Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
You only have to collect information when you buys stuff. Not when you sell stuff. you can accpet cash when you sell stuff. you must use other than cash when you buy stuff. I read it several times.
bottom line, dealers who are buying second hand stuff, must pay with check or some other electronic form and collect information on those they buy from.
|
And I'm not comfortable with that. Recently I was going to buy a dog from the local pound. It was the breed I was looking for and if these dogs aren't bought in a certain amount of time they are often killed anyway. I approached them via email about buying the dog. They sent me a form to fill out. NO WAY MAN!!! That form was so intrusive there is no way I'm providing that sort of information to get a dog you're going to kill anyway. It is... to me... the principal of the thing. That is too much governmental tracking of what should be private transactions between free American citizens. If they know of someone doing illegal activity then pursue them through appropriate legal channels. This, in every form you have presented it in, is too much IMO. Way too much.
So taking in the actual definition for dealer in this law...
Anyone who who buys, sells, trades in, or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or secondhand property more frequently than once per month cannot conduct their purchases of listed items in cash and must obtain a laundry list of information on anyone they do buy from. Also anyone who cannot a statement of ownership cannot sell those items.
I have several rolls of copper tubing in my backyard. How can I prove ownership of that?
I have an old handpump that belonged to my great grandpa. How can I prove ownership of that?
There is no level at which you have even presented this bill that I find acceptable.
That's the issue between us. If you find this bill acceptable... that's where the discussion ends because I do not, cannot and will not find this bill acceptable.
Bare minimum it's a case of guilty until proven innocent which is becoming very common these days.
It's a level of government tracking of private transactions that you, apprently, find palatable. The issue between us isn't in the details. It's in whether we find this law as acceptable.
I, absolutely, do not.
You, apparently, do.
I know that, from my side, I will not be crossing over.
As I've stated in the past when discussing these things with you. I just wonder where the line of "Too much" is. What would they have to do to finally make you say hey... this is too much.
It is FAR, far, far from my line. I can tell you that,