Houston passes ordinance to fingerprint, photograph precious metal sellers

Well, apparently enough people got scammed enough to warrant a bill and ordinance to protect themselves from con artists.

Well, DNA samples would be a little far fetched but fingerprints aren't a big deal to me. You're leaving them all over the shop anyways by entering the store. To me it's not different than leaving your photograph as a way to identify you and fingerprints are unique, mug shots aren't so unique. It's hard to tell between us ugly schmucks at times.

But rights aren't being taken away, no one is forcing you to sell PMs, that's a choice. It's just like flying, it's not a right, it's a privilege. You chose to give up your rights to be screened when you bought your ticket, it's right there in the fine print. No one isn't saying you can't sell your PMs so your freedom isn't being stripped, it's just being regulated. Just like the laws that state you can't carry a concealed gun or weapon into liquor stores, don't like the rules, then don't go to liquor stores if you don't want to leave your gun at home to get your bottle of booze. That's just how I see it. I'm all for freedoms and basic rights but sometimes I think there's more important things to worry about honestly. Taking your photograph or fingerprints doesn't harm you and it's not stripping you of any rights.

Just like this forum, there is no freedom of speech here even though we have freedom of speech according to our Constitution. I can go on and on but hopefully most of you understand what I'm trying to say here. I just think too many people get their panties all knotted up over the simple things. To me, if you want to sell and that takes a photo and fingerprints in the city of Houston, move or don't sell PMs. Nobody is forcing you to sell PMs, that's why it's not you losing your basic rights because basic rights are what I said before, a right to live, eat and breathe are basic, selling metal in a world that should be regulated to protect people is not a basic right. Basic rights are rights that lie outside of a choice being made.

If by saying selling PMs is a basic right, then one could argue everything is a basic right.

I've said all that I can.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Personally, I think you're overreacting.

I'm a Notary Public and am required to fingerprint every person that signs my Notary Journal for real property documents. (BTW, fingerprint translates into a "thumbprint" which, IIRC, is required at some Super Markets and Banks when paying for groceries with a check.)

So the "fingerprinting" aspect is a moot point with regard to "losing one's rights" or something thats "out of the ordinary". Those customers that are selling PM's that they legitimately own may not mind this perceived "intrusion" anymore than my clients or the Super Market and Banks customers mind. Of course, both Banks and Super Markets photograph everybody that walksthrough their doors so thats kind of a moot point as well.

It's called a "Security Camera".

 

Explain that to the Stae/County/City Licensing Organizations that require you to pay certain "Fee's" in order to participate in Free Commerce.

 

Alan?

 

I went down to City Hall to give them a piece of my mind but I gave up - the line was too long.

 

lol!

 

I suppose we can agree to disagree on this point.

What about the other parts of this ordinance? i.e. Cost and efficacy. Any such system will cost resources to implement. If the people who want to sell stolen property in Houston can simply sell them out of town, sell them to a crooked dealer, or sell them to another person who isn't a dealer, what are the dealers/customers/taxpayers getting for their money? A warm and fuzzy feeling that less stolen goods are being sold to law abiding dealers?

Such a system is only going to help identify unique items. Or identify the really stupid thieves who leave fingerprints behind at a crime scene and then try to sell stolen goods at PM dealers who take their fingerprints. Most thieves are smarter than that and the average ASE isn't unique. So if a thief steals a roll of ASE's and sells them to a PM dealer, where's the proof of a crime?

 

I closed my bank account at BOA a few years ago because they required a thumb print for me to cash a check against my own account. I'll make the drive outside of the city if they ever pass something like that here.

 

Yes sir

 

Oh boy. Here we go again with another tirade of "big brothers gunna take away my freedums!" BS. Lets break out the lawnchairs and the bud lite!

It makes perfect sense. Not all Pm's are serial numbered. Coins are not, unless graded.

Now if someone stole your entire coin collection, they could take it to Joe's pawn, and get some money out of it. If the pawn broker made no record of it, and if there was no video surveillance, the chance of you getting your prized collection is slim to none.

But let's put yourselves in the shoes of the robber, if I was going to have my picture taken and fingerprinted, I would not step one foot in a pawnshop.

Now expand that to coins shops and other places, and your gonna have a hard time selling it. With that said, it would probably make you less inclined to steal it in the 1st place.

It amuses me when people are against government tracking, or surveillance. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the big deal? I think every person should be chipped. 2,300 people go missing EACH DAY. Some of them have their bodies found in the woods 20 years later.

Now ask yourself this, if your child was kidnapped, wouldn't you like it if police had a way to locate her? Cellphones are taken, but it's kinda hard to disable a chip in your skin.

Again, what difference does it make if the government knows where your at, or installs a security camera in a public area? If you have nothing to hide, then it should not bother you. What exactly does the government gain from tracking that is a detriment to your well being? Absolutely nothing. It's done as a measure of safety for all humans.

 

I am sure most of you realize that all of the chest-beating, ranting, etc. here at CT will not change or influence anything one iota. You should be taking the time going to , or writing to city, county, or state groups and politician offices. There is also the opinion pages and letters to the editors of your newspapers, or interviews on TV. Most people just love to complain about anything that affects themselves, but seldom do anything. That is why we have the people representing us that we wouldn't have into our homes for dinner.

Personally, I thank the cashier/teller who asks for ID or a thumbprint, as I appreciate my security. I smile at the security cameras also.

 

Wow... I don't think I can say much more without violating the forum rules about personal attacks, so I'll just leave it at that. :rollling:

 

I do that too.

I'm a regular there too.

But I don't have too many venues for influencing people from outside my state, and they're the ones that scare me the most when it comes to my freedoms.

 

Same here. I'm for anything that increases personal security. A town of around 500 just miles north of me has had over 39 robberies. More security would of ended their journey long ago.

 

How about random home searches to check for stolen property?

How about property registries?

How about random drug testing by the government?

I'm sure all of these would help reduce crime. But you know what, I don't trust many of the people in our government. I don't trust them not to abuse my information, and I certainly don't trust them to secure my information. What if we had a mandatory property registry and that information got leaked to people that might abuse it?

What if, in Houston, the police arrest you because you bought a coin from someone you met on craigslist and it still had the original owner's fingerprints on it when you sold it to a coin store? Now you find yourself in a position where you have to defend your actions. Don't believe what people say about "innocent until proven guilty". They'll treat you like a criminal from the moment they have a suspicion, you just aren't "officially" a criminal.

Have you even seen what happens to a person's house when the police to an aggressive search? If they're motivated enough, they tear into the sheetrock and search inside the walls and they are not liable for the damages they cause. It's up to the homeowner to fix things afterwords.

"If you have nothing to hide..." That's what you say now...

 

Really, I have accounts with them, never had to do such a thing.

 

Finally someone who gets it. I had a similar argument with someone who was trying to argue that raising the minimum driving age to 18 would be worth it, because of the decreased number of fatal car accidents that would result. So would raising it to 25, or 50, or 100, or banning driving altogether. Just because something would produce a positive result is not reason enough to approve it; ALL consequences, positive AND negative, have to be considered.

And personally I'm in favor of preserving my rights under the 4th and 5th amendments even if I have nothing to hide. I don't own a gun or have had the government try to quarter troops in my house recently, but I still want those rights preserved too. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment) is not a right meant only to protect people who are guilty or suspected of being guilty; it's to protect the innocent too. So is the right to not be deprived of your property without due process (one of the rights under the 5th amendment, among a few others). If you own something, you have the right to do with it as you please, one of the basic property rights that you possess anywhere private property rights are recognized. The ability to sell your own private property is a basic right you possess by virtue of being alive, not because the government chooses to give it to you. Read the Constitution some time; that's the basic idea behind it, that the rights mentioned are something you possess by birth, not because the government sees fit to grant them to you.

 

That sums it up pretty well.

 

I wish I had the gift of being that concise lol... I'm always worried I left something open to an unintended interpretation because of something I left unsaid.

Anyway to the topic directly at hand, I think the ordinance will do very little to prevent crime, at the cost of infringing on sellers' privacy and having a chilling effect on private commerce. So basically, not worth it.

 

"Those that are willing to trade freedom for security don't deserve either." -Benjamin Franklin