Punisher Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) According to G4 and other websites, starting February 10th, collectors, parents, ect... will not be able to sell/buy used toys. This is probably one of the most RIDICULOUS things i have ever heard. Hopefully, the law won't go into effect, but if it does, no more selling loose toys on ebay, or parents buying the children toys that weren't purchased "new". The article states "children's items", so does that mean no more children's items at garage sales, re-sale shops, thrift stores, etc??? http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/6922...s_Products.html Edited January 8, 2009 by the punisher=D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massivecarnage Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Does this mean we can't sell loose minimates or minimate parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reideen1313 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Just reading the law, as it is proposed, and some of the scuttlebutt on various sites, yes. Home crafters would no longer be able to sell home made items, garage sales, ebay, etc would all be things of the past - unless the seller is willing (or able) to pay to have the item certified. IIRC, that cost can run up to $4000 PER ITEM. This would kill home businesses across the nation. Not only that, but it would impact the Goodwill and Salvation Army centers' ability to resell used items - again, effectively ending many potential jobs for people who need them the most much of the time. (Not to mention taking away their abilty to buy 2nd hand goods and clothing.) I see this as a knee-jerk reaction to the lead in toys scare. Gov't representatives drafted legislation without considering the scope of what they proposed. Imagine that. I don't see it going forward as currently drafted. If it does go forward, the other option would be to 'give' the items away for a small donation or include the items with sale of something that is already a 'certified' product. I didn't see anything in the legislation that talks about this and it could be a way around the rules temporarily while an amendment is put together or the damn thing is repealed entirely. Trying to define what is a 'collectible' vs 'toy' and what is being sold to a 'collector' vs 'child' is going to be too difficult to accomplish by the deadline before the law goes into effect. Either it needs to be killed entirely or people need to look at alternative - creative - ways to sell their goods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entertheninja! Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) this is so bad...what if you are underprivelged and cannot afford new toys and collectibles and have to buy them at a pawn shop or a yard sell.what the hell!!!!!! :mrt: Edited January 8, 2009 by Reideen1313 I appreciate what you're saying - please choose better words in the future to express it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massivecarnage Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 This Suck so much! Do you know how much people rely on them! Millions and millions of people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reideen1313 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 This Suck so much! Do you know how much people rely on them! Millions and millions of people! Which is exactly why I don't expect it to go into effect. (Is there another 'e' word I could've used in that sentence?) If it does, it will be short lived - especially in today's economic climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punisher Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) There are some loop holes however. If we listed items under the "collectibles" category instead of "toys and hobbies" on ebay IF this takes effect, i wonder if the listings would be removed Edited January 8, 2009 by the punisher=D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homestar17 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 According to G4 and other websites, starting February 10th, collectors, parents, ect... will not be able to sell/buy used toys. This is probably one of the most RIDICULOUS things i have ever heard. Hopefully, the law won't go into effect, but if it does, no more selling loose toys on ebay, or parents buying the children toys that weren't purchased "new". The article states "children's items", so does that mean no more children's items at garage sales, re-sale shops, thrift stores, etc??? http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/6922...s_Products.html I agree, it is ridiculous. But here's the the good news (& this is just my opinion/logic here) -- a potential "loophole" for this law: How can you viably define the term "used"? I mean, does the term include toys & figs whose owner(s) have removed once from the package but never played (like collectors who display them)? What about those items that are so old the glue has disintegrated, thereby freeing them from packaging (how could you tell they were infact not "new")? Or buying/selling vintage items, which by definition, are not "new" -- are these considered against the law? My point here is that I believe it will be incredibly difficult to concretely define exactly what will be illegal. I'm betting there will be so many ways to get around this law (if it does go into effect), that it will be seriously pointless to even continue to put it into action. But this is just my two cents. Trying to define what is a 'collectible' vs 'toy' and what is being sold to a 'collector' vs 'child' is going to be too difficult to accomplish by the deadline before the law goes into effect. Either it needs to be killed entirely or people need to look at alternative - creative - ways to sell their goods. Darn you, Reideen, you beat me to it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcastick Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) The best suggestion I have would be for everyone to write the state representative and tell everyone you know who may be influenced by this to write their representative and let them know this is something that is going to cause huge problems and possible job losses. I don't know about you all, but I know a lot of people who can't afford to buy new toys for their kids especially when they out grow them so fast and they buy gently used toys. Besides, what do used toys have to do with the New toys that were shipped here last year that were recalled? Also, is trading used items going to be included in this....I mean no money is really being exchanged. Edited January 8, 2009 by jcastick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBT! Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 My first thought on hearing this is as Reideen posted earlier in the thread, to go buy a large bag of washers and sell individual washers for say $7 each on ebay and then have a free gift of a couple of minimates. The other thing to consider is that minimates are 2"collectables not toys by DST's definition which was done to get around a licensing loophole with marvel... seem Marvel being licensing whores might work in our favor for a change. T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwspider Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 When the hell did I sign up to be part of the great Nanny state of Amerika? Nothing annoys the heck out of me as much as Government interference of the free market system - especially when it would be as debilitating and crippling as this appears to be. Amazing, bloody frakkin' amazing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) According to this, this law will only apply to items produced after this law goes into effect, and only those that are made, in part, of a "banned hazardous substance" (Therefore, the Counsel’s conclusion is that the new standard applies to “only those products manufactured after the effective date of the new standard.”) Unless there were only a handful of toys being banned here, how would businesses know which used products were illegal to re-sell, and which weren't? It would be a logistical nightmare sending out the notices to all potential re-sellers not only of current products, but of all former products that could not be sold. More importantly, how would the government possibly enforce such a law unless there were a blanket law that restricted all used toy sales? I must be missing something, or else this law doesn't seem to be very practical. When the hell did I sign up to be part of the great Nanny state of Amerika? Nothing annoys the heck out of me as much as Government interference of the free market system - especially when it would be as debilitating and crippling as this appears to be. Amazing, bloody frakkin' amazing! The ultimate purpose is to keep kids from getting sick or dying due to lead or other hazardous materials. Personally, I think that protecting consumers from industry in instances where they use dangerous material and engage in gross exploitation/negligence in order to save costs is one of the primary functions of government, up there with providing security from foreign threats. If the free enterprise system ruled us, little kids would still work in coal mines, cars wouldn't have seat belts, and foods with dangerous chemicals would be much more prevalent. So, I have no issue with the idea, though I'll hold off complete judgment on the specific policy until we get more info (or until I feel like spending more time reading into it). Edited January 8, 2009 by karamazov80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reideen1313 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 There are some loop holes however. If we listed items under the "collectibles" category instead of "toys and hobbies" on ebay IF this takes effect, i wonder if the listings would be removed Unfortunately, that'll be up to Ebay to determine. Totally subjective and way too difficult to establish a definition for. (Also extremely difficult to police, but again, this is the government we're talking about.) Right now Jcastick, it doesn't appear to have any impact on trading. Only where money is exchanging hands for the items, which is why I would suggest including the 'contraband' as an extra bonus or 'FREE with purchase of X' if the law stands. On a side note, I'm pretty sure we've just seen the next excuse for Shocker Toys not bringing product to market for 2009.... According to this, this law will only apply to items produced after this law goes into effect, and only those that are made, in part, of a "banned hazardous substance" (Therefore, the Counsel’s conclusion is that the new standard applies to “only those products manufactured after the effective date of the new standard.”) Unless there were only a handful of toys being banned here, how would businesses know which products were illegal to re-sell, and which weren't? More importantly, how would the government possibly enforce such a law unless there were a blanket law that restricted all used toy sales? I must be missing something, or else this law doesn't seem to be very practical. That's only an opinion of counsel Karmazov. It isn't part of the law as it is currently written. From the TIA's FAQ's about the CPSIA If we have product in our USA warehouse that was manufactured prior to November 12, 2008 may we continue to sell these items until they are gone? Are we required to produce a certificate of compliance for these items? No certificate is required by law (Retailers may request it). Non compliant goods can't be sold after February 10, 2009. This law applies not only to children's toys, but clothing, baby seats, strollers, etc. Millions of people will be affected by this legislation. Here's an excellent link detailing some of the efforts being made to eliminate/modify this law. National Bankruptcy Day Yes. That is the real name of the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) And here is the "unofficial compilation" of the law itself, for anyone interested. And as to Reideen's post, I doubt that the General Counsel for the CPSC would note something that was not highly likely to be realized as interpretation of a policy drafted by the CPSC, though it is possible Edited January 8, 2009 by karamazov80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 How to get around the term "used": "previously owned". Problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjwspider Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The ultimate purpose is to keep kids from getting sick or dying due to lead or other hazardous materials. Personally, I think that protecting consumers from industry in instances where they use dangerous material and engage in gross exploitation/negligence in order to save costs is one of the primary functions of government, up there with providing security from foreign threats. If the free enterprise system ruled us, little kids would still work in coal mines, cars wouldn't have seat belts, and foods with dangerous chemicals would be much more prevalent. So, I have no issue with the idea, though I'll hold off complete judgment on the specific policy until we get more info (or until I feel like spending more time reading into it). The role of Government is to provide some protectionist measures. However, the law as written is far too wide in scope and has the capability of eliminating growth throughout a capitalist economy. For example, if Burger King had an outbreak of food poisoning, the equivalent bill would eliminate all fast food sales because of a limited problem. In addition to future proposed laws controlling everything from trans-fat to methane gases emitted by cows, I'm very concerned about the decisions many Governmental officials are making that affects the people they were elected by to represent. To continue down such a path would only ensure price gouging in the new market, reduced sales (as the toy industry is already in dire straits due to the video game industry) and criminalizing those that only wish to collect or sell any of the products classified within this legislation. Anytime a law seeks to make criminal a non-criminal offense, you run the risk of overwhelming the legal system (diverting resources from true crimes) and alienating the population. Look back at the utter failure of Prohibition and you can see over-reaching Government policy creating dissent within the populace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkerbean Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Roll on december 23rd 2012, we need a good apocaplypse/end of the world to sort out all this mess out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcastick Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I'm with Winkerbean.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modefan Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I wonder if this is why bigbadtoystore added a disclaimer on all thier items that they are not meant for anyone under the age of 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinimateEspo25 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Roll on december 23rd 2012, we need a good apocaplypse/end of the world to sort out all this mess out leave it to be the seventh anniversary of me and my gf going out to be the apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reideen1313 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 And here is the "unofficial compilation" of the law itself, for anyone interested. And as to Reideen's post, I doubt that the General Counsel for the CPSC would note something that was not highly likely to be realized as interpretation of a policy drafted by the CPSC, though it is possible I'm not saying you're wrong Karmazov - I just want people to understand the law as it is currently written does not include that interpretation. Sorry if I offended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I'm not saying you're wrong Karmazov - I just want people to understand the law as it is currently written does not include that interpretation. Sorry if I offended. I'll never forgive you!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkerbean Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 so thinking about it bang go's the vintage star wars, gi joe, transformers, thundercats, he-man... Etc secondary market Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttheadsmate Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Maybe when the 'powers that be' sort this huge problem of "Used" toys being sold they may move on to the less pressing problems like the "New" sales of the more mundane things like land-mines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbpanizzi Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Roll on december 23rd 2012, we need a good apocaplypse/end of the world to sort out all this mess out Well I will tell you how it is since the appointed date is December 21, 2012 and I will be partying my arse off. Edited January 9, 2009 by vbpanizzi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.