Houston passes ordinance to fingerprint, photograph precious metal sellers

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- Next time you try to sell gold, silver or other precious metals you can expect to be fingerprinted and photographed.

The Houston City Council passed an ordinance meant to help track down criminals who try to resell stolen valuables. Gold-buying businesses will now be required to photograph and fingerprint sellers as well as photograph the items that are being sold to the dealer.

"It's going to allow us the tools necessary to combat a lot of the high-end jewelry thefts that's going on in the city, whether it's robberies or burglaries," said Houston Police Officer Rick Barajas.

A similar ordinance is already in place for scrap metal sellers and dealers.

Story

What thief is going to allow themself to be printed and photographed selling their loot? Just go outside the city limits. This doesn't affect pawn shops, btw. I really don't see this as anything except another intrusion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

...another brick in the wall, so to speak.

This is how freedoms are lost. They are not lost all at once, just a little at a time, like a frog in a slowly boiling pot.

 

In Texas too, sad to see

 

If I recall correctly, some of these newer ordinances are being pushed by private firms that stand to make a killing on the regulations. Again, if I recall correctly, the process for some of these is that the dealer would have to submit the information with a samll fee toward a database that would be available to law enforcement, but would be owned or administered by the private firm. The firm receives the fee for each transaction made in the city and makes the data available to the city. I do not recall the name of the program, but have read about it several times in the last few years. It appears to be a great way to have the city assure compliance of record keeping that isn't necessary, but produces revenue for those who push for the legislation.

 

Agreed Tom, I believe it's all about money and control, like most things. Could be used for worse purposes in the future as well.

 

Yeah, wait until they start mandating the reverse, registration of all PM PURCHASES by individuals, and not just sales.

I know we disagree some about PM Tinpot, but when it comes to freedoms, I am in agreement with you.

 

I have mixed feeling about an ordinance like that.


I would not like to be fingerprinted every time I want to sell a Morgan Dollar.

I like the fact that if someone sells the Morgan Dollar they stole from me, at least they have fingerprints of the thief.

 

It only takes one bad apple to ruin it for everyone else but then again, look at this particular law, it's actually protecting those that sell PMs. If you aren't trying to con people in what you are selling, then you have nothing to be afraid of by providing such info I say.

Selling PMs isn't a right, it's a privilege. Just like driving a car, they can take it away if you abuse it, so I applaud them trying to curb those trying to con others.

That's my two cents at least.

 

You tread down a dangerous path when you say trading PMs is a privilege. Free commerce is not a privilege in my opinion - it is a basic human right. The government doesn't bestow on me the privilege of commerce anymore than it bestows on me the "privileges" of eating or sleeping. We have altogether been too hasty as a society to hand over our rights.

 

Much like the legislation that has been introduced in many states, but hasn't passed in a single one yet, to mandate laser etched serial numbers on ammunition (case and bullet). The patent holder of the technology used to etch the serial numbers is the one pushing it the hardest. :rollling:

 

That is a very dangerous mindset my friend...

If I were a PM dealer in Houston, this would be enough to make me close up shop. I wouldn't want to be put in a position where I essentially have to treat my customers like criminals.

I do think it's a reasonable intrusion to document and maintain for a number of years the name and address of anyone selling $1,000+ worth of precious metals as some states require. But fingerprints and a mug shot? That's just going too far...

 

Living is a basic human right (and even that is broken with the death penalty). Eating and breathing are basic human rights. Selling PMs is not if you truly think about it.

Actually it does, commerce has always and will always be regulated because people have abused this since the dawn of civilization and the invention of "currency" in my opinion.

No where in our Constitution or Bill of Rights it proclaims selling PMs are a basic right, because you can easily lose such privileges I say, especially those that abuse it which is why such an ordinance has likely popped up to be considered.

 

I think you're reading it wrong, buying PMs doesn't require fingerprints or photograph, it's only those selling PMs to rid of the con artists trying to rip the consumers off. Read the story again.

 

Quote from the story, it starts out, "Next time you try to sell gold, silver or other precious metals you can expect to be fingerprinted and photographed.The Houston City Council passed an ordinance meant to help track down criminals who try to resell stolen valuables."

Far from treating customers as criminals as they are not required to be finger printed or photographed. That, I would actually be against myself.

 

I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist by any means. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to return to the excesses of the Industrial Revolution. But regulation has gone way too far in this nation, and no good will come of it.

My point is that commerce is not, nor ever will be, a privilege bestowed upon its citizenry by a government. As soon as a society starts thinking that way, the road to totalitarianism is assured.

 

It is the government's responsibility to ensure fair contracts. It bestows no privileges. None.

 

I sold some scrap (copper, tin, etc) to a local re-cycler here in town and had to show my ID so they could do a search on a database to see if I was listed as a suspect in scrap thefts - kinda caught me off guard, but I understand it. On the other hand, if someone wants to steal and re-sell, that will not stop them.
Kinda like more 'gun laws' - but that's a story for another day.

 

He is saying those who go into a shop to SELL are just as much customers as those who go into the shop to BUY.

I usually agree with you RC, but not this time. I simply do not believe buying or selling ANYTHING non-lethal should require fingerprints to be taken. I simply believe that is a basic violation of my human rights. What would be next? Hair samples? Blood sample?

Its a slippery slope, one too easily gone down. I would agree to photocopying my id, making sure its me, etc. but fingerprinting me? Never.

The hard part of this whole debate is YES, by taking away rights they can ALWAYS use the excuse of making you safer. Wasn't it Jefferson though who said, "Those who will give up their freedoms for security deserve neither?"

 

What I don't see in the story is who is responsible for maintaining these records and who has access to them. I'm sure if the store owners maintain them, the police would have unrestricted access to them, so you might as well just have the police maintain them. But what an unwieldly pile of records that would quickly become. Might as well scan them all and store them digitally. What better way to store fingerprints than in a fingerprint database. If these people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about. Right?

Not that there are really very many people whose fingerprints aren't in a database somewhere.

Mine are on file from being in the military, from applying for a federal job, from purchasing silencers, and now from applying for a concealed carry permit. I just heard from a colleague of mine that they are starting to fingerprint all college students that work for AmeriCorps. As if doing trail work is a threat to national security. I don't think it will be long before fingerprints will be required for attending public schools and obtaining a drivers' license. (Neither of which are basic human rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, like being able to carry a firearm for self defense is. Oh, wait...)

 

Law abiding citzens gernerally have nothing to hide, no....however, they're being subjected to laws, regulations, and red tape because of the actions of those that are not law abiding.
I believe the quote from above states it best.