An article, “AB 391 lumps antiques dealers with pawnbrokers, may cripple California antiques trade”, was published on the Antique Trader website on May 25, 2012. The article contains significant errors regarding proposed changes in transaction reporting procedures and how AB 391 would affect antiques dealers.
Read CAPA’s response to the article.
May 25, 2012
Antique Trader
Mr. Eric Bradley
Editor and Online Content Manger
RE: Antique Trader Article: “AB 391 lumps antiques dealers with pawnbrokers, may cripple California antiques trade”
On behalf of the California Pawnbrokers Association, I would like to state that there are significant errors in the article published on the Antiques Trader Blog on May 25, 2012 “AB 391 lumps antiques dealers with pawnbrokers, may cripple California antiques trade”. Most importantly, the proposed bill AB 391 does not unfairly target antique dealers. There is nothing in AB 391 (Pan) that requires an antique dealer to report transactions. AB 391 proposes to fund regulations that are already in current law.
If an antique dealer buys “tangible personal property” from the public, they, along with any other business that deals in secondhand tangible personal property, are already required to report transactions to law enforcement in an effort to dissuade any type of illegal activity. The new legislation would help law enforcement automate the process and would increase effectiveness of tracking these types of transactions. By comparing transactions reported to the database with recently reported thefts, law enforcement can identify the stolen property, putting them on the trail of those who stole the property.
The Department of Justice has identified 4457 businesses who must currently report. The California State Board of Equalization has identified some 95,000 businesses holding resale licenses. There are a growing number of retail businesses that formerly sold only new merchandise who now deal in products on the secondhand market. The universe of business models that fall under the reporting requirements of current law is immense. Under current California statute (Business and Professions Code Section(s) 21628 & 21630), pawnbrokers, secondhand dealers and others are required to submit daily a JUS123 form for each transaction to the Attorney General and local law enforcement.
Several years ago the Department of Justice notified secondhand dealer licensees that they no longer had sufficient room to store the forms and lacked the resources to process the paper JUS123 forms. Consequently, pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers now send them to local law enforcement only. As local jurisdictions suffer from the same lack of resources, they have approached the statutory requirements of handling these forms in mainly three (3) ways:
- The forms sit in a box somewhere until local law enforcement needs to look for a specific transaction;
- They use critically limited human resources to manually catalog the forms for future use, and
- In a few cases, agencies have contracted with third-party providers in an attempt to create some form of an internal electronic data system that does not interface with other jurisdictions.
One of the biggest failures of the current paper system is the inability for the various jurisdictions to interact in an efficient manner to share property reporting. For instance, criminals can travel short distances, change jurisdictions and attempt to unload stolen property with minimal likelihood of being caught because there is no efficient inter-jurisdictional communication relative to tangible personal property reporting. The current system is so cumbersome that many jurisdictions have abandoned maintaining their paper systems altogether.
Clearly the citizens of California have an antiquated, inaccurate, inefficient, and flawed reporting system that has been essentially unchanged since the middle of the last century. This problem was thought to have been solved in the year 2000 with the passage of SB1520 (Schiff), which called for a statewide and uniform electronic reporting system. That legislation was never funded and the system still does not exist twelve years later.
The benefits of a statewide and uniform reporting system would be increased property recovery, a more efficient tool for law enforcement and a less costly and more efficient use of the pawnbrokers and secondhand dealer’s financial resources.
Best regards,
Emmett Murphy
California Pawnbrokers Association
External Communications