Government rules force coin store to close

I would contact your state representative and comment that you are unsure of the applicability of the law to your situation as a collector. It's possible that the law was intended to be applied only to businesses. If it does apply to individuals, you could probably contact a constitutional law attorney to question the legality of the law, since it would impact commerce laws.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's amusing to always hear how they need to something to protect the hobby from crooks and those who prey on it's patrons. Yet, when they do finally do something, everyone gets upset and starts feeling paranoid. It seems you just can't please coin collectors.

 

I guess I just wanted to add that the laws are not forcing the business to close. NOT wanting to follow the law is forcing these shops to close.

Luckily I only have to fill out paperwork on Jewelry. Coins are not unique enough (some have mintages in the millions and billions) for my city to require paperwork. They see it as being impossible to tell one from another when there are potentially millions of examples out there. They actually came to me when drafting that law and myself and my lawyer explained that to them.

 

A few comments on what people said: While the state law may have failed (I don't know for sure), it was local laws that the coin store owner was mostly complaining about. I have been in the shop when people brought in things to sell and almost every one complained about having to have their license scanned. I've noticed that many people who buy and sell bullion tend to strongly object to the government possibly keeping track of their activity. You can definitely see how this would hurt a business, especially when it is in one city and not the one next door.

This is a good coin shop with fair prices, and is also the only coin store in the area, which includes two of the five biggest cities in Illinois. Fortunately they are keeping one branch open because it's my favorite place to buy coins.

 

If your business supports illegal activity, you may have to change the way you do business - or, not.

 

I agree, but am also sure you know as well as I that in certain circles, a wink and a nod can go a long way, and not to mention the fact that liquidating many stolen items in this business can be exceedingly easy. Most of the stolen merchandise that this guy may have bought will simply go elsewhere and regardless of any law on the books.

It is unfortunate in that there would be no want for such laws if all shops (and buyers in general) held themselves to a high moral standard, but the draw of easy money is an ever-present forbidden fruit that many seem unable to resist. Such well meaning yet flawed laws are simply a response to an already-existing problem. This gentleman chose to cry victim instead of playing the hand he was dealt, but clearly thinks it okay to advertise that at one shop he does not [FONT=&amp]"even need to know your name"[/FONT] in order to buy. Could it be that such an approach has contributed to the very laws he so detests?

 

When an employer pays an employee $8.25 an hour his actual cost is much more, you have social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, workmen comp insurance, potentially health insurance, among other costs.

 

The comment about "law enforcement officers" was a sarcastic commentary referring to his employees having to file all the items needed for legal compliance, not security guards.

The bill referred to the attempted state legislation which as you said did not pass. The $1000 fine was for violation of the local Aurora city legislation.

As in being required to provide digital images, so he provided digital images made with a scanner and then being fined because his digital images came from a scanner and not a digital camera. I'd have to see the law, but does it say images from a digital camera or does it just say digital images? Governments are good at asking for things and then getting upset because you didn't do them a specific way that was not specified.

You have it worked out how? A specific amendment to the legislation? Legislation specifically exempting you from that particular reporting requirement? Or just a gentleman's agreement between you and the city clerks office? because if it is the "gentleman's agreement" route, at any time they could come back on you and claim multiple violations of the ordinance because the law does not recognize your "gentleman's agreement". Multi-thousands of dollars in fines please.

 

I'm kinda looking at this from a different perspective. I thinking this law is designed more to protect the business. The line ...We have lost 100% of the money paid for the purchase of the confiscated goods.. says it all. While you may have a slim chance of recovering your money when the hypothetical thief is caught, you have absolutely no chance if this "seller" is never identified. As read the ordinance, the shop is not required to report the sales, but simply keep a record of the identity of the seller. Personally, I don't have a problem showing ID before selling like this (although I think the thumbprint is a bit over the top). And the cash limit is probably more of a tax thing, but it doesn't say you can't buy, it says you can't pay cash over the limit. This is probably more of an IRS thing. So the check leaves a paper trail. So you get hit with a capital gains tax. Part of playing the game, whether you agree with the taxes or not. My question to this store owner is... How does the cost of compliance compare to the cost of the confiscated goods?

I agree, the law isn't ruining the business, the refusal to comply is.

Unless you have something to hide (or wish to skip out on the taxes), there is no reason, as a seller, you can't comply with the law.

 

And, we all know that correlation equals causation, so you must be right. Do you suppose there might be other variables involved?

Assuming that they're knowingly buying stolen goods (which most pawn shops don't), and assuming those who do will choose to follow a new law despite the fact that they were already breaking the laws that pertain to stolen property. To me, this is a lot like banning guns when murder is already illegal and carries a higher penalty than being in possession of a banned gun. If a pawn shop owner is willing to face possible jail time for knowingly receiving stolen property, do you think he'll care at all about a $250 fine?

What I still would like to know is to what extent laws such as these have accomplished what they were supposed to. I would like to see a reputable study that shows what the before and after larceny and recovery of stolen goods rates are in communities where these laws have been enacted. What I can guarantee you is that the additional expenses of compliance and enforcement far outweigh any benefits and they ultimately make it harder for honest people to do business.

For example, proof of ownership. How many honest people here have a receipt for every single coin in their possession? What about those coins found while coin roll hunting? If I take a roll of 40% halves that I found while CRH to a coin store in one of these communities, they're going to want to see proof of ownership. Since I can't provide that, I'll have to take them elsewhere. So not only do you have an increase in the administrative cost of running a business, you can also add in lost revenue. To add insult to injury, you treat honest people like criminals.

What about people who have a large investment in precious metals, but don't have any receipts? What about an elderly gentleman I know who has about $1,000 face value in pre-1965 silver? He pulled it all out of circulation before I was even born and has no receipts for any of it. Is it just "Sucks to be you old man!" and he can't sell his coins? Or does he have to spend them at face value?

 

To not get into too much detail... Our little city clerks office is not very big. I generate a half to a full bankers box a week of paperwork. They don't want to store the 30-50 boxes I create a year. They and my local police department (who I have a very good relationship with) have asked me to keep it on file in my business... so I do.

 

We have different businesses that buy jewelry and coins here where I live - one of the pawn shops has run afoul of the laws here several times. They keep getting caught with allegedly stolen merchandise. Eventually they will be shut down.

 

Primarily for tax purposes.

 

I believe a business in Michigan sought and received a temporary restraining order against their city implementing a similar ordinance based on it being a violation of several federal privacy laws.

 

Are you sure about that? The synopsis reads:

Notice it doesn't say a signed statement. Since the full text was never released, we don't know what they were going to require as "proof of ownership". Other states or municipalities might accept a signed statement, but all bets are off when it comes to Illinois.

Another thing I find interesting is that the bill was amended to specifically exempt "persons licensed under the Pawnbroker Regulation Act". With that in mind, I really don't see how this legislation would have protected anyone who had their coins or bullion stolen. If you don't want to sell your stolen bullion at the coin shop for fear of having to provide proof of ownership, you can always just go to the pawn shop instead... WooHoo! It's time for a crime spree!

 

Sure, I get that, and I have receipts for most of my coins and bullion, or at least a paper trail through Paypal. But there's a fair amount that I don't have receipts for. Coins that were given to me, coins that I found in circulation, coins that my dealer throws in as a bonus on a sale, coins that I inherited from my grandparents through my mother who is now deceased, etc. It's a good thing I can still sell them here in Montana without being treated like a criminal.

 

The Pawnbroker Regulation Act probably already required these precautions and additional stricter guidelines.

 

We don't have to assume. The text of the Illinois Pawnbroker Regulation Act is easy to find on the Internet. In it I find that pawnbrokers are required to check a photo ID, but it doesn't say they need to make a copy of it, nor does it say they need to obtain any sort of proof of ownership from sellers.

 

Did you even read the paper or did you just decide "I'm going to play the old 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' card, since I don't agree with the causality." I didn't author the paper, but the individual who did looked at other potential causes to minimize the incidence of correlation without causality.

Also, you say that you want a "reputable" study done on this. Who would you consider a reputable source? Does the document disagreeing with your opinion lead the author to a state of ill-repute? You're essentially claiming that the laws are irrelevant due to argumentum ad ignoratium in this event, since you're unwilling to accept that someone who discovered and articulated a correlation (and established causality through negation) could be of any value. This also argues (to a lesser extent) ad hominem on the basis of what one constitutes as reputable. If the study is produced by the government, you'd argue that it's biased to represent their position. There's no way to establish causation for you, as you'd be unwilling accept any proven methodology as holding any merit.

Also, your comment about the individual who collected $1000 face of 90% silver US coinage is fallacious, since the bill clearly stated that an affidavit of ownership would suffice.