The law is meant to reach anyone who buys or otherwise deals in used items at least once a month, and requires noncash payment methods. And that’s just the start: [Ackel & Associates]
…For every transaction a secondhand dealer must obtain the seller’s personal information such as their name, address, driver’s license number and the license plate number of the vehicle in which the goods were delivered. They must also make a detailed description of the item(s) purchased and submit this with the personal identification information of every transaction to the local policing authorities through electronic daily reports. If a seller cannot or refuses to produce to the secondhand dealer any of the required forms of identification, the secondhand dealer is prohibited from completing the transaction.
P.S. According to James in comments, the quoted account exaggerates the stringency of the law in question as well as its novelty. More: Volokh, Opposing Views, Greenfield, Masnick.
11 Comments
Of course this being Louisiana, one could achieve an exemption from this regulation by regularly tendering US currency to the law enforcement authority that would be in charge of enforcing this law.
Makes sense to me. How else do you catch thieves of common things like copper wiring out of air conditioners? There’s an epidemic of this type of theft.
So if you shop Craig’s List regularly, you have to tell the police everything you buy?
That’s a fine idea, Gaunillo, but isn’t that used money?
Bob
I think Gaunillo might be a little sarcastic here, if I am reading the post right—-that would translate to “bribe the local law enforcement” or “greasing the palms with $$$$”.
If you look at the act, the main thrust of its provisions were already required by law, and most importantly, it did not and does not require secondhand shop owners to submit reports to the police. It only requires shop owners to keep records for 3 years either in a register or in electronic form and that this information “be made available for inspection” by the police on request. Almost if not all states have similar requirements and they are in essence the only way a large majority of thefts would ever be solved.
Also, nothing in this act has anything to do with customers of secondhand shops and everything to do with the secondhand shops’ purchasing of items. Even the no-money transactions requirement has zero to do with customers buying things from the dealer and only relates to the dealer buying things from other people.
In exchange for following these requirements, secondhand dealers are exempt from liability for receiving stolen property, something I’m sure they greatly appreciate.
Ackel & Associates has unfortunately grossly mischaracterized the act.
Sorry, but what is James talking about? Reading the plain language of the law (p.2, lines 15-18), if I go to two yard sales in a month and buy $1 of stuff at each one, I am “deemed as being engaged in the business of a secondhand dealer”.
On pg. 6, lines 11-12: “A secondhand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or secondhand property.”
I see no exceptions for being a customer.
Things to remember about government:
The government ALWAYS has good intentions.
The government is ALWAYS protecting you – even if you don’t want it.
The government NEVER takes a big chunk out of the Constitution – so what are you worried about?
I really liked the line in the definitions:
‘For the purposes of this Part, “junk” shall include any property or
material commonly known as “junk”‘
I wonder if this includes the ‘junk in the trunk’ common meaning.
The legi that wrote this bill is of limited capacity, and has been previously known to stir the pot in order to raise his standing with his constituents. In this case however his some of his constituents may not be so happy that he “authored” this bill. So, in my mind at least, the real question is who did author it and why?
I read the bill and feel that is so broadly written that it’s hard to figure out who could be targeted and under what conditions. Let’s it put it this way, how invasive it could be is subject to a lot of interpretation. To be honest, after I read it I was left wondering if people could sell a couple of used books or records to each other without running afoul of the law. I live in the state and am not comfortable with the wording at all.