Latest Registration Proposal from Illinois

But not on guns, on precious metals. Yeah, the tin foil hat crowd is going to love that one.

9 Responses to “Latest Registration Proposal from Illinois”

  1. Harold says:

    I don’t know, I have a friend who’s grandmother knew two FDRs, the evil one who seized the nation’s gold and later the good one that won WWII.

  2. Harry Schell says:

    It ties out with politicians who want to control everything, and consider individual freedom (in any form) a problem, if not a threat, to The State. Look at the currency controls in Argentina, where they have positioned dogs at ferry docks to sniff out people taking currency out of the country in suitcases, to convert it to dollars or anything but Argentine pesos. All other means are prohibited.

    If governments can eliminate a basic right with regard to firearms and the human right of self-defense, what can’t those governments do? And why would anyone expect restraint from political class that thinks it ought to tell you how big your soda should be?

    It’s not tinfoil hat stuff when they are really doing crazy stuff…

  3. Andy says:

    After reading the bill, it’s pretty apparent that it applies to the “We Buy Gold” folks. It’s the same sort of bill that gets written for salvage yards, but applying to copper, etc. The intent is to try and tag stolen material somewhere in the chain. Can’t speak for elsewhere, copper theft is rampant down here. And, gold buying places would make for an easy fence for stolen jewelry, etc.

    I presume. Haven’t sold any.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      After reading the bill, it’s pretty apparent that it applies to the “We Buy Gold” folks.

      So? It says you can’t sell your gold for cash.

      Of course, you’re also not supposed to sell meth, but people seem to do it anyway.

  4. Sigivald says:

    I’m with Andy.

    (Also, there was that rash of Fake Gold Bars going around, with tungsten inside a Real Commercial Gold Bar’s skin…

    Might be related to trying to track that, too.)

    The tin-hatters will go mad(der), of course – but I don’t think it’s a prelude to confiscation here.

    (For one thing, it’s not FDR’s day anymore. These days, the Supreme Court would at least make them pay you for it.

    And since there’s no gold standard, there’s nothing like a reason for it. Why would anyone want to seize gold? There was a plausible reason in 1935; not so much, now.)

    • Harold says:

      Oh, they did pay for the gold, at $20.67/oz. And then repriced it, or rather the dollar, at $35/oz.

      In the long game of likely coming inflation, “they might want to remove this store of value that’s not under their control, but it’s way too early to tell, that game hasn’t really started yet.

  5. Sigivald says:

    (To clarify, they had to pay you in 1935 as well, but at a fixed value since the dollar was defined by gold.

    Now it’d have to be market value to keep the Supreme Court happy, and gold’s really expensive, as it’s in a stupid bubble.

    Doubles the stupidity.)

  6. Prophet says:

    Reminds me of that time a family found a bag of 10 double eagle gold coins after their grandfather died. Estimated to be worth $80 million, the family took them to the government to verify they were real. They were. And the government KEPT them claiming they were stolen.

    They didn’t have any proof mind you, just that they couldn’t explain how the guy got them so they MUST have been stolen.

    The family sued for their return and lost. $80 million lost because the family believed in the government. A lesson to be learned there, no doubt.

    Here’s the story:$80-million

  7. John A says:

    This is specificaly for businesses – except for the part about businesses not being allowed to pay more than $500 cash, which hits individuals who pawn/sell a single piece of jewelry.

    And since when have businesses not had this type of regulation? Jewelry stores, pawn shops, coin dealers, smelters, refiners…