When you read the article below from the Journal pay attention to the part in red and then ask yourself why. Why would an innocent party have to reimburse a person who bought stolen goods to resell them. The logic that the city admin used to arrive at this conclusion escapes me.

Now I guess the assumption could be made that the original owner was reimbursed from their insurance company. Lets suppose the person didn't have insurance. Lets suppose the original owner has a $500.00-$1000.00 deductible on their home owners policy and did not file a claim for the $300.00 dvd player or radio.

"Council to consider swap shop policy

By Ed Richter, Staff Writer

9:04 PM Sunday, November 1, 2009

Middletown City Council will revisit a proposed policy to regulate second-hand stores and swap shops when it meets Tuesday, Nov. 3.

City staff has met with some second-hand shop owners since council first reviewed the proposed regulations a few months ago and based on those discussions, a revised ordinance has been prepared.

Among the revisions are a single licensing fee of $200 with no fees for renewals; the city covering the cost of background checks for up to five employees, with a $15 fee for stores with more than five employees; items purchased, traded or obtained by the store are to be retained for 72 hours before they can be sold; and if police find a stolen item at a store, the true owner must reimburse the store owner the cost paid for the item.

Council is expected to provide additional feedback to the administration before considering the ordinance."

Why would city admin even contemplate putting this in a city ordinance when it could very well be helping someone break the OHIO REVISED CODE:

2913.51 Receiving stolen property.

(A) No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense.

(B) It is not a defense to a charge of receiving stolen property in violation of this section that the property was obtained by means other than through the commission of a theft offense if the property was explicitly represented to the accused person as being obtained through the commission of a theft offense.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of receiving stolen property. Except as otherwise provided in this division, receiving stolen property is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the value of the property involved is five hundred dollars or more and is less than five thousand dollars, if the property involved is any of the property listed in section 2913.71 of the Revised Code, receiving stolen property is a felony of the fifth degree. If the property involved is a motor vehicle, as defined in section 4501.01 of the Revised Code, if the property involved is a dangerous drug, as defined in section 4729.01 of the Revised Code, if the value of the property involved is five thousand dollars or more and is less than one hundred thousand dollars, or if the property involved is a firearm or dangerous ordnance, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, receiving stolen property is a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the property involved is one hundred thousand dollars or more, receiving stolen property is a felony of the third degree.

This is basically giving these store owners a legal license to say, "Oh gee I didn't know, pay me", to the innocent third party who was victimized to start off with.

Once again we have the city trying to protect 1 or 2 people at the expense of the city residence as a whole.

Now I believe that the city is going to state that, "Hamilton does it that way" because if I am not mistaken they were looking at Hamilton and other city's as a model for their ordinance.

If you are going to be a second hand dealer then you buying stolen items is a risk that you the business owner should bore and not a person who was victimized by the thief and now is going to be victimized by the City that they live in, if this passes.