Ohio Wants eBayers to Post $50k Bond

MacDork writes "CNNMoney posted a short article this morning about new Ohio regulations set to become effective May 2 this year. If you are in the state and selling on eBay, you will need to pay $200 for a license and post a $50,000 bond or face possible fines and jail time. Getting the license also requires a one-year apprenticeship. When asked to which eBay users this bill applied, the bill's author, Larry Mumper responded with these very specific guidelines.... "It certainly will not apply to the casual seller on eBay, but might apply to anyone who sells a lot.""

Comments

Typical government stupidity

[WCMI92]

Will this do anything to stop scammers?

No.

Will this be a HUGE burden and inconvienence on the honest?

Yes.

Governments so often believe they can wave a piece of paper and behavior stops. Just like gun control, this will never stop a scammer but will punish the honest.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[PyWiz]

I completely agree. Think about it. Ebay scammers are _already_ breaking the law, so what qualms could they possibly have about "selling on ebay without a license." That would be like passing a law that makes it illegal for drug dealers to sell without a license. The best possible impact this could have would be forcing scammers to move their operations out of state.

Meanwhile, all the honest sellers on ebay would be set back tremendously.

But all is not despair. Do you smell that? I do, it's the smell of legislation that will never be passed. This is just another one of those bills we keep seeing that has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law, serving the sole purpose of allowing the senator to say "LOOK I WAS AGAINST EBAY SCAMMING!!!!111" Honestly, it's sad that this is what our "representatives" spend most of their time doing, but hey, at least they have the sense not to actually pass it, right?

Good God I hope so...

-py

Re:Typical government stupidity

[anum]

Governments so often believe they can wave a piece of paper and behavior stops. Just like gun control, this will never stop a scammer but will punish the honest.

No, Governments (read: elected officials) believe doing this will get them reelected. It seems to work...

Re:Typical government stupidity

[nounderscores]

like passing a law that makes it illegal for drug dealers to sell without a license.

Actually when governments pass a law like that, they're usually trying to make money. Take cigarettes, alcohol, and in amsterdam, heroin, for example.

I think ohio has seen a big fat cash cow and has decided to get down to milk it at gunpoint.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[ivan256]

Oh boy, here goes my karma.

There are legitimate reasons to sell on ebay, but a gun is for shooting people with...

Aside from the fact that you're implying that there is never a legitimate reason to shoot something or someone (I know people with rattlesnakes in their backyard who would disagree with your calling hunting with a handgun "bullshit"...), a gun isn't just for shooting people with. There's a lot to be said for intimidation. You should know this since you're obviously scared of people having guns.

That's not my real issue with your shortsighted post though.

If no one has guns, no one gets to shoot people.

Let's skip being pedantic about bows, slingshots, etc... (It's probably easier to kill somebody at range with a wrist rocket than with a .22 if you're good at aiming).

You're a few hundred years too late. The cat is out of the bag. People have guns. Laws don't take guns away from anybody. Some people may comply with the law, and you may try to force compliance through law enforcement, but the guns are out there. The only people you're going to take guns away from are people who obey the law. Given that there will never be another time in human history when no one has a gun, would you rather that only the people most likely to shoot you with their gun were able to carry?

Re:Typical government stupidity

[anthony_dipierro]

So forget free market let's just regulate everything so that a few fat cats can make tons of money?

I never said it was right or wrong I was just stating the facts.

For some reason I don't think anyone would propose a bill with that intention let alone pass it.

Yeah right. Unless those people passing the bill were in or were paid off by those in the industry. C'mon, just look at how many regulations there are on lawyers. And look at what the profession of most of the politicians is. Think it's a coincidence? It isn't.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[radish]

Given that there will never be another time in human history when no one has a gun, would you rather that only the people most likely to shoot you with their gun were able to carry?

That's a dumb, defeatist argument. May as well give up locking my car, becuase there will always be car thieves, and if they want to get in they will. Not only that, but it propagates the myth that having a gun will somehow prevent you from getting shot - nothing could be further from the truth. How many people are shot with their own gun? How many people shoot themselves accidentally? How many people would not be shot at all if they just handed over their wallet to the mugger rather than try to be a hero?

Oh, and stop making out like "human history" and ends in the US. The US is the ONLY western country I can think of where it is common for people to own guns, the ONLY ONE. And, it has by far the highest rate of gun deaths. Now, I'm not trying to infer causality here, it may be a coincidence. But it's one big fucking coincidence if you ask me.

If you want to reduce the number of gun deaths, reduce the number of guns. Period.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[po_boy]

Aside from the fact that you're implying that there is never a legitimate reason to shoot something or someone (I know people with rattlesnakes in their backyard who would disagree with your calling hunting with a handgun "bullshit"...), a gun isn't just for shooting people with. There's a lot to be said for intimidation. You should know this since you're obviously scared of people having guns.

Don't let them make you back down. The possibility of needing to protect yourself from or overthrow the current or future government is another completely reasonable reason to own a firearm.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[acroyear]

yeah, i saw it as an attempt to tax the internet without violating the federal ban on taxing the internet. of course, i didn't read the damned article, so i have no idea how scammers get into the act.

on that latter thing, its just a control factor, the illusion that "Everything will be better as long as *we* know who's doing what.". Total garbage, gross violation of the principles on which the nation was founded, but there you go.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[Vince Mo'aluka]

Governments so often believe they can wave a piece of paper and behavior stops.

Before you ask yourself whether or not a new law will work, or how the new law will benefit the people, or what the basic rationale is behind the whole thing, ask yourself how does this new law benefit government.

Consider that government benefits even from outright failures. Typically, government failures are rewarded with more revenue, and even if the program is scrapped, they still reap the administrative costs and (perhaps even more valuable) the precedents for greater expansions of power.

Nobody really wants to believe that government is first and foremost concerned with its own interests, but the facts are on the table for anyone to see. History proves that governments have a tendency to expand over their lifetimes, and there's a very good reason for that: expansion of government benefits those in power.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[ivan256]

it has by far the highest rate of gun deaths. [...] If you want to reduce the number of gun deaths, reduce the number of guns.

Oh please.

Isn't the goal to reduce the number of killings? Who cares how the people were killed.

Are you saying that you don't care wether people kill each other, just as long as they don't do it with a gun?

Your argument sounds like the same kind of trash that most activists spew. They hide their true agenda (lifestyle/culture/belief reform) behind some issue that tugs at people's heart-strings.

With the exception of accidental shootings, do you really think that not having a gun is going to stop violence? Do you think the lack of a gun is going to stop anybody that is intent on harming another person from actually doing it?

Re:Typical government stupidity

[putaro]

The point was that people who are doing illegal things already are unlikely to comply with the law. Selling cigarettes and alcohol is usually legal in the U.S. so adding an additional tax/regulation is something that the sellers will comply with.

Adding this requirement for bonding will simply mean that people who are trying to do business legitimately through eBay find themselves with a new cost while the scammers will ignore this just as they're already ignoring the laws against fraud.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[whats_a_zip]

"I think ohio has seen a big fat cash cow and has decided to get down to milk it at gunpoint." Bingo! Gov. Taft was rated the worst Governor in the United States. The state of Ohio is broke, and completely mismanaged. What you see here is desperation.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[FreshlyShornBalls]

it's sad that this is what our "representatives" spend most of their time doing

Mostly because the average voter doesn't spend ANY of his/her time researching the candidates in November....

Re:Typical government stupidity

[bladesjester]

"From what I can tell from the article, the law is more meant for Auctioneers."

The bill *supposedly* wasn't meant to apply to casual sellers. However, the way it is currently written, it applies to everyone who sells on ebay. They are trying to backpeddle and swear that they are going to revise it, but I really don't buy it.

There are many times that I want to smack our legislaters (I live in Ohio). The amusing thing was that the state rep for where I used to live was a friend of my family's, so I really *could* smack him. =]

Re:Typical government stupidity

[surefooted1]

This article not completely accurate and current...

It was an oversight when the law was written and will be amended.

http://www.nbc4i.com/print/4253028/detail.html

And for the lazy...

Ohio Lawmakers Promise To Fix Internet Sales Law Law Could Regulate eBay Users POSTED: 6:30 am EST March 4, 2005 COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Lawmakers promise to change a state law that would force some individuals to get an auctioneer's license in order to sell items over the Internet.

The law, which goes into effect May 2, was intended to regulate auctioneers, but ended up applying to sales through an Internet auction house.

"We never intended for this to apply to people who sell things on eBay," said state Sen. Larry Mumper, a Marion Republican who was primary author of the bill. "This was to insure that auctioneers were abiding by the established rules and regulations.

"The bill is flawed. We will amend it and correct the problem before it goes into law."

The law would allow Ohioans to sell their items on eBay as long as they didn't buy the items intending to sell them.

"What does that mean?" said Brenda J. Grolle, an Elyria resident who buys used books for $1 and sells them for $4 on eBay. "If I buy something, it's mine. I own it."

As written, the law would subject Grolle to a maximum $1,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail unless she gets a license.

A person has to serve a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, act as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attend an approved auction school, pass exams, pay a biannual fee of $200 and post a $50,000 bond in order to get an auction license.

Erin Davis, an aide to Sen. Tom Roberts, a Dayton Democrat, said the legislation wasn't intended to regulate eBay users.

"It is a complete, unintended consequence," Davis said. "We did refer to Internet auctions in the bill, but we were talking about Internet auction houses, not individuals. It is important that the law be changed before it goes into effect."

eBay spokesman Hani Durzy said the company isn't concerned about Ohio's law.

"We do not believe the law applies to people who sell items on eBay or to eBay itself," he said.

Gov. Bob Taft, who signed the bill on Feb. 1, has asked for a clarification, an aide said.

Although, take note of the last sentence.

Re:Typical government stupidity

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

They did pass it. The only chance is the Governer not signing it. It does seem to effect people who are auctioneers and the article did say the Ebay did not think it pertained to anyone selling on Ebay or Ebay itself.

It also talks about a one year apprenticship with a licensed auctioneer and to participate in auctions around the State. I think this legislation is for those people calling out bids at an auction (auctioneers). This would not apply then to the person having their items auctioned. I can see Ohio requiring a $50k bond and a one year apprenticeship for people selling a teapot through an auction. This article is making some rather erroneous claims.

The fact that Ebay thinks it doesn't pertain to them could have to do with the fact that no person is doing the auctioning, a program is. Possibly worst case Ebay would have to put up a bond. But having a terminal connected to Ebay participate in auctions around the State is a interesting image.

It would all depend on how the law was written. The article seems to think that it does pertain to people who are selling through the auction process but they don't supply any details of the language of the bill (that was passed) that would suggest that it does.

Congress might have something to say about this

[warpSpeed]

Something about the Interstate Commerce Clause might get congress, or at least the judcial branch involved. How long until the first lawsuit to stop, or at least clarify, the law?

Re:Congress might have something to say about this

[LordBodak]

Do you really believe there's anyone left in Congress who has a clue what the Constitution says anymore? They sure don't act like it.

Re:Congress might have something to say about this

[museumpeace]

IANAL but isn't one of ICC's or FTC's jobs to see that there is not, in effect, tariffs imposed in one state blocking commerce from another state? That parity of states in matters of commerce was a problem facing the nation when the constitution was drawn up. This proposed legislation seems to come rather close, in its effect if not its intention, to a unilateral barrier to trade imposed by one state on commerce that may go on between states.

Re:Congress might have something to say about this

[garcia]

Do you really believe there's anyone left in Congress who has a clue what the Constitution says anymore? They sure don't act like it.

That should really have read: Do you really believe there's anyone left in Congress that cares what the Constitution says anymore? They sure are paid not to.

I guess I missed something...

[Skye16]

...but why does this affect anyone other than eBay? TECHNICALLY, they are doing the auctioning. You're just putting up your item for auction. Is it illegal for you to pay an auctioneer 500$ to have them auction off your house? How could this apply to the user? THEY aren't accepting bids - the software is, and the software was created by and managed by eBay. The user isn't auctioning a damn thing, they're having ebay do it for them.

...aren't they?

Re:I guess I missed something...

[crow]

Not exactly.

With a traditional auction, the auction house does some verification of the merchandise, and the items are in the control of the auctioneer, not the original owner. On eBay, it's much more like the individual sellers are running their own auctions with eBay simply providing technical services.

So it is different.

As to how the law sees it, that may be several different matters.

Re:I guess I missed something...

[sysadmn]

Nope. What surprised everyone is that it was pointed out that anyone using eBay could be considered an auctioneer. eBay is just providing the soapbox - you're the one doing the auction.

I think this is a step forward,

[Sialagogue]

...and a good match for other Ohio laws that mandate tickets for people who "go real fast" and jail for people who "do bad stuff."

Re:I think this is a step forward,

[Otter]

It would help if *anyone* could post a link to the relevant law, since it's too much to ask a CNN reporter to bother to read the legislation he's discussing.

My impression is that there some new legislation regulating auctioneers in Ohio (not unreasonable), someone decided it might affect eBay sellers, the sponsor basically says he has no idea how eBay works, and guesses it might affect heavy users, and by the time it hits Slashdot, it's "Stoopid politishun regulates eBay, does'nt know how computars work!!!"

Seems a bit overdone

[PepeGSay]

Why would you have to apprentice as an auctioneer to sell something where the auction portion is run by someone else. This seems akin to making people on the Antiques Roadshow take auction classes and an apprenticeship before they can have Sotheby's auction their items. Is this really a way to back into a tax?

Re:rediculous

[Jeff85]

Did you read the summary? It stated that "It certainly will not apply to the casual seller on eBay, but might apply to anyone who sells a lot." So the average seller isn't affected, unless the average person sells a lot of stuff. And in my book, a casual seller is the average type of seller on eBay.

auction school

[fr1kk]

FTA: Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days.

and a school to become a licensed seller?

what if i go on a spree, and say, sell like 30 items that i've found in my basement over christmas break? does that constitute as someone who sells more than 'casually'?

Re:rediculous

[Bigman]

In TFA it says that it is not intended that the law apply to individuals, but to businesses.

That said, I can't see how this is anything other than a money-grubbing attempt by politicians keen to enhance their reputation by being on the "cutting edge".

Some politicians just cant cope with the fact that people can manage to run their lives without state intervention.

... and this why Ohio will always be a sh*thole

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like driving your productive citizens and businesses out of state with higher taxes.

Re:... and this why Ohio will always be a sh*thole

[AKnightCowboy]

5 years ago I would've kicked you in the teeth for saying that, but these days I realize you're entirely correct. I can't wait to get out of this state.

Ohio Wants eBayers to Post $50k Bond

[server1]

This is just another snow job to dance around the Internet no-tax law. ...where is the ACLU on this??!...they must have been sleeping...

Re:rediculous

[pla]

Did you read the summary?

Have you lived in the US long?

Any source of revenue a city/state/federal tax can draw on, it eventually will.

If the law doesn't very specifically exempt anyone that sells under, say, $10k per year on eBay, you can expect to hear about this getting badly abused about six months from now.

Or do you really consider your typical neighborhood pot dealer; eight year olds who throw a temper tantrum in school; or people who write zombie fiction - All terrorists?

People worry about the "slippery slope" of bad laws because they can and will get applied as broadly as The Powers That Be can apply them.

"might apply to anyone who sells a lot"

[Anita Coney]

No ambiguity there.

Seriously, despite the certain risk of being modded down, Ohio has EVERY right to do this. If you open up a business in Ohio, it has a right to license you. That applies even if you set up your business in your house.

However, I certainly hope they clear up that vague definition before it's enacted!

Re:"might apply to anyone who sells a lot"

[Tony]

I don't think many people are questioning the licensing-- you are right, if it's a real business, Ohio has the right to license the business and tax any income.

That's not at issue. What *is* at issue is the $50k and possible "apprenticeship" that goes along with it. Ohio doesn't do that to other retailers or direct sellers; why is it singling out ebay sellers?

Re:"might apply to anyone who sells a lot"

[Anita Coney]

First there ARE ordinances to stop people from setting up garages sales as full time businesses. Most cites, townships, etc, have ordinances which limit how often you can have garage sales. If you want an exemption from the ordinance you have to set up a legitimate business our of your home and get a license.

Applying your analogy to Ebay, once again, if you turn selling stuff on Ebay into a full time business, which MANY people do, Ohio has a right to license those people.

Ohio is not going to go after ever Tom, Dick, and Harry how uses Ebay. Only those who set up business on Ebay.

How does the interstate commerce clause apply?

[G4from128k]

Something about the Interstate Commerce Clause might get congress, or at least the judcial branch involved. How long until the first lawsuit to stop, or at least clarify, the law?

Interesting idea and the law is certainly too vague, but I don't see how this is an interstate commerce issue. Ohio is regulating (or overregulating) its own state's businesses. Its really no different than a local sales tax on restaurants, business license for retailers, etc. This would only become an interstate issue is Ohio required non-Ohio eBayers to register, pay tax, or put up a bond.

Re:How does the interstate commerce clause apply?

[PyWiz]

While the sellers might be in Ohio, anyone in the whole wide world can purchase their items, right? Perhaps even someone in another state?

A little while ago there was a supreme court case by the name of Gibbons v. Ogden. Aaron Ogden had filed suit in New York against Thomas Gibbons for operating a rival steamboat service between New York and New Jersey ports. Ogden had exclusive rights to operate steamboats in New York under a state law, while Gibbons held a federal license. Gibbons lost the case and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision. The Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional, since the power to regulate interstate commerce, which extended to the regulation of navigation, belonged exclusively to Congress.

Now, you can see how Ohio issuing "ebay licenses" is quite similar to New York issuing steamboat licenses. While the commerce does take place in their state, it also crosses state lines, and is therefore interstate commerce.

-py

Re:How does the interstate commerce clause apply?

[anthony_dipierro]

Gibbons lost the case and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision. The Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional, since the power to regulate interstate commerce, which extended to the regulation of navigation, belonged exclusively to Congress.

Actually Gibbens vs. Ogden was an example of an industry which was already regulated by the federal government. This is a much different case, because the federal government has not yet stepped in to regulate these transactions in this way.

In this case, the law still may be unconstitutional, based on the dormant commerce clause, but as long as the law does not discriminate against foreign commerce (which would certainly be true if it only applied to sellers located in the state, if anything it would then favor foreign commerce), then the court must do a balancing test: does the burden imposed by the law outweigh the benefits.

In this case, I don't know. A $50,000 bond seems quite excessive. But this is an arguable point, and it would be a much less open and shut case than you make it out to be by referencing Ogden.

Re:How does the interstate commerce clause apply?

[PyWiz]

Actually Gibbens vs. Ogden was an example of an industry which was already regulated by the federal government.

Actually, the fact that it was already regulated is immaterial, because the Constitution clearly states in Section 8 of Article I:

"The Congress shall have power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Notice there is no mention of "but it must already be federally regulated" in there. Nope, if it goes between the states, it's federal territory.

-py

Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[buro9]

Insightful right up to the last sentence maybe.

Damn, I'll even burn some karma to say this.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[ChaosCube]

Yeah, it is insightful, because it's the same thought process which is completely devoid of logic.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[AviLazar]

There is such a proliferation of guns that criminals (who generally have guns illegally acquired) will still have these...while the honest joe schmoe who goes through the legal process to own a gun will not be able to have one. So what we will see is criminals and law enforcement with guns - but the average *law abiding* citizen without. How is this a good thing?

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[seanmc42]

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[FatAlb3rt]

You're contradicting your own argument.

To stop drugs, we should not go after the source, but the end user.
To stop guns, we should go after the source, not the end user.

Should we go after the big 3? After all, their vehicles kill far more people each year than guns.

I'll leave you alone now, I gotta go burn down some trees.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[deacon]

Many people have the mistaken impression that guns are too lightly regulated in the USA.

Not only do Americans tolerate a wide variety of restrictive laws, which vary state by state, they even have to pay for their own guns and ammunition!

Compare this to the Swiss experience.

Every Swiss man, on reaching age 20, is issued with a rifle to keep at home.

That rifle is the SIG Strumgeweher (assault rifle) model 1990 (Stgw 90), a selective fire, 5.6 mm rifle with folding skeleton stock, bayonet lug, bipod, and grenade launcher. pic , pic, Google

The Stgw 90 is a real assault rifle in that it is fully automatic.

Gun control dogma claims that this would result in a bloodbath. As usual, the dogma is wrong.

Note also that Mainstream Media avoids reporting on the Swiss gun policy. After all, they don't want to undo all the work they have done for anti-gun forces over the years!

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Why go after the legit guys, the gun makers?

What have they done that's illegal?

Perhaps you've forgotten the Bill of Rights and how the right to bear arms is second only to the right to free speech.

Guns are not the problem - people who illegally use guns (and who don't care about laws to begin with) are the problem. Making new laws will not stop these people from continuing to illegally use guns. Just as new laws will not stop P2P file sharing, drugs, etc. People that break existing laws will not stop simply because there are brand new laws that further outlaw the illegal activities they are already performing.

I suppose you feel we should be out arresting the people who wrote Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, etc. because that has a chance of working?

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[digidave]

Actually, most non gang-related gun murders are committed with legal firearms. Most gang-related murders are not committed against the general public.

In other words, if you're not a gang member you are more likely to be killed by a legal firearm than an illegal one. That doesn't make "gun control" a workable solution, but it does fly in the face of what most gun activists say.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[MBGMorden]

Drugs are already illegal, hence our effort to stop their production. Guns are not illegal, and trying to "curb the production and import of guns" is about as fair as trying to curb the production and import of golf clubs. The VAST majority of guns are used for perfectly legal sporting activities (I own 18 guns and have never used one illegaly). The overwhelming majority of the shots fired per year in this country (we're talking well over 99% here) are fired innocently at target ranges.

It makes no sense to hamper the people who enjoy owning and shooting firearms (not to mention those who carry for protection) by trying to villify a simple tool and stop it's manufacture.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[ScentCone]

Go after the legit guys, the gun makers, instead of the guys who are already intending to break the law.

So, you're also cool with going after "legit" guys like Ford or General Motors? After all, convicted drunk drivers who aren't supposed to drive can still pick up keys and drive anyway... so we'd better deprive everyone of cars, just in case. Especially since more people are killed with cars than with guns. Oh: and don't forget baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc. There are all sorts of people out there "intending to break the law" with those tools, too.

Oh, wait: here's a thought. The vast majority of people who kill with guns are recidivist, repeat criminals. Maybe they shouldn't be walking around in your neighborhood in the first place?

By the way, what's your angle on going after the manufacturer of a legal product than can only hurt someone when someone picks it and deliberately uses it in that way? Check in with places like Africa and Central America, where gangs there routinely kill people with machetes, knives, and bottles of gasoline. Do you think that people intent on that sort of terrorizing care, at all, what you think about their chosen tools? I can tell you one thing they do care about: not knowing which business or household may be able to defend itself. In states like Florida, the right to carry has reduced violent crime. In places like Australia, where they've confiscated everyone's guns, violent crime has gone up, as criminals can act with impunity. The exact opposite of what the gun control people wanted (no matter how many times they're told that's what's going to happen).

If guns in personal possesion are such a problem, how do places like Switzerland, where there are more guns per household than in the US manage to have less violent crime? Not by regulating hardware, but by improving software: they have a real educational system with actual standards, they don't tolerate crime, and their culture doesn't celebrate thuggishness as a fashion. And, of course, violent criminals there know that there is a strong possibility of getting shot down like a dog while being a violent criminal: that has a wonderful impact on career choice.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[he-sk]

For your "evidence", I suggest correlating gun ownership numbers with fatal shooting numbers in any goddamn industrialised country. You'll be suprised.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[skaffen42]

Regarding the Swiss... isn't this because pretty much every male in the country is part of the national defence force and is required to have a rifle and ammunition at home?

If you are Swiss you have had a lot of training in using your weapon. Unlike the US where guns seem to end up as toys for shooting at beer cans when you get drunk in the trailor park. Which points to an easy solution for the whole gun issue. The US does the same thing the Swiss has done. Bring back the draft and have everybody spend a year in the army. After that they can have all the guns they want.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[AviLazar]

Unrestricted? When I purchased my gun they took my license & SS# and ran a background check (it is an automated system that utilized your D/L and SS card). Then to get a carrying permit I had to file for one - in person - with three forms of ID and it took exactly (as they said it would) three months to get the carrying permit. Now that is in PA...I know in CA they require you to take a training course in gun safety (unless you are in the military, or law enforcement agency). So what is this unrestricted you are talking about?

Kids manhandling their daddys gun and shooting themselves is strictly the fault of the parent - and should not hinder the rest of society. Lock up the freaking gun - they pretty much all come with safety locks. Suicides will kill themselves in a manner of different ways - gun is just easier - but if someone wants to die, nothing can stop them.

The occasional nutjob - how did he get that gun? Legally or illegally?

My gun has another reason to exist - i like to go to the shooting range, it's fun. My friend likes to go hunting pheasant once a year (he does eat them). And, for protection - sorry I am not such a good fighter that I can fend off 2-5 people with bats and knives...however, i am an excellent shot and my 8 bullets can stop 2-5 people quite easily.

And this "screwed up notion" of defending myself comes up because I do not have a police officer next to me at every moment of my life. A police officer does little good to defend my life if he is not there.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[HerbieStone]

If guns in personal possesion are such a problem, how do places like Switzerland, where there are more guns per household than in the US manage to have less violent crime? [...] And, of course, violent criminals there know that there is a strong possibility of getting shot down like a dog while being a violent criminal: that has a wonderful impact on career choice.

I'm Swiss and you are wrong on the second account of your argument. The first part might be right. Because every male citizen automatically serves in the military and all them need to have their gun and ammo at home. So because of that we got a lot of guns per household.

The second argument is wrong, because if you open up the ammo-can without an order, you go straight to jail. The gun and the ammunition can only be used in case of war. I can't be used as you deem necessary.

Still sometimes someone gets insane grabs his gun threatens to kill his family and himself. Thankfully, this happens very rarly. Thankfully most parents hide their guns and ammo well and in a separate place, so I can't remember when an accident with kids finding this stuff and hurting themself happend.

Still, we are discussing, if we really need the risks involved having a gun at home.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[swv3752]

The point of this was to regulate auctioneers. An unintended effect was that due to broad wording, any auction including online ones are subject to the regulation. This sort of things happens everywhere.

The legislature surely was not intending to try and push this on someone who sells something once a year online. It is like requiring a business license to hold a yard sale.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[ScentCone]

OK, you want to split hairs? Let's split hairs.

baseball bats are made for hitting baseballs, kitchen knives are made for preparing food and occasionally opening envelopes, and guns are made for moving little pieces of metal very fast into people.

A baseball bat is actually just an optimized club. Its purpose is to violently intercept a round, mostly organic object, and radically alter its inertia. The energy delivered is tremendous, and hence its appeal as an alternative weapon. But wooden clubs go way, way back - and no doubt first saw action as weapons: to hunt or defend against animals (bipedal and otherwise). Most of the hit-the-object-with-a-stick games go back to combat training or simulation in one form or another. It's just that the season lasts longer when both teams survive.

As for kitchen knives: a special case of all things with sharp edges. Originally put to use to: kill, main, dismember, chop up, etc. There's a reason that versions of knives (like machetes) remain such fearson weapons in the third world: they're cheap, effective, and you don't need to reload. And, you can claim that it's in your car because you need it at work (say, cutting cane or whatnot). But edged tools are designed to separate material into pieces. Who uses it, and on what, is completely beside the point.

Guns, on the other hand, are complicated devices of recent invention.

If by "recent" you mean "over 600 years ago," then you're right. But the since you cited the Bronze Age when talking about knives, it seems that 2000 years is your magic number for making a weapon natural, OK, and reasonable for everyone to have or use. I, though, think that any tool that projects or enhances your personal flesh-and-bone native self is pretty much philosophically neutral, and it's what you choose to do with it, not how old the technology is, that merits discussion. Certainly the crossbow, sling, spear, and other goodies go back longer than firearms... where do you draw the line? Maybe there's no point in doing so, and we should focus instead on culture, not culture's hardware?

they were designed on the concept of shooting people

Except, I use mine to put dinner on the table. I actually, literally, shoot things and then eat them. With some fava beans, and a nice Chianti. Seriously: quail, venison, turkey, pheasant... you can't eat better meat, and you'll never appreciate it more than when you (and your dog, in my case) get your hands/paws bloody along the way. It's a connection to reality that most people never, ever make. And the tools I use to quickly dispatch game are guns. Not pointy sticks, not deadfall traps, not poison, not fire, not clubbing over the head - nope: high speed lead objects, some applied physics, and dinner.

I've also used a gun to run off a seriously broken, drug-addled person that was beating our sliding glass door at 2:00AM. I have no doubts that the city police would have been 15 minutes arriving on the scene, and the guy's behavior was truly frightening - and likely to wind up in several people getting hurt. Brandishing a shotgun like I meant it took care of things, and the police found him sneaking out the back of the neighborhood's woods about 30 minutes later. He was trying to get into our house because they were already looking for him, and he knew it. I can't imagine the consequences otherwise, but the same tool that I use to put tasty dinner on the table helped keep that guy out of our house. And should he be out on the street again (no doubt he is), I'm sure that somewhere in the back of his mind is the thought that he'll never know when some house he might want to invade is going to be the end of him. That's a deterrent, and it works just as well on the neighborhood scale as it does internationally.

Guns are fundamentally different from the other items you mentioned, which is why they're treated differently.

But they're not so much, really, and to the extent that they are, it'

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[GreyWolf3000]

I'm going to repost something I wrote elsewhere in this thread:

If a bill went through Congress seeking to make Bittorrent illegal, would you support it, or defend Bittorrent? The argument (and it's pretty solid) is that Bittorrent has a good deal of non-infringing uses which means that making it illegal also tramples on legitimate liberty. Likewise, guns have a lot of uses that are non-harmful to people.

If you can convince pro-gunners that there are no uses of guns that should be legal, they might agree. But a lot of them like to hunt. Not to mention these things come in handy on a farm.

I think this is especially pertinent to your post, since I think that the reasons handgun control works in places like Hong Kong and Japan is because the people there don't value the recreational possibilities of a handgun like we do (in this case, target practice. But I have heard of people who have hunted with Berettas).

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[ScentCone]

The second argument is wrong, because if you open up the ammo-can without an order, you go straight to jail.

But here in the US, people who use guns illegally (say, to threaten or kill someone) also are supposed to go to jail. The problem is that people like that are frequently right back out of jail, and no less sensible (if not actually worse) than when they went in. We're talking, here, about people who choose to act violently, without regard for the consequences. You say that you may have the occasional Swiss who is mentally broken enough to reach for the gun - but that it rarely happens. I'd suggest that the mentally broken people are just as rare in the US, but it's the celebration of violence and expectation of leniency that fuels the problem - not which tool the violent person is going to choose to use. Just the other day, we had a crazy domestic situation where a guy threw his daughter off a bridge onto a highway, and then followed her (amazingly, she lived, happily, he did not). Might that have ended differently if he'd had a gun? Possibly. Is that (other than being dramatic) a common problem in a country of hundreds of millions of people? No. Not nearly as common as reckless driving, knifings, beatings, and other non-gun-related injuries and deaths.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[ageoffri]

Sarcasm aside, I DO read stories with alarming frequency of kids finding guns and accidentally shooting themselves, suicides, and even the occasional nutjob shooting up his office or school. Would any of these (other than suicide, sadly) happen without guns being freely and readily available?

This is the media that is distorting your view. There are thousands of documented cases a year where a firearm saves lives and prevents crime. I take it you support the V chip and the goverenment telling us what children can watch? I ask this because any time a child gets ahold of a gun it is is a parenting failure.

We're talking an item that has NO other reason to exist than to kill people. Where do we get this screwed up notion that we should be "defending ourselves" instead of the police force that we as society have tasked with that (and they do a damn fine job, I might add)? No other reason to exist then to kill people? Are you really this clueless? There is competive shooting events, just because it isn't your hobby doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of people who enjoy target shooting.

I'd like to know where you got this screwed up notion that police are here to defend us? The job of the police has always been to solve crime, ask just about any police office and they will tell you that there is very little they can do to prevent crime.

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[SpecBear]

I agree with your basic point, but you're leaving out one very important detail. Swiss men aren't simply handed an assault rifle at the age of 20. Each and every one of them also receives regular military training.

In America, the problem is that push tends to be for gun rights without responsibility from one side, and onerous, one-sided restrictions from the other. Personally, I don't have any problem with assault rifles being issued to any one who participates in a well regulated militia. Hey, that sounds familiar...

Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid?

[CrimsonAvenger]

How about trying this, instead?

Correlate gun ownership rates in any county of the USA with fatal shooting in that county. You'll be surprised.

Hint: the counties with the most restrictive gun-control laws and the lowest rates of gun ownership tend to be up near the top in terms of fatal shootings.

Anecdotal case: Jefferson Parish LA vs. Orleans Parish LA. Two counties (we call them parishes in LA, but they're still counties) that are literally side by side - separated by a canal about 30 feet wide. Populations of both are similar - about 400,000.

Prior to passage of Louisiana's Shall Issue (Concealed Carry) Law, Orleans Parish didn't issue concealed weapon permits, Jefferson Parish did quite freely.

Murder rates in Orleans Parish were on the order of 300 per year.

Jefferson Parish? about 25.

You might also consider Switzerland. Everyone has a fully automatic weapon there. Required by law, as part of their militia system, I understand. Murder rate? Trivially low.

Canada has about the same gun ownership rate the US has (they're just not so noisy about it as we are), but 1/3 our murder rate.

One might also want to consider that looking only at fatal shootings is misleading. Look instead at murders from all causes (after all, it's not really desirable to remove guns if all we do is make sure that more people are killed with baseball bats than previously).

Well what with eBay being responsible

[Rooktoven]

for all that unaccounted for money in the economy (you know, the largesse that if actually counted that would make the economy not seem to suck so much) it's only fair that we penalize them...

Re:rediculous

[Deusy]

They're not expecting most average sellers to, but rather hoping that people like you who don't even RTFS (Summary), let alone legislation, will pay up and make them some free money.

And in the interest of high standards, it's rIdiculous. That has to be one of the most mispelt words on Slashdot.

Ebay is only a venue

[way2trivial]

http://pages.ebay.com/help/basics/f-agreement.html #3
Frequently Asked Questions about the User Agreement:

Why is there a User Agreement?
Will the User Agreement change again?
What does "eBay is only a venue" mean?
Why can't I bid on my own item?
If I place a bid, how exactly am I obligated to the seller?
Why was one listing removed, while other similar items remain on the site?
How do I know if an item is potentially illegal or not?
What happens if someone violates the User Agreement?
How do I report a potentially illegal, infringing or fraudulent item?
What does Section 6.3 of the User Agreement regarding Your Information mean?
Does Section 7 prohibit me from using auction management software to track my personal transactions on eBay?
Does Section 7 prohibit me from discussing or linking to eBay on other websites?
What does Section 17 of the User Agreement regarding arbitration mean?

Search the Help System
Search for help on:

(e.g., what is a Reserve Price Auction?)

If you can't find an answer to your question here, Ask eBay.
Q.
Why is there a User Agreement?
A. The User Agreement is a legal document that spells out the relationship between you and eBay. It outlines the services, pricing, Privacy Policy, and the buyer and seller relationship for listing and bidding on items in eBay's auction format.

Q.
Will the User Agreement change again?
A. It may change periodically. When revisions are needed, changes will be posted on the site 30 days before taking effect. You also have the option to receive email notices of any revisions as they occur. To select this option go to the preferences page, by choosing Change my notification preferences under My eBay at Services.

Q.
What does "eBay is only a venue" mean?
A. eBay is an exciting electronic marketplace where you can buy and sell to your heart's content. However, eBay does not ultimately participate in the transaction between buyer and seller, verify that items are genuine, or guarantee that you will receive payment or auction items. eBay is very concerned about your safety and offers the services of third parties that can provide authentication, insurance, and escrow for your transactions.

calm down

[the_mighty_$]

Read the article:

...The primary author of the legislation, State Sen. Larry Mumper, told the paper the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay....

In other words, the lawmakers are NOT attempting to target eBay/eBay users with this law. The law is there only to make sure auctioneers are obeying other Ohio laws regarding auctions. eBay already attempts to enforce the law by shutting down illegal auctions or whatever, so it is VERY unlikely that Ohio lawmakers will need to empose this law onto eBay sellers.

Re:calm down

[thomasa]

That may not be the intent but could the law really be applied in that manner if they so chose? The law should be clearly written so that there is no ambiguity about it. Vague laws are dangerous.

Re:calm down

[LaCosaNostradamus]

How reassuring to the individual seller! It's good to know that Ohio is indulging in "statistical enforcement" where it is "VERY unlikely" you will suddenly be charged with avoiding a $200 fee and $50K bond. Heck, I'm gonna get online TONIGHT and roll the dice on those odds, bay-bee!

No law should be passed or obeyed when the legislaturalists have to say "don't worry, we won't target YOU with this ...". I shouldn't have to worry: All I have to do is read the law and see CLEARLY where I stand.

Another Deceptive headline....

[RaZ0r]

The headline is an outright lie. Ebay was not even considered when this law drafted. It is not designed to affect ebay or ebay users. In fact, this law couldn't affect ebay users, as they are not the ones doing the actual auctioning; that is left to ebay.

Would this law make it illegal to have an auctioneer auction off some of your property for you? NO! This would only affect someone acting as an auctioneer.

It will, however, be interesting to see if they try to apply this law to ebay, as they (their software) does act as an auctioneer. A $50,000 bond would be a drop in the bucket for ebay, but I'm not sure if the $200 is per auction or a one-time fee for the license.... That could be interesting.

Re:Another Deceptive headline....

[ReadParse]

That's an excellent point, though there's no evidence that the headline is a LIE -- but it's certainly inappropriate, inflamatory and incorrect.

Turns out this law is an expansion of existing auctioneering law, applying to auctioneers who only do business online. It makes sense that people who didn't want to go through the licensing process would just get some auction software and make a website, telling their seller and bidders, "sorry, I can't auction in person, or I would have to get a license". The internet has become a loophole for them and this law was intended to close that loophole.

Why license auctioneers in the first place? Well it's all about trust. The auctioneer markets himself as a liasion betweeen buyer and seller -- he doesn't buy your property from you and then sell it as his property. He represents you as an agent while the property is still yours. This is a legal relationship and it's important for auctioneers to understand their legal responsibilities to buyer and seller. I could understand unscrupulous people seeking to take advantage of that position of trust getting around licensing and bonding laws by conducting business only online.

Ah, but wait -- as is sometimes the case with laws, it might have had an unintended side effect -- the eBay seller. Are they or are they not an auctioneer. Well that depends. Most people selling on eBay are not an intermediary, but the seller. eBay is the auctioneer, bringing buyer and seller together and controlling the bidding.

But then there are those people who have found that they are pretty good at selling things on eBay, and there are people who will pay them to sell their stuff on eBay for them. eBay consignment shops -- you may have heard of them. Many of them have had a certain amount of success. And some of them have heard from their local businessmen and/or governments, who are upset that their business is being infringed upon and these eBay kids don't have to get licensed or bonded.

And obviously their relationship in the eBay picture is different -- they're not the seller and they're not the auctioneer. But they're definitely an agent of the seller and they can have significant impact on the result of the auction based on their actions. Hence they have similar legal responsibilities and perhaps licensing for these people should be looked at.

Then there's the obvious public reaction -- $50,000 to sell on eBay? Madness! And inflamatory headlines don't help, either on slashdot or in the mainstream media.

Any way you slice it, it's an interesting story.

RP

Re:rediculous

[tha_mink]

You didn't read the article. It's actually more a law for Auctioneers and not buyers and sellers. In fact, I have read the law and don't see how it can apply at ALL to eBay users. I think the reason the quote was spoken was due to the law's author not knowing the impact of the law and fully understanding how eBay and eBayers do business.

Re:rediculous

[BroadwayBlue]

I live in Ohio and this was covered on local NPR or some other newsource a few days ago. As written, it can be interpreted to apply to casual sellers on Ebay. But the authors state that it is not the intent, and that it will be modified to exclude casual sellers before it goes into affect.

Re:RIDICULOUS... it's fucking RIDICULOUS

[Dogtanian]

Fucking Christ on a snack cracker, people.

Didn't they sell one of those on eBay for $20,000?

Re:rediculous

[the_mad_poster]

Actually, most people can't run their own lives without state intervention. You'd never survive if the state didn't take care of you in some manner. That's the point of the state. You get a group of people together who are supposed to do things for the greater good of the people (that 'greater good' theoretically being indirectly defined by the people in our type of government) because it's easier to pool resources and centralize certain things like defense and transportation than to try and have everyone do their own private thing.

The problem, of course, is that the government doesn't want to stay small because being in government gives you certain powers to act. For a good long while people kept this in check by paying attention to what was going on. Post-WWII, however, this country became a haven for drug-addled, overprotected retards because "The Greatest Generation" didn't want their children growing up with the hardships they had to face down.

Now, sixty years later, we have a country full of emotional trainwrecks who think the world is theirs for the taking because every authority figure they've ever known has either

a) been nothing more than an overbearing, rigid authority figure worthy of little more than angry rebellious backlash

or, more likely,

b) been a wet piece of toilet paper that always wanted to make sure they felt good and were never "hurt" by things like, for example, valedectorians reminding them that some people are just smarter than others.

Now the place is filled up with characterless assholes who don't have the balls to stand up to their government and don't care enough about what it's doing to shut down the corrupt portions. So you get stupid shit like this because some asshole in Congress decided he was going to flex his political muscle and go for a money-grab. 90% of the people this affects aren't going to know until it's too late, 9% aren't going to care, and the remaining 1% will be scoffed at for speaking up against it because, after all... ...the government's just trying to protect you. Right?

And we'll see whether or not Congressman Asshole fixes his bill. I'm betting he sends an amendment to the floor that never goes anywhere or eventually dies in committee because nobody cares enough about it to do anything more than create the amendment to try and silence the critics. Even then, if the critics come back, the blame for the bill's death is so spread around that the suits can just point fingers at each other until the critics get so frustrated they give up.

And this is how American politics (don't) work.

Larry Mumper -- a BG check

[ianscot]

That's funny, because my first reaction was that this law sounded as sloppily written as Minnesota's recent concealed weapons legislation -- which was written in a way that left major ambiguities about who could provide the required safety courses, for one example.

We have a passel of state Reps I'd describe as "social right wingers" who put up stuff like death penalty legislation every term. They were behind the weapons bill: it was touted as making the law fairer by not leaving it up to individual sheriffs, but really it aimed at allowing more people to carry concealed guns. The bills these folks turn out seem to have been written by 10th graders who were unfamiliar with anything but the skeleton of the issue they're talking about, and they often have unintended consequences.

So, who is this guy?

Senator Larry A. Mumper, Ohio Senate Republican.

He's listed there as primary sponsor of a couple of other bills, including one that was presented as an "academic bill of rights for higher education." This bill was partly prompted by a story about a kid who wrote a "pro-America" paper and got a bad grade from his teacher... Oops, except the kid's paper was crap; he'd written a 1-page "report" that wasn't up-to-snuff, got a bad grade, and decided it was because he was patriotic that he'd been silenced. The bill itself reads like a wolf in sheep's clothing aimed at "protecting a plurality of opinion" by remaining neutral about crap like "intelligent design." It doesn't spell out how you'd decide when a topic was "controversial" -- gee, an ambiguity that could lead to unintended consequences.

Does this sound like exactly the sort of wingnut I'm seeing in Minnesota? I mean, this is a guy who says his law "might apply to anyone who sells a lot" and "If someone buys and sells on eBay on a regular basis as a type of business, then there is a need for regulation." "As a type of business"? No ambiguity there, is there?

Re:Larry Mumper -- a BG check

[TGK]

I do not believe in double taxation. I think its a bunch of bull.

I think the entire concept of "double taxation" is a meaningless distinction tossed around by people who think they're entitled to freebies.

Would you be happier if, rather than taxing you 10 times at 5% your government taxed you 1 time at 50%? I'll assume the answer to that question is no. Perhaps it might be a better use of funds and streamline the taxation process, but taxes are broken down and doubled up because Americans have the bizarre notion that taxes are money wasted.

Taxes are not money wasted. They are the dues you pay to live in a civilized society. Education, Defense, Crime Prevention, Transportation, Infrastructure, these are all programs and benefits funded by your tax dollar.

This is exactly what the founders of this nation were against - all these freaking taxes!

It's good to know that you didn't pay attention in American History or Civics. The founders of the United States were, at least in word, against the concept of governance without representation. They were irritated that a bunch of people who didn't represent them were making laws about how they should live their lives and taking their money to do things that they never benefited from.

They weren't against taxes. Even the Articles of Confederation, the document most against the concept of taxation in the legal history of the United States allows the Congress "to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses."

The government can tax you on whatever it needs to tax you on. It's your government. You get to vote and decide what needs to be done. At least, that was the plan. There is a whole mess about campaign finance reform, but we'll touch on that later.

Fundamentally, it is a meaningless distinction as to how the government gets your money. Taxing your car or taxing your income, it's all the same thing. About the only difference is how taxes impact different portions of the population, but you seem unconcerned about that.

I suspect that your key issue is not how the government gets your money, but that it gets it at all. I suspect you are of the opinion that you shouldn't have to pay taxes because you don't like social programs like Welfare, Medicaid, etc.

Personally, I don't benefit from any of those social programs. I hope I never have to. That said, things might not always be a rosy for me as they are right now. Things can get bad, really bad really fast. I want those government programs in place so that, should catastrophe strike, my family and myself are taken care of.

I think it's a crime that in the leading agricultural producing nation on earth, children are hungry.

I think it's a crime that, in the richest nation on earth, families can't afford to send their children to college.

I think it's a crime that the US spends more money on porn than foreign aid. That we spend more money per capita on coffee than the per capita income of more than 2 Billion people.

The United States has taken a culture of independence and turned it into a culture of materialistic consumerism. We've gone from "I don't need your help" to "You can't have my help."

I can understand not liking income tax forms, not liking to fill out all the paperwork, not liking to deal with the red tape that comes from doing business with the government. That said, taxes are necessary to create government and, well, you get what you pay for. No taxes means no government.

As Thomas Hobbes once famously wrote, Without government, "the life of man [is] solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short".

Re:Larry Mumper -- a BG check

[powdered toast dude]

Would you be happier if, rather than taxing you 10 times at 5% your government taxed you 1 time at 50%

Actually, yes. It makes the big picture clear, so the public knows the real price of government. When nickel-and-dimed to death, the public often fails to do the math and acquiesces to what it otherwise wouldn't.

They count on this, of course.

$0.02,
ptd

Re:Larry Mumper -- a BG check

[jallred]

"Things can get bad, really bad really fast. I want those government programs in place so that, should catastrophe strike, my family and myself are taken care of."

Come on, don't rely on the govt to take care of you. You need to take care of yourself. At a minimum you should have a supply of money and food set aside that can last you for a year. You lose your job? So what, you have a year to find a new one.

It already passed

[voidptr]

But all is not despair. Do you smell that? I do, it's the smell of legislation that will never be passed. This is just another one of those bills we keep seeing that has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law, serving the sole purpose of allowing the senator to say "LOOK I WAS AGAINST EBAY SCAMMING!!!!111" Honestly, it's sad that this is what our "representatives" spend most of their time doing, but hey, at least they have the sense not to actually pass it, right?

FTFA:
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the law, signed by Gov. Robert Taft on Feb. 1

Re:It already passed

[Zapman]

It may have already passed, but the second this comes up before a federal court, it will be struck down. The constitution forbids the states from interfering in inter-state comerce.

Since 9 times out of 10 you won't be selling to someone inside the state...

Re:rediculous

[alsta]

Simply put, this (from the article) is Bad Law;

"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days."

Perhaps intentional, but nowhere in the article do I find one iota of purpose, let alone legitimate purpose, for this law. Presumably this is some warped view of Consumer Protection(tm). But it seems that this is more of a regulatory program for the State to bring in reveues where it thinks it is getting screwed. Pay close attention to the fact that they don't call this a 'tax'. Taxes are bad and Americans hate them. Hence a $200 fee and a $50,000 interest free loan is provided for the government.

If this works out (e.g. the State thinks it's successful) you can damn well expect an eBay Lite law, which does the same thing less the requirement for certifications for ordinary people who sell their one used iPod or other junk. The objective here is the bond and the license. The Lite version of the law would most likely entail a license only at a reduced price of $25 or some silly amount to start with.

Then other states follow. So write your politicians now (especially if you are in OH or a surrounding state). That'll allow them to bear in mind your thoughts when this sort of stuff comes to the table, rather than trying to convince them after they're already interested in the potential revenue stream.

eBay is not an auction...

[jlockard]

eBay is not an auction, it does not use methods used at a real auction. I will guess that most people here are familiar with the phrase "going once, going twice, sold to the...."

eBay is a swoop and grab. It's the only way to "win". You stake out your desired item and hold off on bidding till the last possible seconds and hope your bid gets applied and is the highest.

I'm sure that if this is enforced on anyone it will be decided VERY quickly that eBay, like uBid, where the "auctions" are timed, are not really auctions and therefore not covered by this law.

From an ebay powerseller...this will not work

[clonan]

I DO sell on ebay.

I sell part time, maybe 5 hours a week.

Last year I grossed almost $250 K...that's a quarter million!

Of that I took about 12 K in profit.

Ebay is NOT a very profitable place to operate anymore. People are NOT becoming rich....at least not often.

I can almost understand the $200 license...standard government fines....but why the classes/apprenticeship.

THe ENTIER point of ebay is that THEY are the auctioneer not you. You are simply the provider of the goods you don't actually participate the in auciton itself.

This law is stupid and will only drive income tax revenue from Ohio. I just thank god that I do not live in a state that is considering this.

The law is on track to be changed

[gozar]

This was in the paper a couple of days ago. The lawmakers realized that the wording could apply to individuals selling on Ebay, and are going to amend the law to fix this problem. The Internet provisions in the bill are supposed to pertain to Internet auction houses, not individuals. More info here.

Nothing to see here, please move a long...

Re:sounds like a way for them to get money

[randalware]

This is just another group of Politicians seeing a pile of money and wanting to get some.

Create some fee,tax,commission, etc and you have a pile of money to graft & spent.

Free trade is a concept, but regulated & taexed trade is the goal.

I think there are few things the US government does does in the free trade area that do NOT ultimately hurt US consumers & business.

Protectionism,tariffs and such are drastic measures and should be used sparingly.

Competition is generally a good thing.

After all, selling something and not delivering, intentionally misleading, etc online auction scams are already crimes.

But the international & anonymous aspects of the internet scare the Politicians because it extends beyond their borders.

So tax & grab power is their answer.

Limit the US Government budget to less than 5% of the GNP.
It worked for the majority of this countries history.

FOR VOTING OHIOANS

[MisterSquid]

I have somehow found myself stuck in this godforsaken swing state and am subject to the inaninties of Ohio's brand of Midwestern legislating. That said, I still vote and I pay taxes.

Not 5 minutes ago, I phoned Senator Mumper's office to let him know that I am EXTREMELY displeased with this piece of legislation. The person on the other end informed me that changes to Senate Bill 209 were being introduced today (Tuesday, 8 March), but I continued to explain the reason for my feelngs.

My two objections were that 1) this legislation on the face of it appears to conflict with Congress's Interstate Commerce Clause which prohibits states from enacting legislation that will impede commerce between the states, and 2) the software on eBay is what does the auctioning, not the seller, and so the seller is in fact a client of an auctioneer, not an auctioneer him or herself.

I also provided the receptioninst with my name, address, and phone number, and indicated that I will be writing a carrier mail letter to express my EXTREME DISPLEASURE with Senator Mumper's role in authoring this legislation.

Oh, and if you came to this post because of its subject line, here you go:

Senator Larry A. Mumper
Senate Building
Room 222, Second Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614-466-8049

Re:rediculous

[danila]

Because how can you trust people, who write such shitty laws? If they can't think in advance about how this law applies to eBay, how can you trust them to modify it properly?

Protecting Established Businesses

[fergj]

This bill will likely turn out to have been offered up at the behest of professional auctioneere. It is typical of the sort of business regulation whose primary purpose is to protect those already in business.

This is outrageous

[JeffTL]

It appears to me as if eBay is the auctioneer here; since when do property owners have to be licensed auctioneers to have something auctioned?

It's like saying that you have to be a doctor or a nurse to go to the hospital.

Re:This won't work...From an ebay powerseller...

[prgrmr]

THe ENTIER point of ebay is that THEY are the auctioneer not you. You are simply the provider of the goods you don't actually participate the in auciton itself.

From any of ebay's crappy, canned e-mail responses: "we are just a venue"

eBay itself went through this 4-5 years ago in California after so many people were complaining to the Attorney General that eBay wasn't registered as an auctioneer (with appropriate bonding and all the liability that goes along with that, which ain't trivial). The AG's ruling was that they didn't have to, as they are not an auctioneer. They are a venue selling in an "auction style format", as ebay puts it, and the AG bought it.

IANAL, but given that ebay isn't a registered auctioneer, it ought not to be too terribly difficult to get judicial review on this in Ohio and have ebay (and other on-line sites like Yahoo's "auctions") ruled not a traditional auction and thus exempt from this mess.

Missing the point and Unintended audience

[lcsjk]

When I read it, I got the impression some lawyer decided to write a law to protect individuals and estates from auctioneers that do not know how to run an auction and get the best deal for the estate owners. The fact that it applies to something on the internet may be purely unintended.

Also, the person who sells on ebay is not an auctioneer. He is the owner of a product that has been taken to ebay to be auctioned off. EBAY is the auctioneer and probably the only entity covered by this law. Again, however, as laws get put on the books, their unintended audience will be found if it means that some fee can be extracted.

Imagine the in-humane despair and misery, you mean

[torpor]

my mistake. If they did tax it, sell licences to deal, imagine the money they'd make.

Could you really imagine a world where corporations were allowed to market and sell devastatingly mind-altering drugs to anyone who wants to use them, even those that don't?

Oh, wait, we have that already. So in fact, its not difficult to 'imagine the money they would make', because drug-pimps are making trillions, annually.. legally, even.

because gun control IS stupid

[ChristTrekker]

Scenario 1: Armed thug, by definition a lawbreaker, meets you in an alley. You pull your gun in defense. Two guns. Fair chance.

Scenario 2: Armed thug, by definition a lawbreaker, meets you in an alley. You have no weapon for defense. One gun. You are robbed and perhaps harmed, maybe even killed.

Explain to me how fewer guns, or legislation aimed at same, "is always a good thing" again? I see a glaring flaw in your reasoning.

You can't control "guns" with legislation; you can only attempt to control people. Which people will attempt to flout the laws? The ones most likely to hurt someone else by doing so. Which people will most likely obey? The decent person who will be left defenseless as a result. There's a reason Colt had a model named Peacemaker that many called the Equalizer. (Think about it.) One has to look no further than the District of High Murder Rate, ahem, Columbia, to see how well gun control works.

I know that gun control supporters are mostly well-intentioned people. But they're naively idealistic, too. You may desire a criminal-disarmament law, but be realistic - gun control laws only disarm innocent victims. The average hard-working joe has too much to lose by being caught with an illegal item, so he will comply, to his own disadvantage. The average no-good crook has too much to gain by not having a gun, so he will not comply, to his (increased) advantage (since everyone else is now disarmed).

Also, the most important reason for an armed citizenry is to keep government in check. Far more people were killed by government actions (often by their own government) during the 20th century than by crime. Any tyrant will seek to remove the means of effective revolt from his subjects. Learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Re:rediculous

[MightyMartian]

Heh heh heh. I always love outrageously imprecise laws that are defended by "that's not the intent" and "we would never use it that way". The proof is in the pudding, I'm afraid. If legislators create an overbroad and ill-defined law (what's "lots" and what's "casual" and when does one become the other) they are either numbskulls or have something rather nasty in mind.

I don't know that much about Ohio's politics, though their position on science education leads me to believe you've got some pretty goofy people running the state.

Re:rediculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoted from:http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weaver/040 420

Some of America's most sagacious and influential Founders warned repeatedly in so many words that American liberty and prosperity would be doomed once the people learned that they could vote largess out of the public treasury. The contemporary concept of domestic policy has become a veritable free-for-all among individuals, groups, organizations, corporations, universities, and state and local governments to see who can get the biggest check from the federal treasury.

The term "domestic policy" did not enter the American vernacular until after Franklin D. Roosevelt "broke the line" that James Madison spoke about in 1794. As reported by the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser in January of that year:
"Mr. Madison...was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes, very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that Article in the Federal Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say, to what lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be carried."

Remember, James Madison was not only a Federalist; he was the Chief Architect of the U.S. Constitution!

Nothing unusual here

[confused one]

They're simply requiring people to register and license their BUSINESS. This is a normal practice for all states. Nothing new to see here. Move on.

Re:rediculous

[alsta]

I disagree. According to Merriam-Webster;

Main Entry: auctioneer
Pronunciation: "ok-sh&-'nir
Function: noun
: an agent who sells goods at auction

That seems to me that if you sell stuff on eBay, you are an auctioneer.

you watch too much television

[ChristTrekker]

Good grief...stop watching so much TV. I've lived 31 years in "yankeeland" and have never been within 500 miles of one of your supposed daily park bloodbaths. They don't exist. What does exist, though never reported in the mainstream press, is the many many defensive uses of guns - many of which involve only the brandishing (not firing) of the weapon. Bloodbaths are "good news" - scaring off a two-legged predator isn't.

And people kill people. People have been killing other people long before guns existed, and if guns are ever completely eliminated from the planet they will continue killing others. A person serious about killing someone else will simply pick the best tool for doing so, which is most often a gun these days. But you know the best thing about guns? They're easy for anyone to use, including the smaller and weaker members of the population. They don't have to be the most likely victims any longer. Women don't have to live in fear of rapists. The elderly/infirm don't have to live in fear of thieves. Gays don't have to live in fear of bashers. Jews don't have to live in fear of anti-semites. I'd say a society that can make the weak innocent victims as powerful as the strong merciless aggressors is a very enlightened one!

This does not affect EBayers

[Aumaden]

First, a link to the law in question.

Under Sec. 4707.01. in reads (in part):

(B) "Auctioneer" means any person who engages, ... in the calling for, recognition of, and the acceptance of, offers for the purchase of real or personal property, goods, or chattels at auction either directly or through the use of other licensed auctioneers or apprentice auctioneers.

Under Sec. 4707.02. it reads (in part):

No person shall act as an ... auctioneer, ... within this state without a license issued by the department of agriculture.
...
This section does not apply to:
...
(B) The owner of any real or personal property desiring to sell the property at auction, provided that the property was not acquired for the purpose of resale;

Now, IANAL, but to me this says that Ebay need to be licensed and to post the bond, not the seller. The seller is contracting Ebay's services as an auctioneer.

Re:Imagine the in-humane despair and misery, you m

[jotok]

Sure, but also consider the number of young kids these days who are medicated. Individually, they don't have any say in whether or not they take ritalin or prozac or what-have-you. By the time they reach age of consent, the damage is done and they are a part of drug-consumer society, which is bad even if they restrict themselves to legal drugs.

Just a thought.

Re:rediculous

[the_bard17]

IANAL, but...

From eBay's website, When you list an item on eBay, you're charged an Insertion Fee.... Based on that, I'd say that it could be argued that you're simply the seller, and eBay is being hired by the seller to function as the auctioneer.

This can be strengthened by pointing out that eBay is the one who handles the bidding process itself, not the seller.

But then again, I may not have any clue what I'm talking about ;o)

Full text of the bill

[Sir Tandeth]

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=12 5_SB_209 Sec. 4707.02. No person shall act as an auction firm, auctioneer, apprentice auctioneer, or special auctioneer within this state without a license issued by the department of agriculture. No auction shall be conducted in this state except by an auctioneer licensed by the department.

Market Constraints

[coolamber]

Given the apprenticeship requirements, how much you want to bet the companies behind this are the auction houses. Sounds a lot like other market entry constraints put into place by businesses wanting to keep a greater market share. Similar contraints are put into place in just about every job market that has historically been around for a long time. Look at the Legal, Accounting, and trade fields and all the hoops professionals in those fields have to jump through to be successful.

Re:Imagine the in-humane despair and misery, you m

[cayenne8]

"Sure, but also consider the number of young kids these days who are medicated. Individually, they don't have any say in whether or not they take ritalin or prozac or what-have-you."

Yeah...you know, I'm sure there are some kids out there that are ADD...but, I'm really of a mind that most of them are just aflicted with what we used to refer to 'back in the day'...as being a KID. Seems like they want to medicate everyone these days. Most every kid I knew growing up, had wild spurts...getting into some trouble (nothing bad)...it was called being a boy. Now...if a kid is anything but comatose...they seem to want to drug them...

Larry Mumper

[JoeGee]

At one time I knew the man on a first name basis. He appears to have developed a taste for public money.

It appears he's become fee hungry, like the rest of Ohio's Republicans. With Ohio Republicans, like our lame duck Governor Taft -- who stands a snowball's chance in Hell of moving on to the U.S. Senate, we know him too well to advance him -- we get the worst of both worlds. Not only do we get the spend-thrift tendencies for which Republicans have historically been known, we get the urge to tax that is usually attributed to Democrats.

Basically with our current Ohio-brand Republican government in place, Ohio taxpayers get screwed, and we don't even get held close and kissed.

More like techno-challenged stupidity

[Reziac]

I did RTFA, and what I see is that some technologically-challenged type mistakes eBay for a meatspace auction -- the requirements as stated are exactly those I'd expect for licensing of a meatspace auctioneer.

What on earth does bid-calling have to do with selling stuff on eBay, where you never see or hear the buyers' spoken or gestured responses, but only a final high bid as determined by a computer?? That alone tells me that whoever thinks this applies to eBay sellers is weak on the concept. In fact, eBay ITSELF is the "auctioneer" here, and the seller is essentially the same as someone who is *consigning* items to a meatspace auction.

I agree that it smells strongly of "let's find another point to extract money from our constituents' wallets". It won't impact scammers one bit.

Imposing arbitrary licensing law is not a right!

[rolofft]

> ...Ohio has EVERY right to do this.

States do not have the right to impose arbitrary licensing laws. E.g. Arbitrary licensing laws on hairbraiders, casket sellers, and jitney drivers have been struck down.

The first question to ask when a new licensing scheme is proposed is whether its true motivation is rent seeking rather than consumer protection. I'd be interested to see whether Mr Mumper's has received any recent contributions the from brick and mortar antique seller's lobby.

But that's the worst kind of law

[Sycraft-fu]

A law that tons of people technicly break, but the government says it "never intended to enforce" or "wasn't meant for these kind of people". Ok, great, if that's the case, modify the law such that they aren't covered.

The thing is, with vague laws like this, it's ripe for abuse. If someone in the government who can sway the DA gets mad at you, they can bring it selectively down on your head. For example let's say you are protesting some corrupt politician and they get mad, so they get the police to arrest you, and they tell the DA to give you a tough time. Little investigation turns out that you regularly sell things on eBay, just little trinkets and shit, but still. They then charge you with violating this law.

No laws need to be clear, and consistently enforced. None of this "Don't worry about breaking the law, it wasn't meant to apply to YOU" shit, because that's just an excuse for abuse. If they want the law to apply to real auctioneers, it needs to be written as such. If they want it to apply to eBay, they need to make that clear, and enforce it in all cases.

More stupid Ohio Laws

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Ohio is historical for things like this. One other item is they want you to pay a use tax on anything you buy over the internet or even by just driving over the border (common for cig smokers since Ohio raised their Cig Tax). They collect this when you fill a income tax form, yet they dont tell you how they know you bought that laptop in Kentucky or over the internet. The thing is, they can't. It's a pointless law.

One other stupid thing they are doing here in OH is they want to charge parking at State Parks. 5 per day or a pass for 25 that let's you park at any park. I believe they charge out of staters more. Yep....just make people NOT want to come to your little used State Park.

Ohio's governor is so bad for you politically if your a republican, that GW did not want to even be seen with him.

Re:One possible reason

[Moofie]

I'm pretty sure RICO makes it illegal to do anything that any particular law enforcement officer doesn't happen to like.

I wish I was joking.

Re:Or you agreed w/ everything but the last senten

[MindStalker]

Outside the US yes, but inside the US on statistics done on a State by State basis concealed gun permits actually reduce crime. While gun control laws have little effect, and sometimes make matters worse.

Its a simple fact that the country is full of guns and they arn't going away. Apparently even the British are starting to have problems themselves as the criminals are arming themselves.

Not just taxes

[Presence1]

This does not look like it is only about taxes, but also a protectionist bill for existing auctioneers.

"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam."

If it was just taxes, I'd think that they woulnd't bother with the apprenticeship, test, etc.

supreme court ....what say ye?

[scharkalvin]

ebay is interstate commerece.
The FTC regulates that. This law would
give Ohio power that the Federal government
has. So IMHO (IANAL) this would be un-constitutional. Whay say ye, supreme court?

great lawmaker!

[Heisenbug]

serving the sole purpose of allowing the senator to say "LOOK I WAS AGAINST EBAY SCAMMING!!!!111"

A+++++!!!! Would vote for again!!! Prompt porkbarrels, curteous pandering!!!!

Swiss and guns

[Aexia]

They also get training and their ammunition is *closely* monitored. If even a single round is missing, they'll get in trouble.

Still want to pretend this is less restrictive than the US?

No licensed heroin sellers in the Netherlands

[Simonetta]

To my knowledge, it is extremely illegal to sell heroin in the Netherlands, where Amsterdam is the most important city. Perhaps you are confusing heroin with marijuana, which makes you an honorary Republican.

It is possible to get a license to sell marijuana in Amsterdam. It's a long and painstaking process. Marijuana gets sold in small outlets called 'coffeeshops' (English word) and coffee gets sold in a 'koffiehuis' (Dutch word). Sex shops are sometimes openly advertised as 'Fuck Houses' (public display of vulgar words in foreign languages is frowned on, but not illegal).

Some psycedelics like peyote and other sensitive drugs like organic Viagra (yohimbe) or intelligence-enhancers can be bought legally at 'Smart Shops'.

Nowhere in the Netherlands can a person just walk off the street and buy highly addictive drugs like crack cocaine, crystal meth, or heroin. There MAY be government programs to provide heroin to addicts under controlled conditions and monitoring, but no one legally sells it in licensed shops.

Thank you,

Re:The swiss have figured out

[ScentCone]

I suppose the reason that so many typical gun owners cough up routinely-used statistics and anecdotes is that they're weary of trying the rhetorical approach in the face of opponents that are not themselves addressing the underlying principles. It's tedious, speaking to the would-be confiscators, who themselves use the "fewer gun owners means fewer crimes" lines, as if this were all about (dubious) statistics, and not fundamentally about liberty and personal responsibility. It is indeed lazy to produce anecodotes and NRA re-treads as arguments, but it's intellectually lazy and paralyzed-by-emotion people we're up against, and a lengthy discussion of causal relationships just gets, well, lengthy.

The argument that you say works for you (that of personal responsibility trumping someone else's mis-use) doesn't fly with people who see danger everywhere. Well, they see danger in things that "look mean," and ignore dangers (like distracted soccer moms with minivans full of kids) that are just as likely to cause injury, but which fit within their understanding of risk in the world. That Hummer is no more dangerous than a loaded church van, but guess which one is "alarming" to the same people that we're talking about here? They're a muddleheaded audience when it comes to the basic principles, here, and probably have never hung out with sport shooters, hunters, etc - often some of the nicest, sanest, and safest people you'll ever meet (and the most demonized, for no reason).