The Government is after your GOLD now!? When is this going to stop!

I just happened to open up one of my more reliable news sources and thought everyone might want to see This. I can't find it in mainstream media (surprise)

Maybe someone from the area can confirm it

If this is true I'm dumping some assets and stockpiling a little more.

www.wnd.com...

Looks like they just wanted to minimize illegal activity.

Nothing in the bill about getting the gold...if you are scared, then get your gold from another state.

Ha!! I saw this coming years ago when I was a kid, so I did everything I could
to be unsuccessful, and never be able to afford gold or other precious metals.


In your face big government!!

Why do I feel so depressed? I finally got one over on TPTB

reply to post by IknowJack


WND...? Your being sarcastic right?

So the state would like to track sales where gold or silver is used as currency...i.e. other business aside from pawn brokers (as it says). P2P transaction would not qualify, so unless you know a bunch of business that accept metal as an exchange median not a big deal. It does not state that purchases will be documented only the sale. So I would think this means that metals are allowed as currency in Ill. because it isn't in most states.

Reply to post by IknowJack

Zombie Franklin Roosevelt wants your gold and a zombie New Deal.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by IknowJack

TODAY ( 5 April 2013 ) is the 80th anniversary of FDRs Executive Order ( 6102 ) to confiscate Gold (exempting up to 5 oz of bullion + jewelry + dental gold).

Nope.. Not going there.... It's not a HOAX but it sure isn't quite the way it's being presented either. Not for that purpose, not with that intent. It took me 7 PAGES of google to get out of our own ATS hits, BIN, Infowars and personal blog sites. I'm wondering if this spin started with BIN? (lol.. didn't even mean the rhyme). After 7 pages. I DID find a solid NON Conspiracy and NON Bash the admin and anything even remotely connected by association, site.

Obama has well earned getting his likeness on one of those inflatable punching bags with the weight in the bottom where they pop back up for more... Fun for the whole family, indeed.. but only on what is legit and you can't miss the implication of it mattering just a hair more by being Illinois

I don't mean to sound harsh...but I rather hate getting made fun of (see quotes) and on this? It's kinda deserved now that we join the pages of ..questionable sources for this one.

Original Source For Info

Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Precious Metal Purchasing Act. Provides that a person who is in the business of purchasing precious metal shall obtain a proof of ownership, create a record of the sale, and verify the identity of the seller. Provides that a person who is in the business of purchasing precious metal shall not pay for the precious metal in cash and shall record the method of payment. Requires the purchaser to keep a record of the sale for one year or, if the purchase amount is over $500, for 5 years. Provides that a person who violates the Act is guilty of a petty offense and subject to a fine not exceeding $500. Provides that the Attorney General may inspect records, investigate an alleged violation, and take action to collect civil penalties.

Senate Committee Amendment No. 1

Authorizes inspection of records by local police departments. Requires reports to law enforcement on a daily basis. Exempts persons licensed under the Pawnbroker Regulation Act.

Source

Now here is the other source reporting it and explaining a tad overall. WND has been a source I've considered leaning pretty hard, but reliable over all. This makes me kinda wonder. That's spinning like a top.

Illinois’s bill went largely unnoticed, but since CNBC’s Rick Santelli had a brief segment on SB3341 last week, it has garnered the attention of finance publications, goldbugs and anti-government websites.

Since Santelli’s report, there have been many conspiracy theories. Whether or not they’re justified, the United States federal government has confiscated gold before and completely abandoned it to through executive power.

SOurce

At least this time ATS didn't get mentioned by name...but then, this just posted here. The night's young.

This is the direct link to the full text. I just read it. Others may care to as well. It's only a few pages and says that is the full and complete bill. (Why can't congress be so succinct when it's a simple matter? They'd have made it 50).

Full Text of Illinois SB3341

It doesn't have anything to do with private citizens, selling to each other or even people buying from a business. Only selling to a business. What this essentially did is make Precious metals one migraine headache for thieves and burglars. With so many people now buying this in legitimate concerns? I don't necessarily fault anything about it ...save for a basic question of whether the State should be getting involved at all. I didn't get to looking because good stats will take real time I imagine, but I'm thinking they might have had some upticks in gold/silver being targeted.

You already DO have to do this when selling Copper and Aluminum to recyclers in many places and for the same reason. Even Iron...since some idiots started stealing manhole covers. (I used to deliver those occasionally..I couldn't imagine stealing one??),

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Thanks for confirming what I said with sources..

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


Goodness. My bad... I don't know how I missed yours but to say I went straight out from the OP post to check into it ....because the national memories of Woodrow Wilson are pretty strong in some ways or they sure should be...and this would have been tearing a page from a playbook I'd just as soon see burned. I hate the idea of ruining books too. lol.....

Glad I could supply sources and wonder if some still won't question it ...given the myriad and who the sources are online saying it is this way. A BUNCH...but all of a very similar theme. Almost embarrassing, huh?

I found another source you might find interesting for why I find the big organized sources (as opposed to us normal folk, taking what we find) on this to be particularly .... distasteful about how this is presented.

The Foundations of the Great Confiscation
Confiscation all dates back to the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. That year, President Woodrow Wilson signed the “TWEA” into law, forbidding American individuals and businesses from engaging in trade with “enemy nations.” The world’s functional gold standard, which had overseen tremendous global economic growth in the early years of the twentieth century, was effectively halted by the outbreak of World War I, and the stage was thus set for the Great Depression and World War II.

Source

To some folks ...a repeat of that, knowing the historic end point and effect, would be one step short of that proverbial straw the poor camel never saw coming. .... (To clarify...from the source .. That set the stage which made the gold confiscation possible as a cause/effect and if it hadn't happened Gold may have continued picking up naturally, as it says, to really have worked as the backing)

@OP

Don't feel bad. I was going out as much to get the full details and make a rather strong reply regarding a slip back to those "glorious" Wilson and FDR days as to make sure this was what it looked like. It sounded odd...at last at this stage of things. .....the look at the sources across Google says how many big sites are directly reporting this too.

It will "stop", when people wake up. Even people that claim to be "awake", are still dreaming. Dreaming that one day, iron man will come and rescue us from the evil empire. Or, it might stop, when facebook goes down.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


No apology needed I was not in the mood to search that hard to refute it. I was a fan of that site for about a week before their fearmoggering got to be too much..

the strange bit is the wording "in the business". what does that mean? it isn't specifically defined. a purchase of an item that contains more than $250 in precious metals isn't very much if this is meant to apply only to "businesses".

seems to me that the government wants a record of who has how much gold, and that amounts under $250 wouldn't be cost effective to seize.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

It means, if you have a booth at a swap meet, trade/consumer "show" (Read: higher class swap meet in a convention center) or a gun show that says "We buy gold!" ....or anything like that outside the Pawn Shops who already ID everyone selling something ...you don't get to make cash off the criminal trade like a fence taking swag.

If I lived in Illinois .and I happened to own a quantity of gold and silver, I might appreciate that it's worth considerably less to a criminal now. Now they HAVE to take it to a real street fence for the most part and won't get much. (or leave the state)

'As a business' is a specific wording ..and wouldn't give THAT much space to play in a nation full of eager lawyers, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

the wording says "in the" NOT "as a".

"in the business" does not necessarily refer to a person who HAS a business. anyone who purchases gold could be considered "in the business" of purchasing gold.

The law kind of makes it hard to sell your gold if you dont have a reciept for it too hey?
if one has to provide proof of ownership to the gold buyer......
Do you have a reciept for every gold bar or coin or nugget?
then it probably must be confiscated till you can "prove" its your property....no reciept? too bad.....

Originally posted by stirling
The law kind of makes it hard to sell your gold if you dont have a reciept for it too hey?
if one has to provide proof of ownership to the gold buyer......
Do you have a reciept for every gold bar or coin or nugget?
then it probably must be confiscated till you can "prove" its your property....no reciept? too bad.....

gold would just move to the blackmarket.

we have too many laws, if we eliminated 95% of them we would be in better shape.

hmmmm, setting the stage to prop-up bit-coin ??
or is my tin foil hat too tight ?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

the wording says "in the" NOT "as a".

"in the business" does not necessarily refer to a person who HAS a business. anyone who purchases gold could be considered "in the business" of purchasing gold.

Well, I have no doubt we'll be hearing about this again, the first time it's enforced then. There will be lawyers waiting ....eagerly... for this to be abused. Just a little bit. Just ONCE. Lawyers dream of such a clear case of a black and white issue to fight and challenge a state head on with. This one would be a slam dunk loser for Illinois ...IF they extended it to start getting stupid about what "Business" meant. Whatever two words they want to place in front of it, context within the full text of the bill, as passed, leaves no doubt what they are and are not talking about, IMO.

I'll be watching my court case feeds and sites with this in the back of my mind though ..just in case someone does really get that stupid.You never know I suppose. It is Illinois.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


The logistics of using gold to pay your bills more or less makes this a moot concern. It can't just be hauling a good bar to the gas station....a complete system would be required to provide you with change (in gold coins/). Everything would have to be done in person or through a "gold only" store. It just would not work in an vibrant, operating economy. And it would work poorly if things went all to Hell and you were wanting to trade gold for beans.

Originally posted by IknowJack
I just happened to open up one of my more reliable news sources and thought everyone might want to see This. I can't find it in mainstream media (surprise)

Maybe someone from the area can confirm it

If this is true I'm dumping some assets and stockpiling a little more.

www.wnd.com...

I think this is a valid concern for the people of Illinois. They want to know who is buying metals for the same reason they want to know who is buying guns and ammunition; they want to know where to go to confiscate it at a later date. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve at best IMO. There is precedent for such action.

I'll be watching to see if other states (or the federal government) attempt a similar measure.

S&F