American legal issues...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

From Warseer :

Hey all. Just posted a topic on The Miniatures Page and B&C regarding a new, DUMB law about public safety that the US Federal government is enacting on February 10th that will effect retailers, manufacturors and consumers of products that are sold to or have the potential of being sold to those 12 years old and under. In this regards, it affects us with our miniatures. Posting here in hopes of getting more people aware of the new law.

My wife found some news that is making the rounds amongst the home based/small business and toy manufacturing groups. Evidently, some new legislation was passed into law(424 votes to 1) to protect children from unsafe toys after last year’s widely publicized recalls (by the way, recalls have actually decreased by 46%). Sounds good, until you look into the details and read in this assinine legislation that retailers as well as manufacturors and those selling second hand are required to obtain third party testing on all the products they sell directly or indirectly to children 12 years old and under. A vendor, even you selling online or at a flea market wont be able to place the "Not a Toy" label on your product, that definition will be made by a legislator, they will define what is a toy etc.

Thought the wife went off the deep end until I did a little digging around and found a Wall Street Journal article about it http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122696993087535701.html

One German toy company called Selecta has already refused to ship to the US because of this Amazon blog regarding Selecta http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3CAM978F92K94. This thing came out of left field, didnt even see it in the news until she brought it to my attention. They are saying that ebay and craigslist will refuse to resell items that fall under this category (so much for our second hand miniatures market in the US)because each seller will have to show proof of testing the product for lead, and places like Goodwill might shut down because they will not be able to legally sell things.

Here's another article that puts it in laymans terms http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/breaking-news-selecta-to-cease-us-distribution-due-to-cspia/

WTH is going on!?!?

Thanks to Mr. Vic for the spot.

Any thoughts ?

I'm thinking most (all ?) GW stuff should be alright as they got rid of the lead a few years back, but I have no idea as to whether they'll have to/be able to pay for these new tests etc.

**tkdarktrooper**

The issue here is this: is the "third party" going to consider GW minis a toy? As far as I am concerned, it is not a toy. It is a model. I work in a hobby shop and 12 years can buy model planes, ships, and tanks and these are not considered toys, since they have to be assembled and painted. The real issue is what is the definition of a toy. Star Wars Minis would be a toy [nothing to assemble or paint].

**Frazzled**

Moving to Discussions

**warpcrafter**

This is the most stupid law I've ever heard of. All those toys that were recalled were made in communist china. They are the ones who need to have some scrutiny directed at them, not the retailers.

**reds8n**

@ Our benevolent mods : Ta

I guess the GW stuff should be alright, but they do sell tehir stuff to kids, and I'm unsure about other manufacturers and their stuff. I can't say I've any real idea as whetehr this will have any impact, but figured just in case.....

and we've got a few legal eagles on here right ?

**blue loki**

My biggest concern regarding this is Consignment Shops.

We (and many others) buy a large percentage of our son's clothes and toys from consignment shops because its so much cheaper than buying new. Plus, we can sell back stuff that our son outgrows or shows no interest in.

I can see many of these shops closing due to legislature like this.

Way to help the economy DC!

**Frazzled**

Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!

**Typeline**

America is pretty good at doing stuff like this. Three parents write to their senators all pissed off, and you know when your a senator for every letter you get it equals one million outraged people. So they pass a law to make it look like they care and their doing something to make you all safe and snuggly warm. Somewhere along the way when they are writing this BS bill they accidentally destroy part of the free market economy by legally removing the second hand market. Eventually 4 people will write their senators and they will remove this law plus add something that says anyone can buy anything and 6 year old kids will be hitting stuff up with graffiti again. Hey then the cycle starts over! But in a different area and we'll have to wait for it to roll around to screw us over specifically. Then we will have to roll the ball to some other group of people etc, etc, etc.

**Redbeard**

Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!

I'm all in favour of any tax that gets SUVs off the roads.

**grizgrin**

I wish no ill to any child out there, however we are working hard on safety regulating ourselves to the ash heap of history.

**Howard A Treesong**

Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!

If you want scary fuel costs come to the UK. The US has had it easy for years.

**tkdarktrooper**

Redbeard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. Wait until you see the gas tax increases coming our way. Its change we can believe in!

I'm all in favour of any tax that gets SUVs off the roads.

What about the people who have legitimate reasons for owning an SUV? You know, like people who own their own business and it is more economical for them to get an SUV rather than a truck. The SUV has more cargo room than a car and some have better gas mileage than a freakin' truck.

I am all for getting rid of SUVs that are a waste and are nothing but a status symbol [Hummer, Escalades, etc.], but I am not about to go and require someone to git rid of a vehicle that is part of the way they make money.

**Typeline**

No one has a legitimate reason to own an SUV. Cars have the same amount of cargo space. And if you own your own business and need to haul a lot of equipment a work van will do far better than an SUV.

**Frazzled**

You're not thinking logically. All those fuel taxes will be passed on to the consumer-THAT MEANS YOU- for everything transported or manufactured in the US. That includes food.

YOu may tax the SUV but you're taxing everyone, richa and poor alike on food and clothing, not to mention higher costs for even small cars. You think someone on social security, can afford an artificially created price jump because you like don't like SUVs? How about all the newly unemployed?

**grizgrin**

Typeline, what cars are you talking about? That have the same internal space as an SUV? Come on. Especially when you take into consideration that the majority of SUV's are designed for carry space on the roof (not just "capable", but designed as in a roof rack and everything!).

I've got a wife, two kids. With the booster and the car seat in the back for the boys, that takes available butt-space down to nothing in our Civic. The Camry is little better, really the only thing it would do is give us a little more leg room for the boys for a couple more years, and I mean a couple.

Typeline, baby; I just don't see it. What vehicle models are you comparing here? I'd love to hear it.

**Shotgun**

First off, I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion.

Here is the rule in question:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf

This is my take on this, but it seems that this article has blow it out of proportion.

Section 102 seems to indicate that it is the requirement of the manufacturer or private labeler (if a private label is used) to do the testing. Not the retailer.

For toys, Section 105 seems to indicate that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer/distributor, etc., to inform the retailer if a cautionary label is required. If the retailer writes the manufacturer/distrubutor, documents such, and is not informed by the manufacturer of any requirements, they can't be held liable for failure to display.

Yeah, this does blow for the small mom-and-pop level manufacturer. I would like to think that, and my work experience has indicated that this will probably work this way, but if testing can be done on the various components...paint, plastics, metals, and those pass testing, then all the final products will pass as well without needing to be individually tested.

"Joe's Friendly Local Game Shop" should be okay with a few letters sent out to GW/Alliance/etc. asking for clarifications. The eBay market in early 80's mini's won't dry up and die, even if they are toys.

**gorgon**

grizgrin wrote:Typeline, what cars are you talking about? That have the same internal space as an SUV? Come on. Especially when you take into consideration that the majority of SUV's are designed for carry space on the roof (not just "capable", but designed as in a roof rack and everything!).

I've got a wife, two kids. With the booster and the car seat in the back for the boys, that takes available butt-space down to nothing in our Civic. The Camry is little better, really the only thing it would do is give us a little more leg room for the boys for a couple more years, and I mean a couple.

Typeline, baby; I just don't see it. What vehicle models are you comparing here? I'd love to hear it.

Typeline may be overstating things, but there is a point there. I grew up in a 4-member family. We never owned a truck or SUV, and we never had any issues -- including our road trips. Many Americans *think* they need SUVs because they've been conditioned to think so. Part of that is relentless marketing from car manufacturers, and part of it is the "Joneses" factor.

Many people in other parts of the world manage to have families and cope without SUVs. That alone raises some questions as to why Americans act like they can't function without them. There are legitimate reasons for owning a truck, but I'm not sure one or two children is one of them.

**Lorek**

Let's keep it on-topic, folks. None of this "SUV" (whatever THAT is) talk.

**Kilkrazy**

A. Lead free casting alloy has been available for years if it becomes necessary to use it by law.

B. This law only applies to toys for the under-12s. GW market their models as suitable for 12+.

**legoburner**

I wonder what will happen to the paints... as I understand it, the foundation paints already have the legal maximum amount of lead for sale in the EU, but I wonder if they will still be able to sell if they are deemed acceptable for under 12s. A lot of us started GW at the start of senior school in the UK aged 10-11 (myself included), so it seems reasonable to think that they could be subject to these new rules. As I understand it though, it will just be an extra cost to the manufacturer, not the retailer, and the recent change in USD-GBP exchange rates will have increased profit from US sales for GW by 20-25% anyway which should comfortably cover any testing fees that they might have to endure.

**Howard A Treesong**

legoburner wrote:I wonder what will happen to the paints... as I understand it, the foundation paints already have the legal maximum amount of lead for sale in the EU, but I wonder if they will still be able to sell if they are deemed acceptable for under 12s.

What are the rules on glue and knives?

**reds8n**

Kilkrazy wrote:A. Lead free casting alloy has been available for years if it becomes necessary to use it by law.

B. This law only applies to toys for the under-12s. GW market their models as suitable for 12+.

My understanding is that this actually applies to pretty much anything that migh be provided to children/under 12s.

See the article here

from said article

As currently written, the act would require all products aimed at children 12 and under to be tested for lead and phthalates starting Feb. 10. Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable.

Large manufacturers and retailers say the cost of testing will not be a burden. But small businesses such as handmade-toy shops and thrift stores say the requirement would force them to spend tens of thousands of dollars to test products such as clothing, in which the threat of lead is almost nonexistent. Many thrift stores said they would be forced to stop selling children's clothing or close altogether.

I know the models GW make are lead free-- I remember that glorious sale

-- but that'll cane the 2nd hand market, and smaller manufacturers will have to show their models aren't contaminated either.

If the article is right and they don't change the wording then in GW alone we've got : The paints, the brushes, the books,the scenary bits like hills, glues etc etc.

I'm wondering if certain manufacturers-- like the Infinity model guys-- miht hvae troble getting import licenses for example.

**whitedragon**

Eh, I forsee a very large glossy "12 and up" label to begin featuring prominently on alot of things.

**Lorek**

Reminds me of getting carded to purchase model rockets or spray paint.

**Kilkrazy**

It's illegal to sell spray paints to under-16s in the UK.

**Polonius**

I've gotten carded for both spray paint and super glue here in Ohio. It might just be store policy, but there is precedent there.

**Kilkrazy**

reds8n wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:A. Lead free casting alloy has been available for years if it becomes necessary to use it by law.

B. This law only applies to toys for the under-12s. GW market their models as suitable for 12+.

My understanding is that this actually applies to pretty much anything that migh be provided to children/under 12s.

See the article here

from said article

As currently written, the act would require all products aimed at children 12 and under to be tested for lead and phthalates starting Feb. 10. Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable.

...
...

It says products aimed at children under 12. GW only have to put a "For 12 Years and Up" sticker on the box and they are in the clear.

Without checking I don't know, but it's fairly likely GW already comply with lead limits and testing thanks to European legislation.

**Redbeard**

Do the foundation paints contain lead? I thought they did not.

**legoburner**

Redbeard wrote:Do the foundation paints contain lead? I thought they did not.

From what I understand, the yellow and red have very high lead content. Even the standard GW paints have nasties in them - if you look at the most recent paint pots, they no longer say 'non toxic' on them like they used to.

**two_heads_talking**

this is another case of some Dumb arse who drinks coffee and isn't smart enough to realise it's hot and if it spills in their lap, it will burn.

When will people realize that parents and guardians are required to determine if something is not appropriate for their children? And if their children get hurt from something, the parents should take the burden, and not pass it on to a toy manufacterer..

I swear, the more things change, the more I realize I'd like to live in the 1800's where I can carry my sidearm with me and if my kid chokes on a toy, then it's my fault for not supervising them..