Bill Text: NJ A2242 | 2010-2011 | Regular Session | Introduced


Bill Title: Grandfathers municipal ordinances that require merchants of used and secondhand jewelry to maintain possession longer than minimum period required by State law.

Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2010-02-11 - Introduced, Referred to Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee [A2242 Detail]

Download: New_Jersey-2010-A2242-Introduced.html

ASSEMBLY, No. 2242

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

214th LEGISLATURE

 

INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 11, 2010

 


 

Sponsored by:

Assemblyman  DAVID P. RIBLE

District 11 (Monmouth)

Assemblyman  REED GUSCIORA

District 15 (Mercer)

 

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS

     Grandfathers municipal ordinances that require merchants of used and secondhand jewelry to maintain possession longer than minimum period required by State law.

 

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

     As introduced.

  


An Act concerning the sale of used and secondhand jewelry and amending P.L.2009, c.214.

 

     Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

 

     1.    Section 1 of P.L.2009, c.214 (C.2C:21-36) is amended to read as follows:

     1.    No person engaged in the business of retailing, wholesaling, or smelting jewelry who purchases any article of used or secondhand jewelry shall sell or offer to sell that used or secondhand jewelry, unless that person:

     a.     Maintains, for five years, a record of the name, address and telephone number of the person from whom it was purchased and:

     (1)   a descriptive list of any used jewelry purchased from that seller, including any identifying characteristics of that jewelry; or

     (2)   photographs of any used jewelry purchased from that seller;

     b.    Verifies the identity of the person selling the jewelry by requesting and examining a photograph-bearing, valid State or federal issued driver's license or other government issued form of identification bearing a photograph;

     c.     Delivers, on a weekly basis, to the police department having jurisdiction in the location of that person's place of business a copy of the record of all used jewelry purchased by that person during the preceding week;

     d.    Maintains in his possession any used jewelry purchased for not less than three business days following the delivery of the record of the purchase of that jewelry to the police department, as required by subsection c. of this section; provided, however, that a municipal ordinance adopted prior to the effective date of P.L.2009, c.214 (January 16, 2010) may provide a longer minimum length of time to maintain possession of used or secondhand jewelry; and

     e.     Maintains, for five years, a copy of any list provided by an individual pursuant to section 2 of P.L.2009, c.214 (C.2C:21-37).

     Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to pawnbrokers licensed and regulated pursuant to the pawnbroking law, R.S.45:22-1 et seq., or sales made through an Internet website.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to a person engaged in retail, provided the sale of jewelry is not his primary business and further provided the person does not engage in the purchase of used or secondhand jewelry on more than three days in a calendar year.

(cf: P.L.2009, c.214, s.1)

 

     2.    This act shall take effect immediately.

STATEMENT

 

     This bill would grandfather municipal ordinances adopted prior to the enactment of P.L.2009, c.214, that contain a period of time longer than the three business days required under State law, for a person engaged in the business of retailing, wholesaling, or smelting jewelry to maintain possession of used or secondhand jewelry.  Prior to the enactment of P.L.2009, c.214, several municipalities already had ordinances requiring minimum possession times greater than three business days to make simpler the identification and recovery of stolen items.  This bill ensures that P.L.2009, c.214 is not interpreted as preempting those stricter municipal requirements for minimum periods of possession.  This bill would not permit a municipality that had not previously adopted a retention ordinance, to adopt one in the future requiring a longer retention period than required by the State law.

feedback