Prepare To Give Up All Private Data For Any Gold Purchase Over $100

Tyler Durden's picture

A week ago, when we reported on a move by the Dutch central bank that ordered a pension fund to forcibly reduce its gold holdings, we speculated that "this latest gold confiscation equivalent event is most certainly coming to a banana republic near you." And while we got the Banana republic right, the event that we are about to describe is not necessarily identical. It is much worse. A bill proposed in the State of Washington (House Bill 1716), by representatives Asay, Hurst, Klippert, Pearson, and Miloscia, whose alleged purpose is to regulate secondhand gold dealers, seeks to capture "the name, date of birth, sex, height, weight, race, and address and telephone number of the person with whom the transaction is made" or said otherwise, of every purchaser of gold in the state of Washington. Furthermore, if passed, Bill 1716 will record "a complete description of the property pledged, bought, or consigned, including the brand name, serial number, model number or name, any initials or engraving, size, pattern, and color or stone or stones" and of course price. But the kicker: if a transaction is mode for an amount over $100, which means one tenth of an ounce of golds, also required will be a "signature, photo, and fingerprint of the person with whom the transaction is made." In other words, very soon Washington state will know more about you than you know about yourself, if you dare to buy any gold object worth more than a C-note. How this proposal is supposed to protect consumers against vulture gold dealers we don't quite get. Hopefully someone will explain it to us. We do, however, get how Americans will part with any and all privacy if they were to exchange fiat for physical. And in a police state like America, this will likely not be taken lightly, thereby killing the gold trade should the proposed Bill pass, and be adopted elsewhere.

While we are confident that representatives Asay, Hurst, Klippert, Pearson, and Miloscia have no clue why they are even proposing this bill, we would also be delighted to find out which moneyed interests they represent, and what happens to precious metal trading in America should Bill 1716 become a legal precedent which is effectively the first step before the final implementation of Executive Order 6102 version 2.

Full bill (pdf)


h/t Brandon Schroer


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Yen Cross's picture

Over my Dead Rotting Prostate. And that dubalicious North Korean.

Thomas's picture

It's the Chimp and the Frog. We are the frog...

(Watch it to the end; it is soooo primal.)

Brokenarrow's picture

And....this is something you spend your time watching?

European American's picture

I'm actually not replying to your comment, I just wanted my post near the top to address this pressing issue. It's my understanding that the "Second Hand" store they are referring to are Pawn Shops. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe they are referring to coin shops or the likes. I live in Washington State so I'll call my local PM store and see what they know. I hope I'm right. The reason I came to this conclusion was, apparently California had passed a similar bill some time ago and the focus was on Pawn shops (for the obvious reason; selling stolen property), although if someone from California could verify this. I could be wrong on all accounts.

MachoMan's picture

My guess is that the vast majority of states have laws on the books that require persons/entities engaged in the business of buying/selling gold to register with the state police.  In my state, arkansas, our laws are codified at 17-23-101, et seq. for those interested.  But, it appears that: (a) the seller must be engaged in purchasing gold from the general public [the loophole should be pretty obvious on this one]; (b) it applies to transactions over fifty dollars ($50.00); (c) the seller has to send the transaction logs (requires id, fingerprint, and signature on form prepared by police) every week to the police [who would conceivably keep the logs in perpetuity]; but, (d) it does not apply to transactions involving "coins" or "pawn brokers".

Essentially, we only parrot other states' laws 99% of the time...  I would guess this is, effectively, a uniform law.  However, I would think the fact that coins are exempted is at least a little feather in the hat of the general assembly if they're trying to protect people from getting rid of jewelry and are also attempting to remotely narrowly tailor the law...  [not sure why bars of precious metals wouldn't be exempted also].

That said, this development is troubling for me because I have plans on starting a pawn shop, in part, to build a significant holding of precious metals without the prying eyes of the state...  Hopefully we can resist parroting the removal of the exemption for pawn shops...  (many are making a shit ton of money atm exchanging cash for gold).

PS, our law (of course) has a pretty funny omission, 17-23-205 "required information to seller" only requires the buyer to notify the seller the price per ounce of the precious metal "being currently paid" [doesn't say market rate or tie the price to an index] and to weigh the metal in full sight of the seller [doesn't say the seller has to see the reading].  Umm...  guys....  what about the % composition of precious metals in the item being sold? lol...  genius...

PS 2, these laws may be wolves in sheeps' clothing, but shit...  they're so poorly written (hopefully other states are this bad) that I wouldn't be too worried...  I suppose also that they're just prepping us for the coming "changes" to the law that close all the loopholes and loose ends...

austin0388's picture

The definition of second had property in section 2 sub-section 7 says "...except postage stamps, coins that are legal tender, bullion..." -- it sounds like the "except" in this sentence refers to coins and bullion as well as stamps.  American eagles thus being excluded from these requirements on the grounds that they are legal tender.  Does anyone else interpret this section in this manner - or am I deluding myself with false hope?

knukles's picture

Yes, I interpret the section same as you. 
No, you are not deluding yourself with false hope. 
The proposed legislation in it's entirety has nothing to do with coins, bullion and the like, but rather precious metals and other items tendered into hock as per pawning and associated collateralized borrowings.

Apparently of some 338 comments all but 5 or 10 are from individuals who either cannot or care not to read the salient information dutifully provided before ranting of topics other than that at hand.  T'is definitely hard to connect even a single dot when ignorance prevails.

So, thank you all in the immediate preceding thread for the breath of maturity and sanity.
Brings back one of my favorite admonishments to highly paid professionals acting in a manner behoving the respect of an adolescent;
"Grow the fuck up."

There's something wrong here.

European American's picture

From the desk of Rep. "Fraulein" Katrina Asay:


Addressing Home Burglaries


At the request of Federal Way, I introduced legislation to address the growing number of home robberies. Due to the high value of precious metals right now, there is a growing number of “cash for gold” storefront businesses and transactions in our state. Unfortunately, this trend corresponds with a significant increase in the number of burglaries involving theft of precious metals, mostly jewelry.

My legislation, House Bill 1716 (originally House Bill 1213), would put in place stricter standards relating to transactions involving property consisting of gold and other precious metals. The bill would require secondhand dealers buying precious metals to:

  • Keep a written record of the transaction, including the name, signature, photo, contact information and description of the seller;
  • Include the name of the employee and date of the completed the transaction;
  • Catalog the items accepted in the transaction, including detailed descriptions of the items, such as the color and size of gemstones and other identifying elements, and the price paid for the items; and
  • Create a waiting period for payments on transactions of $100 or more.

Just as the Legislature addressed scrap metal theft a couple years ago, it must put in place safeguards for precious metals. My legislation will begin to crack down on those criminals stealing high-value jewelry and other items then pawning them for instant cash.


If passed, this Bill will apply to any business that purchases gold from the public, not just Pawn Shops. (Wonder what motivates this women?)


packman's picture

IMO that's a big copout.  Even though the bill does exclude coins, it's still wrong for several reasons:

1.  Another set of regulatory/societal burden on those that want to perform legitimate transactions.

2.  Loss of privacy for those that want to perform legitimate transactions.

3.  It makes the assumption that people don't break into people's homes to steal gold coins, stamps. etc.  Not sure if there are any stats on the subject - but I'm quite sure that assumption is wrong.

4.  It sets a bad precedent.  Later if/when there is a rash of burlaries and pawn-shop sales of coins/stamps/etc - it'll make it that much easier to just add these to the existing list.

5.  It's an excuse to allow for bad security / detective work.  If the cops were doing their jobs right (e.g. investigating pawn shops to seek out stolen goods), and people were properly protecting their goods, then this wouldn't be necessary.

6.  It's morally wrong to steal things.  It's not morally wrong to buy or sell stolen goods, if you don't know they're stolen.  So it's not right to punish such people (e.g. the pawn shop owners).


European American's picture


"Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness Committee" HB1716


Brief Summary of Bill 

?Expands the definition of "secondhand dealers" to include transient secondhand 



Requires secondhand dealers to maintain specific detailed records for transactions 

involving precious metals for a total of three years. 


Prohibits the removal of any previous metal property bought or received in pledge or 

by consignment by a secondhand dealer from the place of business for a period of 45 

days after the receipt of that property, except when redeemed by or returned to the 



Makes it an unranked class C felony to commit a second or subsequent offense that 

involves property consisting of a precious metal.


Harlequin001's picture

Govts various will simply use this (and other) new lists to identify where to go for their tax money. This is just saving them time and money.

If nothing else it's efficient.

Prepare to hand over the bulk of any gains you make in pm's.

Move offshore peeps, move offshore.

DosZap's picture

This is stupid gestapo shit. 

This is why you BUY insurance for.

(Car,Home, extra liability).

All separate pieces that are over the max amount, you take a private policy out on them. Get a picture, and a Jewelers assessment on replacement value.

There, done...

Legislature OUT of it.

TheJudge2012's picture

Big flaw in the bill. THEY'LL MELT IT DOWN. Good luck finding it on ebay after that.

TheJudge2012's picture

Waiting period for payments over $100: That will go over real well with the folks as prices rapidly rise.

caconhma's picture

I like the fking imbeciles logic: if a government does something, it must be a good reason for it and it will definitely benefit people.

If one goes to buy jeweleries (let us say a $25,000 piece),  all what someone needs is money. They take your check, hold for you your item(s) before the check is cleared, and it is all. If one pays cash then you got your piece rightaway, again without anything else. No a photo ID, no fingerprints, nothing. This how any business always has been done in any country except for communist and fascist ones.

If ones goes to a bank to get some money (let us say $1,000), all what is needed are  the account name and the account number. They also ask to SHOW some picture ID. Again, no a photo ID, no fingerprints, no any personal info for any records.

How come did a $100-gold piece become more valuable than a $25,000 diamond ring?

One more piece of info, the first time I gave my fingerprints was when I was investigated for a Pentagon security clearance.

It is mind-boggling how people are stupid!

dwdollar's picture

Have you tried to open a bank account since 9/11?  They take your fingerprints.

dwdollar's picture

I believe it's a voluntary program that banks opt in to with special kickbacks.  If you don't believe me, try opening an account at MarkleBank in Markle, Indiana or Tinker Federal Credit Union in OKC, Oklahoma.

DosZap's picture

My Ass, what state or Bank is requiring this?.

I would DEMAND in writing the reasons for this.

Then I would seek counsel.

-Michelle-'s picture

I've opened accounts since 9/11.  I've never been asked for fingerprints.  For goodness sake, look at the proliferation of online banking.  I seriously doubt ING or USAA is sending out fingerprint kits to all of their account holders.

dwdollar's picture

Obviously, an online bank won't be able to opt in to the program.

gmrpeabody's picture

Just tell them to put it where the sun don't shine. Soon enough, they will be opting out again.

dwdollar's picture

Somewhat off topic, but this is all obsolete anyway.  The face scan technology is more valuable at this point and any bank has at least a dozen cameras in it.  YES, your face has been scanned if you've gotten a drivers license within the last 2-3 years.  If you don't believe it, you're confused.

DosZap's picture

I am in Texas, last time I went to get a newDL pic, I got thumbed, along with pic.

I also was asked if I was a CCP holder, and I said yes I am, Why do you ask?.

The lady said you did not hear or pay attention to it, but when you gave me your number a machine behind me beeped.

That automatically told me you were, and if you had said NO, she pointed to a HP Officer, and said I would be leaving in cuffs, even if not carrying.

I said whatever, but I was not stupid enough to walk in packing.

She then told me NEXT trip for a Lic pic, I would be Iris Scanned.

I looked at her, laughed, and said then this is the last time I will have a legal license, because no one is getting a retina scan on me that is/has anything to to with the Govt.

Prints are good enough.(although alterable and changeable).

She said, well its coming, I said fine, bye, won't be seeing me ever again.

Have a nice day.

masterinchancery's picture

Not mine. What bank are you talking about?

Cathartes Aura's picture

while I haven't had banking accounts for years, I do know that if you have a cheque drawn on a bank and want to cash it at the counter, they will fingerprint you, as well a charge a fee for not being their customer - this is a long time habit of most big banks.

DosZap's picture

For years you HAD to have a checking acct or you could not cash any check at a Bank, w/out an acct there.

caconhma's picture

Yes, I did open TWO bank accounts after the 9/11.  One in NH and one in MA. Nobody asked anything.

Did you read the proposed law? It was not written in Washington State. Too much demagoguery and propaganda were inserted into the bill. It is a try-balloon from Washington, DC.



dwdollar, are you sure your are living in the USA?

European American's picture

Just spoke to the coin shop where I purchase PM. Yes, indeed, this Bill, if passed, will apply not to just pawn shops, but any business that purchases gold from the general public. So, this appears to be the real deal. 

lincolnsteffens's picture

Massachusetts tried something like this at the state level. It was squashed because, aside from the punitive bookkeeping, it also applied to "second hand dealers" for which antiques dealers are included. The Mass. town that I live in recently enacted a nearly identical law that was first introduced and failed with the state legislature.

The people who author and pass laws like this have no experience in business nor in the far reaching unintended consequences of their foolishness brought on by their desire to control commerce. This law is a restraint of free trade and will produce little results aimed at stopping criminal activity. What it does do is make slaves of legitimate business people to perform hours of extra record keeping for no compensation. In other words, the State commands you to work more hours for no increase in earnings.

Last year after our local by-law was passed I spoke with our police chief, who had sponsored the law, about what it would do to the Antiques trade (run it out of town) which he disagreed with. I explained to him that he did not understand the ramifications of what he had done. Of course he said he completely understood the law which was "designed to prevent local house break ins".

In fact the Washington State law will make it necessary for any used goods/antiques dealer to go through these dictates for gold leafed mirrors (about 1/100 oz. of gold) , gold decorated dinner plates, jewelry and tea boxes that sometimes have small silver mounts by all jewelry dealers, all coin dealers etc. to follow the dictates or face the full force of the law. I bought 40 sterling silver child's mugs at an out of state publicly advertised auction. The local by-law and Wash. proposed law does/would require me to get the auctioneers ID and fingerprints, write a description of the auctioneer and make copious notes on each item purchased (about a full days work!). I would then be required to hold the items off the market as required by law and would be prevented from having any repairs done on a significant portion of my inventory.

I presented my case before the Board of Selectmen illustrating why the new law was absurd, pointing out numerous facets that would end the antiques trade in town. When I finished my presentation the Board members quite clearly understood the flaws in the new law. I thanked the board for listening to me and informed them that IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS WOULD I OBEY THE NEW LAW. 

About a week later I received a very polite call from my police Chief asking if I would stop by to discuss the by-law and see if we couldn't come up with some changes that would enable him to do his job well and not be a burden on the local dealers. At the end of our conversation the Chief stated he would not enforce most of the new by-law and perhaps work with me to change portions of it. I am now working to have the existing law repealed as a year has passed with no indication of the town doing anything to eliminate it.

We are living in the new AGE OF CONTROLL FREAKS. Fight the law being passed or refuse to follow if passed. It is clearly Restraint of Free Trade and violates anti-slavery law.


DosZap's picture

Agreed,Fight it, if you lose, do not OBEY it.

Fight the Power.

johnQpublic's picture

i posted this bill in a thread on wednesday....when i called one of the folks mentioned in the bill, she could not answer your or my question as to whether it applied only to pawn shops or all precious metals in she did not know


Nootropic's picture

Everybody has got some kind of kink.

Harlequin001's picture

First they will send you a letter of demand with all details listed.

Then they will pitch up at your door with your photo for ID and if your serial numbers aren't accounted for they will demand that you hand it over, all in the national interest and all because no one could see this coming.

Anyone holding physical gold at home is a mug, a piggy bank just waiting to be emptied.

If you want to keep what's your you MUST go offshore.

Otherwise you've already lost it.

This is the age of technology. This is when you will wish you had never heard of Facebook or other 'social media' and posted all that free information for all the world to see.

johnQpublic's picture

roosevelt confiscated gold as everyone knows, what is less known is that he also confiscated silver

Bendromeda Strain's picture

Actually it was the SecTreas and applied to >50koz and/or >2 futures contracts. So yeah, they grabbed bullion but didn't outlaw it by any stretch.

cxl9's picture

That is a list of individuals who held large spot or forward silver positions - so-called "silver hoarders" - that the Treasury department compiled and delivered to the Senate. There is nothing there, or anywhere else that I can find, to indicate that silver was ever confiscated along with gold at that time. Executive Orders 6102, 6111, and 6260 make no mention of silver at all. If you have a reference, I'd be interested to see it.

DosZap's picture

No Silver was confiscated, it was used for coinage thru 65.

johnQpublic's picture



Refer to Franklin Roosevelt's August 9, 1934 Executive Order 6814:

"By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Silver Purchase Act of 1934 and of all other authority vested in me, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do hereby require the delivery of all silver situated in the continental United States on the effective date hereof, by any and all persons owning, possessing, or controlling any such silver, and do hereby require any and all persons owning, possessing, or controlling any such silver to deliver the same in the manner, upon the conditions and subject to the exceptions herein contained, such action being in my judgment necessary to effectuate the policy of the Silver Purchase Act of 1934. . . . Section 2. Silver required to be delivered..–There shall be delivered in accordance with the terms of this order all silver situated in the continental United States on the effective date hereof, except silver falling within any of the following categories so long as it continues to fall thereunder:

(a) Silver coins, whether foreign or domestic;

(b) Silver of a fineness of .8 or less, which has not entered into industrial, commercial, professional, artistic, or monetary use;

(c) Silver mined, after December 21, 1933, from natural deposits in the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof: Provided, however, That so much of such silver so mined in the continental United States on or before the effective date of this order which shall not have been deposited with a United States mint tinder the proclamation of December 21, 1933, shall, if processed to a fineness greater than .8 within 75 days from the effective date of this order, be delivered in accordance with this order, not later than 90 days from the effective date hereof, or if processed to a fineness greater than .8 after 75 days from the effective date of this order, be delivered within 15 days thereafter in accordance with this order;

(d) Silver held for industrial, professional, or artistic use and unmelted scrap silver and silver sweepings in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate 500 fine troy ounces belonging to any one person;

(e) Silver owned on the effective date hereof by a recognized foreign government, foreign central bank, or the Bank for International Settlements;

(f) Silver contained in articles fabricated and held in good faith for a specific and customary use and not for their value as silver bullion; or

(g) Silver held under a license issued in accordance with Section 6 hereof.

Section 3. Time and place of delivery..–The silver required to be delivered here under shall be delivered not later than 90 days from the effective date hereof to the United States mint nearest to the place where the silver is situated immediately prior to delivery: Provided, That such silver temporarily falling within the exempt categories enumerated in Section 2, shall be delivered at the end of 90 days from the effective date hereof, or 15 days after the time when it ceases to fall within such categories, whichever date is later. Any person acquiring ownership, possession, or control of silver required to be delivered under this order after 75 days from the effective date hereof, shall deliver such silver within 15 days of such acquisition.

SECTION 4. Amount returnable for silver..–The silver herein required to be delivered shall be coined into standard silver dollars, or otherwise added to the monetary stocks of the United States in accordance with the proclamation, bearing the same date as this order, relating to the coinage of silver, and there shall be returned therefor in standard silver dollars, silver certificates, or any other coin or currency of the United States, the monetary value of the silver so delivered (that is, $1.2929+ a fine troy ounce), less a deduction of 61 8/25 percent thereof for seigniorage, brassage, coinage, and other mint charges, as provided in such proclamation; that is, the amount returnable for the silver delivered in accordance herewith shall be an amount equal to 50+ .– a fine troy ounce, which amount is not less than the fair value, at the time of this order, of the silver required to be delivered hereunder as determined by the market price over a reasonable period terminating at the time of this order.

Section 5. Reimbursement of costs..–The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay all necessary costs, actually incurred, of the transportation of such silver and standard silver dollars, silver certificates, and other coin or currency of the United States, including the cost of insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be reasonably necessary. Persons desiring reimbursement of such costs shall submit their accounts on voucher forms which may be obtained by writing to the Treasurer of the United States, Washington, D.C.

Section 6. Licenses..–The Secretary of the Treasury, subject to such regulations as he may prescribe, acting directly or through such agency or agencies as he may designate, shall issue licenses authorizing the withholding of silver which the Secretary of the Treasury, or such agency as he may designate, is satisfied

(a) is required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession, or art by a person regularly engaged in such industry, profession, or art or in the business of processing silver or furnishing silver therefor;

(b) has been imported for reexport; or

(c) is required to fulfill an obligation to deliver silver in such amount to a third person, incurred or assumed by the applicant on or before the effective date of this order; Provided, That at the date of the application, the applicant owns such silver or holds the obligation of another to deliver to him such silver.

The Secretary of the Treasury may, with the approval of the President, issue licenses authorizing the withholding of silver for purposes deemed to be in the public interest and not inconsistent with the purposes of the Silver Purchase Act of 1934 and of this order.

Section 7. Deliveries in fulfillment of obligations or to licensees.–No person required to deliver silver owned by him or in his possession or control shall be deemed to have failed to comply with the provisions of this order, if such silver is delivered in fulfillment of an obligation incurred or assumed by such person on

dumpster's picture


roosevelt confiscated gold as everyone knows


and it was the brain dead that turned it in

and those who had problems chewing gum and walking

noone was ever convicted ,, where does all the pre 1930 gold coins come from. 

the can pass laws until they are blue in the face look what outlawing whisky did for um ,

a bloody black market ,  look for the same  

DosZap's picture

If you want to keep what's your you MUST go offshore.

What will that accomplish?, any bank will give it up to the Sammy.(not to mention trusting the Bank of choice, I cannot think of one in the world I would trust not to turn me if the Sammy wanted into my accounts, or SD boxes).The SWISS screwed it for good.

You want to keep it, GPS it.

A Nanny Moose's picture

ROFL. Wait a minute, that's not a football. That there were kids watching all that was priceless.

Discovery Channel Bitchez!

OldPhart's picture

They know who has guns and Katrina proved that they use those records to enforce confiscations. Now they'll have records of who purchased $100 or more in precious metals.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Note that there is no mention of the party affiliation of those presenting the bill, which means they are Democrats.

FeralSerf's picture

Was there a party affiliation associated with the Patriot Act?   If not it must have been those damn Democrats again.

Anyone that thinks this is a Democrat or a Republican issue is too fucking stupid to survive.

nmewn's picture

Just so ya know...I junked you for being an asshole.

Regards ;-)

GoinFawr's picture

Just so you know, I was going to junk you for being too stupid to survive, but, of course, you've made it this far; so instead I just junked you for being a shit.

Warmest, steaming regards