Minnesota Law Restricts Gold and Silver Sales

In other words the final result is that the honest dealers pay a tax and the scammers continue to scam which was by in large already illegal and the law changed nothing other than limit sales to the state and put some honest shops out of business while collecting fees.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, I wouldn't say your "other words" didn't reflect at all what I said, but rather how they probably were interpreted by someone who just opposes any government control. To the effect that this regulation put some dealers out of business, they either couldn't pass the background check, couldn't get a bond because of their record or were so small they couldn't afford a $25.00 registration fee and the price of a bond, generally 1% of the bond amount for a business with a good record. For the first year of this law, that was maybe $75.00 total. If someone went out of business over that they really didn't have much of a business. If you drive a car you need a driver's license, a license plate on your car and liability insurance. I suspect that is standard in all states. Do you object to those "taxes" as well? And I suspect those laws keep many people from driving. Would you prefer something less? Probably not. Then the issue is about whether or not things were bad enough in Minnesota with bullion dealers to warrant this new approach. That is up to Minnesotans to decide and we did through our elected state senators, representatives and Governor. And apparently our elected officials listened to people who wanted that original law modified and they did that. That is how government functions in a democratic republic, at least that is how it should function. Unfortunately, and increasingly so, since the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United, many of our elected officials seem to be listening to louder voices than yours and mine. But that is an issue for a political blog.

An alternative is for coin and bullion dealers to form a professional association and police their own members and for states to recognize the integrity of their association as a means to limit practitioners of this trade. I was in three such professional associations in my career and nationally registered by each professional association in a different field of service. Minnesota and most other states recognized and accepted my credentials in lieu of their own requirements. I paid annual dues to my associations and not what some consider taxes to a state. I had a voice in my associations about what it should take to be registered by them and they provided ongoing training opportunities required to maintain my registration. Both systems eliminate some people from business, both increase the cost for those who acquire the credentials necessary and both provide some assurance to the "customers". Another advantage of the recognized professional credentialing is that those so credentialed don't need to pay separate fees to each state they practice in or deal with different requirements. The ANA could offer such a service and negotiate with states for recognition and reciprocity. What do those of you who object to "big government" think about this approach?

 

Not so much, people are caught driving without a license all the time and only a minuscule percentage of people who do it are actually caught in the first place. Given the risks inherent in driving a competency test to get a license is reasonable. A coin dealer isn't going to kill a family of 5 losing control of his shop and having it crash into other traffic.

Should yard sales have to register and put up bonds to be legal too? I would bet you can find someone that bought a used shirt that didn't fit how they thought it would. How about someone selling used DVDs? Buying anything like that can't possibly be safe without heavy regulation right?

Another bad idea on top of a bad idea. This micro-regulation of everything does nothing but make things more expensive. I am not sure how this idea that criminals follow the law started but making something illegal does not stop criminals especially not when the actions in question were already illegal and covered under other laws which you keep ignoring.

Thankfully that idea would never fly in more than half the states as they understand that people don't need their hand held to leave the house and buy something.

 

Nope, yard sales are exempt. Read Subd 2 at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=80G&format=pdf

The suggestion of a national professional association credential/registration/certification for businesses that sell coins/bullion isn't a form of regulation. The several national professional credentials/certifications I have were initiated by the men and women who wished to protect their profession from unqualified people they were competing with who were maligning their profession. Having so created their association and establishing criteria for member registration/certification (with the involvement of their association members) they pursued acknowledgement by states who saw the benefit of ensuring people who performed those critical services related to public safety and health were qualified.

At a time when more people are looking for safer ways to secure their financial future I would think that bullion dealers would welcome the establishment of a recognized standard of integrity to distinguish themselves as legitimate businesses.

Sure, there are laws to prosecute people who have committed fraud, but like several cases in Minnesota, prosecution didn't refund the money of those swindled. Minnesota's registration law is preventative. I'm sure you've heard that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And I agree registration won't stop every crook from attempting to swindle someone out of their silver or gold coins, but hopefully it will provide a distinction that buyers and sellers can see between those dealers who are legitimate and those who aren't and aren't registered.

My experience dealing with regulated businesses is that the legitimate businesses support reasonable regulations that are fairly and consistently enforced. The regulated businesses should be involved in drafting the regulations to ensure they are reasonable and should assist in enforcement when they witness fraud by their competition.

A blanket statement like this just tells me that your confidence in your opinion exceeds your knowledge of the subject.

 

Funny thing is, I don't recall this law being put to a vote, do you?

Because it wasn't. It was created at the behest of very few people who lost large sums of money due to their own negligence of protecting their wealth. Then it was shoved down our throats during an election cycle under the auspices of protecting the masses. The reality is that very few people make such epically poor decisions as those few did. Most collectors dont have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at PM, or don't do so during a bubble in commodity prices, or tend to become knowledgeable if not before buying, then certainly before selling.

If Minnesotans had been afforded the opportunity to vote yea or nay, I'd bet it would not have passed then, and would be repealed entirely today.

I believe you are mistaken on the cost of the bond as well. The dealer I trust the MOST, who earned that trust over a decade of interactions, told me that the minimum bond amount cost over $2k and I've heard the same from other dealers I interact with less frequently.

 

Victims of fraud are rarely made whole again, at best they get something back in the overwhelming majority of cases. The registration changes nothing.

And those professional associations you keep mentioning, they already exist. The ANA and the PMG. Buyers judge dealers on their reputation and personal experiences not their registrations.

Laws aren't preventative. There are preventative law enforcement methods, there are preventative investigation techniques, but criminal laws are reactionary. You wouldn't need law enforcement if laws stopped crime.

As has been beaten to death at this point and the last time I will repeat it, anyone who wants to commit felony fraud will continue to do so, a registration isn't going to stop that.

Anyone with a law enforcement, legal, or academia background in criminal justice can see how flawed your premise is that someone willing to commit felony fraud will say "Oh darn Minnesota is off the table now because they have a registration law", the only people worried about registering were law abiding in the first place.

 

While an ounce of prevention may indeed save a pound of cure, I'll showcase another age old addage:

You can't fix stupid.


I'll even amend it now, late in the game, to say "....and you can't regulate it away either."

 

You didn't search descriptions, because I easily found thousands. Including the few coins that I have for sale.

Refusal to see the reality doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

I opened a poll in General Discussion. I didn't put in any comments or dialogue to lead people one way or the other.

We'll see in a week what the "numismatist on the street" thinks.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/new-minnesota-bullion-and-coin-law.280575/

 

There are several different types of “criminal” law and some are indeed preventative such as those like Minnesota's Bullion dealer registration law that requires someone to do something rather than punishing them for something they did. Some laws require certain businesses to obtain a license such as opening a restaurant and serving food, or a starting a hazardous waste landfill or to obtain a permit for building a house or hunting deer. These laws are preventative in that they try to ensure that a practice is done safely by establishing parameters called rules or regulations that must be complied with in the practice. Obtaining a permit/license/registration affords an opportunity to communicate to people the rules or regulations they must follow. Sometimes, like with the bullion dealer registration, there are conditions for obtaining a permit/registration/license such as demonstration of competency, financial security etc.. Thus these laws are indeed preventative. I've just retired after 36 years of enforcing, writing, holding public hearings, testifying at our state legislature and at state agencies about such laws; so unlike you, I know what I'm talking about.

Again, I'll say that your confidence in your opinion exceeds your knowledge of the subject. Obviously I'm not changing baseball21's or silentnviolent's or Bret_in_Sacto's opinions about government regulation. My continued posting on this topic is like wrestling with pigs, I'll never win, I'll only get covered with mud and the pigs enjoy it.

To Bret_in_Sacto: I think your new thread poll on this subject would be better if you asked responders to state their reasons. Perhaps someone will actually have a good idea that would influence an amendment to Minnesota's law. I've suggested one in a previous post – that a professional association could “credential” bullion dealers nationally so that states could accept such a credential in lieu of state registration. That would benefit multi-state dealers, reduce duplication of paperwork and bond fees. Legitimate businesses would support this approach as it would eliminate fraudulent competition, provide confidence among customers and likely encourage more people to consider precious metals as an alternative to the stock market.

 

One could say it explains why they are so mislead about everything if one wanted to. I would expect someone who supposedly had such experience to understand that registrations are a tax and that trying to equate selling bullion with health and safety regulations is naive at best, most would label it foolish.

I would also expect someone with such supposed experience to have a better grasp on criminal behavior or to have at least bothered to listen to any testimony provided by law enforcement that their proactive methods are the only things that have been shown to be able to reduce crime. I would certainly expect someone with such supposed experience in Minneapolis the site of some major law enforcement studies that literally changed laws around the country and have helped shaped proactive police measures in the new methods of policing to be much more familiar with the actual evidence on criminal behavior and what actually works to prevent crimes. Without knowledge of these things I would certainly hope that at the very least someone so unfamiliar with the subject never testified for anything involving criminal law.

I am not really worried about whether or not you think I know what I am talking about or not, my post graduate degrees and experience would disagree with your assessment.

 

Again those already exist and have existed for years. But you ignored that before. I would expect someone with your supposed experience to have known that before pushing for a new law.

 

There are associations such as the ANA, but they do not require the same things that Minnesota requires in their law so they are not the same. I did not "push" for this law or have anything to do with it. I just read about it in this forum and subsequently took the time to read the law and recent amendments. Then I read the articles about the fraud that had occurred, which apparently stimulated the law, before I posted anything on this forum. Something I'd suggest others do. I'd also suggest you actually pick out provisions of the law to discuss that you feel are objectionable. This back and forth on general objection to government regulation is not productive and smacks of broad political bias more than something relevant to this forum.

 

I believe I have stated many specific points in the statute that are not simply objectionable but detrimental in this thread and the other, more current one on the amended version.

Perhaps you missed that while equating your overwhelming opposition on this issue, myself included, to pigs. Very classy.

Every point I've made regarding the shipping clause, the definition of a bullion coin as any composed of 1% or more PM (REALLY? war nickels hardly count as bullion anywhere but here they do), the bond requirement is 10% so in reality only 10% of those swindled would be reimbursed and historically those victims have recovered more than 10% of their losses through restitution awarded through existing laws.

My points were made. Either you first ignored them and then asked us to point out specific provisions in contention, or you need to reread and work on comprehension.

That very act of ignoring valid points of opposition is how these nanny state laws get passed and frankly with the attitude you've displayed here, if your regulatory position is truth I'm not at all surprised that such a hastily compiled piece of garbage was passed.