Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 11:19:16 GMT -8
The difference, here, is that the stores you cite as not being in the business of selling autographed collectibles are stores. That is, they are businesses. That's why they know this new law applies to them. I am not a business. I am, again, a private collector, adding to and taking away from my private collection as I see fit...eBay or no eBay. I understand the law, and I understand your interpretation of it. But I am not a business, and that is the key word in the law which exempts me. If you engaged in an online business for the sale of collectibles, you are a 'dealer' in the eyes of the law. The law is very clear as to exemptions. Whether or not this was from an expansion or contraction of your 'personal collection' is irrelevant. Sure, that's your interpretation. Mine's different. There is a difference between "engaging in business" and BEING a business. We'll see whose interpretation carries the day, yes...?
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 21, 2017 11:26:03 GMT -8
Yeah, a book store can sell a book without a signature, and then hold a signing afterwards without breaking the law. If the owner of the signed book then sold the book later, the law would apply to them (not the book store that sold the unsigned book) But the way the book stores currently do it, they usually have the author sign a bunch of extra copies which they then sell later. They can't do this now. Also, as many have pointed out, some book stores sell antique books that might be centuries old. If a book like this is signed, there's no way they can comply with the law. And that's where the bill will be overturned...if it's physically impossible to comply, some judge, somewhere, will overturn the law. It might be. It will probably come down to the power of lobbyists. But, for example, I don't agree with the Obamacare Tax. I think it's unconstitutional. I disagree with the Supreme Court on this matter and think Roberts made a political vote rather than a constitutional one. But that doesn't change the law, and I'm liable for the tax if I don't buy healthcare. Same thing with this law. You may not like it. You can come up with all kinds of reasons why it's stupid and unfair. But it's the law.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 21, 2017 11:33:43 GMT -8
If you engaged in an online business for the sale of collectibles, you are a 'dealer' in the eyes of the law. The law is very clear as to exemptions. Whether or not this was from an expansion or contraction of your 'personal collection' is irrelevant. Sure, that's your interpretation. Mine's different. There is a difference between "engaging in business" and BEING a business. We'll see whose interpretation carries the day, yes...? Good luck with that. The majority opinion from informed attorneys on this matter is exactly as I've stated. I have seen NO attorney opinion that matches yours. In fact, I don't think I have found ANYONE who has your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 21, 2017 17:18:09 GMT -8
So, to summarize and make this easier to understand for those who aren't used to reading legal documents, this new law means... If you sell a autographed comic book in California, you must:1) Have a Resale Certificate from the State Board of Equalization 2) Provide a Certificate of Authenticity (COA) with each book that includes:a) Your signature and date of sale. b) Your true legal name and street address. c) A description of the collectible, the name of the person who signed it, the purchase price and date of sale (or provide your original invoice). d) An express warranty of the authenticity of the collectible. e) Whether the collectible is offered as one of a limited edition and, if so, how. f) An indication of whether you are 'surety bonded' or otherwise insured and provide proof. g) The last four digits of your Resale Certificate h) The date and location of, and the name of a witness to, the autograph signing. i) Whether the item was obtained or purchased from a third party. If so, indicate the name and address of this third party. j) An identifying serial number that corresponds to an identifying number printed on the collectible item, if any. The serial number shall also be printed on the sales receipt. If the sales receipt is printed electronically, the dealer may manually write the serial number on the receipt. 3) Put the following in each advertisement or listing:"A written certificate of authenticity is provided with each autographed collectible, as required by law. This dealer may be surety bonded or otherwise insured to ensure the authenticity of any collectible sold by this dealer." 4) Retain a copy of the COA for not less than seven years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 11:28:25 GMT -8
Sure, that's your interpretation. Mine's different. There is a difference between "engaging in business" and BEING a business. We'll see whose interpretation carries the day, yes...? Good luck with that. The majority opinion from informed attorneys on this matter is exactly as I've stated. I have seen NO attorney opinion that matches yours. In fact, I don't think I have found ANYONE who has your opinion. That's the beauty of the law and politics. All it takes is a more persuasive argument, no matter how insignificant the source of that argument. If I bear none of the trappings of a business, I can't really be a business. That said, I'm not surprised you've never found ANYONE who has my opinion, because that's trying to argue a negative. "This isn't a business." "Prove it!" How does one prove what something is not...? You can't prove what doesn't exist, and since this law is concerned with established (as in, with licenses and whatnot, not as in "long term") businesses, and non-businesses don't apply, I don't know who would be arguing my position...except other non-businesses, which, again, don't apply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 11:44:43 GMT -8
And that's where the bill will be overturned...if it's physically impossible to comply, some judge, somewhere, will overturn the law. It might be. It will probably come down to the power of lobbyists. But, for example, I don't agree with the Obamacare Tax. I think it's unconstitutional. I disagree with the Supreme Court on this matter and think Roberts made a political vote rather than a constitutional one. But that doesn't change the law, and I'm liable for the tax if I don't buy healthcare. Same thing with this law. You may not like it. You can come up with all kinds of reasons why it's stupid and unfair. But it's the law. Couple of things... First, if it's physically impossible to comply with a law, basic reason says you don't have to comply with the law, and the law is void...that's not a legal opinion, that's basic reason, upon which the law is ostensibly founded. If the legislature passes a law that says "you must hold your breath for a single 30 minute stretch upon this bill being signed into law", obviously it isn't physically possible to comply with the law, and that makes the law void. Granted, I'm not a lawyer...BUT...there's a difference between voluntary compliance with laws, and enforcement of laws. Now, they may attempt to penalize you for non-compliance, but that's why we have... Second, the court system. I have the right to petition the gov't for redress of grievances. If a legislature enacts a law with which it is a physical impossibily (not merely difficult), then I can, and should, sue. Finally, I haven't come up with ANY reasons why it's stupid or unfair. I learned long ago that the US legal system is not interested in what is smart and fair...only in what is codified. Therefore, I never attempt to say "this is stupid and/or unfair"...I say "this is not an accurate interpretation of this law, as codified, and here's why:" As for whether you are liable for the Obamacare tax...again, that comes down to whether or not you can successfully persuade the right judges and/or legislators of the validity of your claim, irrespective of your opinion about Roberts' motives.
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Oct 7, 2017 12:32:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Oct 15, 2017 16:25:53 GMT -8
|
|