
No doubt about it. But the fact remains- government officials/employees/drones are the ones who make the decisions and enforce the regulations as they choose.
Dolan
Just an idea
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>As far as I Know the Hotel Buyers don't buy car batteries, catalitic converters, or other automtive parts that are stolen while your car is parked overnight in your driveway. >>
hmmmm, not yet anyway.
Just food for thought. Not trying to go off topic or off the deep end. As to the proper presentation of a "naysayer" in the public meeting, I like the way you spell it out , Chessman. I wish I could write so formally without having to take dictation or transcribing, to do so.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>This legislation is driven by private for-profit businesses that charge dealers for making reports to police. Leads Online is one. They get the town to look at this as a revenue stream since Leadsonline charges $1 per item to report and kicks back a percentage to the city.
I would shine a bright light on this. This is privatized extortion, in my mind. >>
FYI-We don't have to pay Leads Online anything... the city has some kind of contract with them I believe. My understanding is that they make their money from law enforcement agencies that subscribe to their service.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>This legislation is driven by private for-profit businesses that charge dealers for making reports to police. Leads Online is one. They get the town to look at this as a revenue stream since Leadsonline charges $1 per item to report and kicks back a percentage to the city.
I would shine a bright light on this. This is privatized extortion, in my mind. >>
FYI-We don't have to pay Leads Online anything... the city has some kind of contract with them I believe. My understanding is that they make their money from law enforcement agencies that subscribe to their service. >>
I would interpret that to mean that the local taxpayers are indirectly paying for the service or that the local businesses are directly paying for the services through higher liscences or fees. Either way, it's money that comes out of the pockets of local residents and/or businesses and goes into the pockets of the database administrator.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson