COIN DEALERS WIN BIG VICTORY IN CALIFORNIA

COIN Dealers Win Victory Against Proposed California "Pawnbrokers" Law

(Sacramento, CA) – Compelling arguments by coin and collectibles
dealers and collectors, and a persuasive letter from the American
Numismatic Association warning next year's San Jose convention would
be in jeopardy, helped stop a proposed new California law. The
legislation would have placed burdensome regulations on dealers and
their retail customers.
Several thousand e-mails and faxes from dealers and collectors
denouncing the measure reportedly were received from by legislative
officials.
"The proposed law was approved by the California Senate in May, but
now has been defeated at least temporarily in an Assembly committee.
It if had been approved it would have been a major disaster for the
hobby and coin business," said Barry Stuppler, of Woodland Hills,
California, President of the California Coin & Bullion Merchants
Association.
"Everyone's letters and e-mails were very successful in Sacramento.
Diane Piret of the Industry Council for Tangible Assets was our best
resource. She constantly in touch by phone, and her lobbying advice
and skills were crucial in this matter," said Stuppler.
Senate Bill 1893 would have required dealers to report all
transactions, hold purchased merchandise for 30 days and fingerprint
all customers who sell second-hand merchandise. The legislation was
backed by California pawnbroker organizations.
The State Assembly Committee on Business and Professions heard
testimony on June 22, but there were not enough votes to move the bill
out of committee, effectively halting it. However, Stuppler warns
there may be an attempts to keep the Senate-approved measure alive, or
to start fresh with the legislation next year.
"We've won a major victory, but only for now. We have to remain
vigilant because those who want this measure may try again to get it
approved. I have asked our lobbyist in Sacramento, Carl Brakensiek,
to monitor all potential legislation that could be amended by the
pawnbrokers," said Stuppler.
"I heard from one Assembly member that he received thousands of faxes
and e-mails from numismatists who urged him to vote ‘no' on this
bill."
Stuppler and dealer Terry Woodward of S & T Coins, Turlock,
California, were among those who testified at the Assembly hearing.
Stuppler successfully spent weeks trying to rally dealers, numismatic
organizations and collectors to fight against the proposed law.
The following influential organizations and individuals were among
those who sent letters opposing SB 1893:
American Numismatic Association; A-Mark Financial Corporation;
AuctionDrop, Inc.; Auctions by the Bay (Allen Michaan); California
Board of Equalization (Claude Parrish); Collectors Universe, Inc.;
eBay, Inc.; Expos Unlimited (Ronald J. Gillio); Heritage Numismatic
Auctions, Inc.; ISold It; PayPal; Professional Coin Grading Service;
Industry Council For Tangible Assets (Diane Piret); and the
Professional Numismatists Guild (Robert Brueggeman).
In a letter to Lou Correa, Chairman of the Assembly's Committee on
Business and Professions, ANA Executive Director, Christopher
Cipoletti, wrote:
"The Association hosts two of the largest coin shows in the nation,
the World's Fair of Money ® and the National Money Show ™. These
conventions travel around the country and currently are scheduled to
be held in San Jose, California in July 2005 and in Sacramento,
California in March 2007.
"Should Senate Bill 1893 pass, the Association could be forced to
cancel both shows; over 90 percent of our participants come from
states outside of California, and would most likely not participate if
they would be subjected to the requirements of this Bill. The
American Numismatic Association strongly opposes Senate Bill 1893.
"Approximately 6,000 to 10,000 thousand dealers, collectors, and
families attend our spring shows, while our summer shows generate
attendance from 15,000 to 25,000. These individuals generate millions
of dollars in revenue and produce a positive economic impact in the
local communities. Our spring show uses approximately 2500 hotel
rooms with the commensurate economic impact on the communities we
visit. Our summer show uses approximately 5000 hotel rooms with the
commensurate economic impact on the communities we visit.
"If Senate Bill 1893 passes, the ANA will be forced to look for
alternative locations for conventions and will likely remove any
California site from future consideration. We hope that the
California legislature will consider the significant economic benefit
that an ANA show can produce with tourism and tax dollars, and as a
result defeat Senate Bill 1893."
Professional Numismatists Guild President, Steve Ivy, co-chairman of
Heritage Galleries, Dallas, Texas, stated in a letter to the Committee
on Business and Professions:
"Our members attend dozens of coin conventions in California each
year. In fact, California is by far the largest market for rare coins
in the U.S., and thus, it is no accident that it hosts the most active
and vibrant coin shows in the country. It would be a shame if
California lost that distinction because of what the PNG considers
unnecessary legislation, that is to say, SB 1893.
"Indeed, I would estimate that if SB 1893 passes, most of the coin
shows in California would be cancelled, costing the State millions of
dollars annually, not to mention the loss of jobs and revenue to local
hotels and businesses."
In his letter opposing SB 1893, Collectors Universe, Inc. Chief
Executive Officer, Michael Haynes, wrote:
"If eBay is a reasonable estimate of second-hand goods in the markets,
coins represent less than one percent of all items offered. On
balance, it is unreasonable and burdensome for small business coin
dealers to be included in a reporting requirement where the average
value of an item is very small and the aggregate value of all the
coins in the market represents less than one percent of all the
targeted second-hand goods."
Professional Coin Grading Service President, David Hall, wrote to
committee members:
"Senate Bill 1893 is a disaster for California coin dealers and it is
totally unnecessary, solving nothing and costing way too much for
merchants to implement.... If Senate Bill 1893 becomes law, it will
chase most dealers out of California, it's that unworkable. Our firm
will probably re-locate to Nevada or Texas. Please stop this
horrible, anti-coin collector, anti-coin dealer bill from becoming
law."
For additional information on the opposition to the legislation,
contact Barry Stuppler, President of the California Coin & Bullion
Merchants Association, 5855 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 330, Woodland
Hills, CA 91367. Phone: (818) 592-2800.
Or contact Diane Piret, Industry Affairs Director of the Industry
Council for Tangible Assets, P.O. Box 316, Belle Chasse, LA 70037.
Phone: (504) 392-0023.

"Barry Stuppler" wrote in message
om...
COIN Dealers Win Victory Against Proposed California "Pawnbrokers" Law

(Sacramento, CA) - Compelling arguments by coin and collectibles
dealers and collectors, and a persuasive letter from the American
Numismatic Association warning next year's San Jose convention would
be in jeopardy, helped stop a proposed new California law.

snip

Hey great things happen when people participate in the community they live
it, be it the city, county, state or country. Letters, phone calls &
e-mails really do have an effect, since that is probably the major way that
our elected officials hear from us. I'm glad to have sent multiple e-mails
regarding this "coin" legislation (thanks to Barry's suggestion), and
encourage everybody to stay involved, and if you have been, take it upon
yourselves to get somebody who isn't.

Remember, you have no right to complain about politicians if you didn't
vote.

Mark

Remember, you have no right to complain about politicians if you didn't
vote.

Mark



Think about it. We do indeed have a right to complain about politicians or
anything else, regardless of whether we voted or not. If you chose not to
vote for whatever reason, you still have a right to complain about the
results. You also have a right to complain about people who don't vote.
They, in turn, have a right to tell you to mind your own business. These
are just a few of the freedoms we enjoy in America and in most developed
countries.

Bruce

"Nooker" wrote in message
...

Remember, you have no right to complain about politicians if you didn't
vote.

True for local City, County, and State elections, and Congressional and
Senatorial elections where your vote in your City, County, State, and
Congressional District elections can actually make a difference in who wins.
If someone running for Congress wins his or her district by one vote,
they're in. If someone running for Senator wins his or her state by one
vote, they're in.

Not necessarily true in Presidential elections where some states are solidly
favored for one candidate or another, and even if the candidate you vote for
wins your State by over a million votes, and thus wins all of that State's
Electoral Votes, he can still lose an election due to a tiny number, such as
550 votes in another State 3000 miles away.

In 2000, Al Gore got 5,861,203 votes in Calif., or 53.4%, versus Bush, who
got 4,567,429 votes in Calif., or 41.7%. Gore won the state by a rather
healthy 1.3 million votes. Gore's margin in Calif. alone, not his total, but
just his margin, was more than the vote TOTAL in may other States for both
Candidates combined. And that 1.3 million vote margin he got in Calif. is
almost three times the number of votes that he beat Bush by nationwide
(50,994,086 for Gore, versus 50,461,092 for Bush..) .. John Kerry is
expected to carry Calif. by a similar or better margin this year. And yet,
despite of that, because of the Electoral College system we still cling to,
Gore's enormous margin in Calif. made no difference. In the case of
Presidential Elections, it's the "swing" States that decide who the winner
will be. In the "swing" states, ONE vote can actually hand the entire State,
and even the entire election to one candidate or another. In the "solid"
states, one vote makes virtually no difference at all. Had Gore gotten a
half a million more votes in Calif. in 2000, or half a million fewer votes,
the results of the election would have been the same. Had he gotten a tiny
551 more votes in Florida, the results of the election would have been
different and we'd have had a different guy living in the White House the
past three and half years..

Harv

In article ,
"Nooker" wrote:

Remember, you have no right to complain about politicians if you didn't
vote.

Nonsense. Part of the benefit of living in a democracy - well, republic
with democratic rights and ideals - is that you have EVERY right to
complain about whatever you want to.

And everybody else has the right to ignore you. :-D

Scot Kamins
--
"Speak your truth, even as your voice quakes."

You have given us some interesting facts and backed them by persuasive
arguments.

And you have convinved me that there is only one answer to this
problem: Kick California out of the union.

"Harv" wrote in message ...
"Nooker" wrote in message
...

Remember, you have no right to complain about politicians if you didn't
vote.

True for local City, County, and State elections, and Congressional and
Senatorial elections where your vote in your City, County, State, and
Congressional District elections can actually make a difference in who wins.
If someone running for Congress wins his or her district by one vote,
they're in. If someone running for Senator wins his or her state by one
vote, they're in.

Not necessarily true in Presidential elections where some states are solidly
favored for one candidate or another, and even if the candidate you vote for
wins your State by over a million votes, and thus wins all of that State's
Electoral Votes, he can still lose an election due to a tiny number, such as
550 votes in another State 3000 miles away.

In 2000, Al Gore got 5,861,203 votes in Calif., or 53.4%, versus Bush, who
got 4,567,429 votes in Calif., or 41.7%. Gore won the state by a rather
healthy 1.3 million votes. Gore's margin in Calif. alone, not his total, but
just his margin, was more than the vote TOTAL in may other States for both
Candidates combined. And that 1.3 million vote margin he got in Calif. is
almost three times the number of votes that he beat Bush by nationwide
(50,994,086 for Gore, versus 50,461,092 for Bush..) .. John Kerry is
expected to carry Calif. by a similar or better margin this year. And yet,
despite of that, because of the Electoral College system we still cling to,
Gore's enormous margin in Calif. made no difference. In the case of
Presidential Elections, it's the "swing" States that decide who the winner
will be. In the "swing" states, ONE vote can actually hand the entire State,
and even the entire election to one candidate or another. In the "solid"
states, one vote makes virtually no difference at all. Had Gore gotten a
half a million more votes in Calif. in 2000, or half a million fewer votes,
the results of the election would have been the same. Had he gotten a tiny
551 more votes in Florida, the results of the election would have been
different and we'd have had a different guy living in the White House the
past three and half years..

Harv

In article , "Harv"
writes:

Had he gotten a tiny
551 more votes in Florida, the results of the election would have been
different and we'd have had a different guy living in the White House the
past three and half years..

Harv


Guess I owe 550 people down there a drink!

dondi3



DONDI enterprises. BUY, SELL, TRADE. RARE COINS & PRECIOUS METALS
Member COINNET, CSNS, ANA, INA, MOON, ILNA.

"James McCown" wrote in message
om...
You have given us some interesting facts and backed them by persuasive
arguments.

And you have convinved me that there is only one answer to this
problem: Kick California out of the union.


Fine, go ahead. Then do some checking and see how much of the food you eat
is grown here. And you'd need a Passport to visit. The USA would lose 1/8th
of its population, a pretty healthy chunk of its economy, and Ahhnold would
again be a foreign citizen. Can't have that, can we ..

Harv

"DONDI3" wrote in message
...
In article , "Harv"
writes:

Had he gotten a tiny
551 more votes in Florida, the results of the election would have been
different and we'd have had a different guy living in the White House the
past three and half years..

Harv


Guess I owe 550 people down there a drink!

dondi3

Which would be the best and most appropriate gift, considering the guy who
won and his prediliction for the bottle..

Harv

Harv wrote:

Not necessarily true in Presidential elections where some states are solidly
favored for one candidate or another, and even if the candidate you vote for
wins your State by over a million votes, and thus wins all of that State's
Electoral Votes, he can still lose an election due to a tiny number, such as
550 votes in another State 3000 miles away.

In 2000, Al Gore got 5,861,203 votes in Calif., or 53.4%, versus Bush, who
got 4,567,429 votes in Calif., or 41.7%. Gore won the state by a rather
healthy 1.3 million votes. Gore's margin in Calif. alone, not his total, but
just his margin, was more than the vote TOTAL in may other States for both
Candidates combined. And that 1.3 million vote margin he got in Calif. is
almost three times the number of votes that he beat Bush by nationwide
(50,994,086 for Gore, versus 50,461,092 for Bush..) ...

If you're sincere in this, push for a constitutional amendment to make
the election of the President and Vice President direct and to abolish
the Electoral College.

It's simple - If the Dems had pushed for such an amendment in the months
after the election its passive would have been a slam dunk. They did
not even propose it on the Congress floor as far as I known nor did they
call for the 50 state legislatures to do so. Ergo the Dems aren't
sincere in their complaints: They hope the exact same loophole will help
them next time.

It's a wierd situation knowing the loophole, knowing why it was put
there in the first place, knowing it could have been abolished for the
asking, and seeing that it didn't happen because no one asked for it
to happen on the Congress floor.