Apparently there is a trend among local governments where ordinances are being passed that require certain record keeping about the sales or purchases of gold (e.g. identify is recorded, perhaps photographs of the items) which may or may not need to be submitted to a national database.
Examples:
http://www.scrapgoldamerica.com/gold-news/quick-sale-of-stolen-wedding-band-has-cedar-rapids-council-looking-at-possible.html
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/hammond-requires-cash-for-gold-businesses-to-pay-by-check/article_754d6549-b9dc-566b-83f6-2646c2561285.html
This is a good law, with no unitended consequences right? I'm looking for help with some analysis of whether this is something our town should implement this or not in its ordinances.
All laws have unintended consequences. I supsect the registry is to cut down on theft of gold. What it more than likely will be used for is to seize gold once the economy hits the fan, much like FDR did in the 30's.
The federal gov't might again seize gold, although I think it is unlikely due to the fact that gold is no longer money. My judgement may be in error, but I think it is safe to say that the town council is not going to seize the gold of its citizens. In any case, the ordinance is directed at commercial establishments which buy gold, rather than sell it.
sixty:gold is no longer money.
An (essentially) economic law was repealed? When did this happen??
Let's stay on topic. The point I was wishing to express is that gold is no longer the commonly used medium of exchange that it once was, thus the likelihood of government seizure is diminished ceritas peribus.
I forsee a town council would go like this:
Them: "This is a great proposal to protect property owners, let's approve it".
Me: "Don't do it. After you sell your gold the government has a record of the gold you don't own anymore, and it may then take what you do still own".
Them: "That's ridiculous, they don't have a record of the gold you still own. Besides, the Fed's won't steal it - this is a township ordiance, not a federal one. Do you really think the town of XYZ is going to send its police force out to confisicate your gold? Thanks you, but we disagree and were passing the ordinance anway.".
If the best argument is merely the Fed's might confiscate gold as in 1933, the sheeple won't be convinced and the ordinance will pass. Surely there are other/better arguments?
The 1st article didn't load so I can only respond to the 2nd. The law will have the intended effect, thieves will stop going to the shop. Instead they'll do what they've always done and sell it on the streets. It appears the ordinance will raise opporotunity costs (the cost of maintaining the database) while actually having the opposite effect, incentivzing the use of the black market.
You should do some research as to how many stolen items are actually taken to pawn shops and how many the police actually get back. That's going to be your selling point. You have an uphill battle, they've played the public safety card.