Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales

from the the-other-side-of-the-bitcoin dept

One of the good features of cash is the fact that it can be used anonymously. It’s no surprise that the government hates that, but would you ever expect the government to actually outlaw the use of cash? Down in Louisiana, a recently passed law completely outlaws the use of cash in transactions for secondhand goods. When I read the story, I thought it was so crazy that it had to be a misunderstanding. I looked up the bill, and the original version of the bill actually does not have this clause. Instead, it requires that anyone selling secondhand goods make a detailed recording of any cash transaction. But somewhere along the way, that bill was amended, and the final version (embedded below) does, in fact, appear to ban cash transactions:

A secondhand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or secondhand property. Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or secondhand property and made payable to the name and address of the seller. All payments made by check, electronic transfers, or money order shall be reported separately in the daily reports required by R.S. 37:1866.

I do wonder if that’s even legal. Our cash clearly says that “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” While businesses may have the right to refuse cash, can a government outlaw the use of cash? That seems pretty extreme.

The state representative behind the bill, Rickey Hardy, seems to think it’s no big deal, admitting that this is purely to make life easier for law enforcement in response to criminals who steal stuff and then sell it off:

“It’s a mechanism to be used so the police department has something to go on and have a lead,” explains Hardy.

You can understand why law enforcement wants that, but just because law enforcement wants details of your private transactions, it doesn’t mean you should be blocked from using cash. And people wonder why there was so much interest in Bitcoin (even if Bitcoin itself is rather flawed).

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
205 Comments
DandonTRJ (profile) says:

A piece of me sympathizes with this legislation, since I’m a music-lover who has read about far too many hard-working bands having their vans broken into on tour and all their equipment stolen/pawned. This might frustrate those efforts, at least with reputable pawnshops. Yet at the same time, I wonder if the old adage will come into play: “if you outlaw ___, only outlaws will have ___.” Seems odd that “cash” will fill that blank here…

justmyself says:

Re: DandonTRJ

“I’m a music-lover who has read about far too many hard-working bands having their vans broken into on tour and all their equipment stolen/pawned.”

This will do nothing to stop or fix that problem. The goods will either goto fences who could care less about this law, or on the internet via Craigslist/eBay/etc…

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Not quite. This is clearly about creating a paper trail and outlawing anonymity. The revision of it to exclude cash was likely overzealous. However it does make you wonder why better methods weren’t used.

A great example I can think of would be to make the sale of any item which has a destroyed serial number illegal; and to maintain a national database of all stolen item’s serial numbers. Then you could require that all sellers and buyers look up said numbers. This would obviously not work for items like food, and commodities that do not have serial numbers (EG overpriced plastic discs); however it would be more effective than this likely unconstitutional waste of time and money. Honestly the politicians that votes for this at any stage should all be liable to the people for the wasted funds and time of state bodies.

hothmonster says:

Re: Re: Re:

“A great example I can think of would be to make the sale of any item which has a destroyed serial number illegal;”

I know this would be a huge problem with laptops. Some of the newer one put the number under the battery but a ton of them just have a sticker on the bottom which gets worn away over time. I’m sure a lot of other products also have poorly placed serial numbers.

“and to maintain a national database of all stolen item’s serial numbers”

Hey your tv was stolen while you where at work, what the serial number? I mean really who knows and/or writes down the serial number for everything the own?

Of course even with those giant problems its still a better idea than this law.

ComputerAddict (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I mean really who knows and/or writes down the serial number for everything the own?”

I think what he was implying would be that the database of numbers would be populated by the manufacturer, and then at first sale create paper trail from then on… actually writing it out like that makes it seem far worse than this law.

hothmonster says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“and to maintain a national database of all stolen item’s serial numbers”

was his quote, so you would have to give the serial number to the cops when your shit is stolen to get it on the database.

And I am glad you realized how stupid a database of every serial number for every product ever made would be.

hothmonster says:

“Pawn shops have been forced to keep records of their clients for years. However under this bill they are still allowed to deal in cash.” http://www.klfy.com/story/15717759/second-hand-dealer-law

So the point of the law is that thieves can’t pawn goods for cash anymore but pawn shops can still deal in cash? So how does this stop thieves from pawning goods just like they always have?

Seems like its going to make life impossible for thrift stores and tough for antique stores and have little to no effect on criminals.

Oh wait I forgot, criminals follow the law so because this law exists they will stop selling shit for cash….

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Reading some of the comments and that brief article someone posted, it seems as though it is targeted at the pawn shop owners when purchasing goods from individuals to later pawn. This says you essentially can only buy goods from individuals who have a bank account and that bank account must be used in the transaction.

I don’t think it is as nefarious as it first reads. You can still buy something from a pawn shop for money, you just can’t sell your stuff to them for cash.

I personally pay for as much as I can via credit card because it establishes a trail for me to use later if needed to show I transacted with company XYZ.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’m in Canada – and I don’t shop at stores that operate in that fashion. I use the card for my benefit, not theirs. I hardly carry cash any more. I also have no problem with companies knowing my purchasing history. I actually like being marketed to in a targeted fashion. If I shop a lot for a certain type of product, chances are I’m interested in such. I like video games, so when companies target marketing to me regarding types of games that I actually like, I consider it a win for both of us.

Believe it or not, not everyone hates having their information available for consumption. Imagine if all those inventors never wanted to share information because they wanted it to remain secret and theirs alone…

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

This says you essentially can only buy goods from individuals who have a bank account and that bank account must be used in the transaction.

Right, I thought that was clear.

I don’t think it is as nefarious as it first reads. You can still buy something from a pawn shop for money, you just can’t sell your stuff to them for cash.

And how is that not nefarious?

If the point is recordkeeping to make it easier to find people fencing stolen goods, then why not just require pawn shops to only buy from people who produce a valid ID and to record the ID number?

Outlawing cash transactions is pointless and, I hope, unconstitutional. It harms the very people who are most likely to use pawn shops: the poor, many of whom have no bank accounts and no way of cashing checks without paying usurious fees.

Andy Roid (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Louisiana and law..

Louisiana is different than the remaining 49 starts – it’s laws are based on Napoleonic Code rather than English Common Law. Things that are legal in Louisiana may not apply elsewhere; and tings that are fine everywhere else are often not legal in Louisiana. It’s been years since I lived thee, so this example may be dated, but you don’t get a ‘car loan’ in Louisiana – you get a ‘chattel mortgage’. You get title immediately; but you’ve got a mortgage on the car which is to be paid over time. In practice it doesn’t seem very different but legally there are fine points beyond my grasp. This is one reason that people who study law in Louisiana stay in Louisiana.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, the point is record keeping – and making it easier and more reliable. If you count on the clerk to a) remember to get the ID, b) to be trained to recognize what is and isn’t fake or valid and c) to properly transmit that data, then that is a heck of a lot of onus on the shop. If you transfer the onus to the one desiring to do the selling and you use a proven method of tracking the flow of money, you increase the likelihood that you obtain valid and correct information and that the information is actually available for use. That isn’t nefarious.

There are many banking options available in Canada (yes, I know that isn’t Louisiana, but I’m extrapolating here) where deposits are free and the user is given a certain amount of fee-free withdrawals each month. While this does make it more costly to cash an individual cheque, it does allow them to engage in the transaction at no additional cost, just not at every moment they feel like it.

There is a trade-off in everything. What helps one person often harms another – it’s about picking sides. And hey, those poor folk are always welcome to find an individual buyer for their goods and have that transaction in cash. If they want the convenience of doing it with a store, this is the compromise they make.

pawn guy says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“If the point is recordkeeping to make it easier to find people fencing stolen goods, then why not just require pawn shops to only buy from people who produce a valid ID and to record the ID number? “

Pawn shops are already required to do this. This law wasnt written for them, as they are already some of the most regulated businesses around from the city, county, state and national levels. Most pawn shops are also audited regularily by city police departments to ensure compliance with accurate descriptions. Only morons would sell stolen goods to pawn shops, their chances of being caught are exponentially higher. Craigslist and ebay are not regulated in this fashion. Pawn shops help solve a lot of cases and catch criminals.

This has bigger troubles for second hands goods stores that are not already legally required to report. i.e. game stores, record stores, antique stores, thrift stores, also the private sellers on craigslist and garage sales.

Its absolutely b.s. and I pray the people don’t put up with it.

Alex Macfie (profile) says:

Re: Isn't cash good for all debts public and private?

For “legal tender” to kick in, there has to be a pre-existing debt. It doesn’t mean that merchants are obliged to enter into a transaction; a merchant can refuse a sale for whatever reason they want. This law bans anyone from entering into a transaction involving sale of secondhand goods if the payment method is cash: if cash is used, then the transaction is null & void. In this case, there is no debt. IANAL.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Isn't cash good for all debts public and private?

so, basically, institute a layby plan (or something to that effect), with a 0 dollar down payment, for the Sale, and then imediately have that debt payed in full using cash? technically you bought the thing on credit, no cash used in the transaction that gives you the item. pretty sure all it generates is two more bits of paper in the shop’s records.

doesn’t get around the anonymity thing, but does allow you to pay cash. in theory, at least.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

……. I see what your trying to say, but I feel the point falls a little flat. A debt is something owed. Whether it be an immediate debt (grocery store) or a long term debt (car) doesn’t matter. I shouldn’t have to pay a bank fee in order to get a $50.00 money order so I can buy a lawnmower from someone.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Replying to everyone: buying something doesn’t incur a debt.

“United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
?31 U.S.C. ? 5103

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#United_States

From the following reference:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

“This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.”

So no, I’m not wrong, and no, a business does not have to accept cash as payment for goods or services. This is straight from the US Treasury department, so take it up with thim if you still disagree.

That said, I hope this law falls. I’m not sure offhand if it’s actually unconstitutional, I’d have to poke around the constitution to see what it would actually violate. But it’s certainly unjust and unwarranted.

DanH says:

Re: Re: Re:

All money is debt. The National debt = total US: cash + coin + bonds + digital funny money. That is what happened when we moved to a pure fiat money system issued by a privet, for profit, central bank.

A great documentary on the subject is called “The Money Masters”. YouTube it, you might learn something.

I applaud your observation, but it would be best if you knew the whole story before you go off half cocked as you just did.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I applaud your observation, but it would be best if you knew the whole story before you go off half cocked as you just did.

I later cited the US Treasury department saying exactly the same thing I did. How much more cocked do you want me to be? Are you saying the Treasury Dept is wrong, and that a business actually does have to accept cash for all transactions?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

> and no businesses cannot refuse to take cash

Yes, they can. Have you tried to rent a car recently?

Credit cards only.

Businesses are required to deal in US currency, but the *form* of that currency is up to them. They can specificy cash only, credit card only, check only, etc., so long as they accept US dollars. They just can’t require Euros only, for example.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

> You can pay cash at the end of the rental.
> The credit card is used to secure a deposit.
> They will happily refund the amount billed to
> your credit card.

I’ve never been offered that option, but even so, there are plenty of other businesses that don’t take cash.

The parking garage to my office building only takes credit/debit cards. No cash allowed. There’s not even a mechanism for paying cash. It’s all automated; no humans involved in the transaction process.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Businesses absolutely can refuse to take cash. What they cannot do is refuse cash to pay a debt. As the discussion above points out, a debt can be incurred even when buying a quart of milk. However, a business can still refuse to begin a transaction with you for many legal reasons, and not being willing to trade with cash is one of those reasons.

Meaning, a business can say, “We won’t offer you our products/services if you want to pay in cash,” but they cannot say, “You owe us money, but we won’t allow payment in cash.”

FLSmBizMom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Renting a car

Actually, I thought the same, but recently rented one using a Debit card, which is equivalent to an instant check, in FL.
They put a “hold” on $150 for the “security” and I will pay for the rental when I turn it in, presumably however I choose. I have paid in cash in the past for that, however, usually use debit card…

Ted R (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Don’t be so sure. A district court upheld a similar law in New York, already.

What Congress has sought to do, then, is establish and maintain a uniform national currency, an aim which is incompatible with a system in which individual states can issue their own currency, or declare things other than federally-issued money to constitute legal tender. The Ordinance at issue here does no such thing, however. It merely provides that payment for junk must be in the form of a check, which in turn is payable in United States currency. Accordingly, it is neither unconstitutional nor inconsistent with ? 5103.

heyidiot (profile) says:

Re: You got it backwards...

…although it is a bit hard to parse “no business cannot refuse to take cash”, I think you meant to say “all businesses must accept cash”? That obviously false.

“Legal tender for all debts” means that cash *may* be used, not that it *must* be accepted by all parties. Businesses and people have every right to require any form of payment they wish, and the customer retains the right to shop elsewhere. If *everyone* spontaneously decided to stop taking cash, then your greenbacks would be of little use, while still being so very “legal”.

That only makes sense; turn it around and you must admit that a credit card is certainly “legal” to use, but it’s clear that not everyone will accept one.

Personally, I never use cash. If they don’t take the card, I don’t shop there. Why would I want to pay cash when Visa is giving me a free loan for 25 days?

vsmith says:

Re: "no cash" allowed in LA

Just a hello, as have seen, and agreed with several of your psots I’ve seen several places.
HAve been a writer/researcher/reporter 911, CIA pedophile mkUltra saytanic slave rings, Promis software, mindwars, and several crisis by NWO deign, including the global banking crisis… And , to caution you, though I am a very honest, conservative, and actual Christian, not a part of any faith, denomination, church, ( as I find most wickedly governed),only routinely support “Persecuted Christiams”,org,usually nice, capable,skilled,educated, independent woman,I have also been 17 years a target of gov’t mob “traffickers” crooked police, ( Feds, “company””Sheiks

Wally L says:

I heard about this today in my economics class.

Seeing has how only a criminal would [knowingly] have stolen property, he already has no incentive to follow this new law.

I fail to see how outlawing federal legal tender in secondhand sales helps the general population. Not everybody has a checking account or plastic. And who wants to spend money on a money order just to spend money? So for the citizens in Louisiana, until further notice, money costs money.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Seeing has how only a criminal would [knowingly] have stolen property, he already has no incentive to follow this new law.”

I dunno down there, but up here, by the time something enters a pawn shop, it’s already gone through a few owners past the criminal, usually in increasing order of scruples.

I can see how this law would allow police officers to track back the purchase a few steps further.

That said, I’m not at all defending the bill. Overzealous? Definitely. Unintended economic consequences? Probably, unless the changes in the bill were made at the behest of a large immoral corporation(s), in which case it was perfectly well within the intentions.

erin (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

ok so they have passed a law that even the prepaid cards can not b purchased with out proper identification anymore because the court system need to keep tract of when someone is ordered to pay child support and to keep anyone from hiding any income…… now as far as this cash law rite here in lake charles la they r only making u fill out this long secondhand dealer and/or seller affidavid but they r still able to accually pay and/or recieve cash

DannyB (profile) says:

Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)

> The state representative behind the bill, Rickey Hardy,
> seems to think it’s no big deal, admitting that this is
> purely to make life easier for law enforcement

We should all want to make life easier for law enforcement.

Police work is easy in a police state. Therefore we should strive to change our government into a police state in order to make police work easier.

Why would anyone be against that? ๐Ÿ™‚

Grae (profile) says:

Louisiana isn’t that big; I imagine that goods with enough value will start flowing into neighboring states when citizens and criminals start realizing it’s probably easier to just take a road trip to pawn off their valuables.

Maybe in their infinite wisdom the LA state legislature will ban vehicles going over the state border without a manifest of their contents cleared with law enforcement?

A New Orleans Student says:

Re: Craigslist?

From what I have read on http://fleamarketzone.com/2011/10/louisiana-bans-cash-transactions-for-second-hand-merchandise/ it is House Bill 195 states that ?Anyone, other than a non-profit entity, who buys, sells, trades in or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or secondhand property more frequently than once per month from any other person, other than a non-profit entity, shall be deemed as being in the business of a secondhand dealer.?

Which means SOME thrift stores are okay, (but as I mentioned below, not those who buy from non-profit in bulk and sell as profit entities) I also wonder about the more frequently than once per month, as I can clearly see it covering a 2-3 day weekend garage sale. (Also is it more frequently than once per month by day, or by customer? Not exactly the sparkling clarity I would want.)

So at least those worried about the Red Cross or Bridge House, or other non-profit store fronts do not have to worry about that, but it is still a horrible law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Mike,

I love how you “steal” this story from Volokh: http://volokh.com/2011/10/19/louisiana-bans-secondhand-dealers-from-paying-cash-for-secondhand-goods/

But you (of course) don’t link to that story or give Volokh any credit. You even pretend to come up with this argument: “I do wonder if that’s even legal. Our cash clearly says that “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” While businesses may have the right to refuse cash, can a government outlaw the use of cash? That seems pretty extreme.” Of course, as you full well know, Volokh addresses that point in the story you ripped off.

God, you’re slimy (and transparent). LMAO! Classic.

John Doe says:

Re: Re:

You even pretend to come up with this argument: “I do wonder if that’s even legal. Our cash clearly says that “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”

If you read my post above where I state the same thing it is because I replied before reading the full article and seeing that it was stated in the article. Seems that “independent invention” could be at play here.

BearGriz72 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

BTW — http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=200

So, with the Techdirt Crystal ball, we give you a chance to see the headlines of some of the posts we’re working on, and some indication of when they might get published. And, once a story is published, you’ll be able to see it up to 60 minutes before anyone else can.

Jim O (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’m pretty sure every intelligent person who read the title thought about cash being declared legal tender well before being reminded of it.

Are you saying that you didn’t (or wouldn’t have) “come up with this argument” yourself? That tells me a lot more about your intelligence than about Mike’s trustworthiness.

More likely though – I suspect that you are Volokh (whoever the crap that is), and you are just trying to score easy points for your own blog (or whatever that link goes to).

Neil (SM) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

LOL. If that guy (I’m referring to the anonymous poster, not Volekh himself) is a prospective-lawyer student or former student currently practicing law, I feel very scared for our future.

Come to think of it, given the current legal climate, that actually would explain a lot. I could see a lawsuit cropping up accusing someone of stealing an idea that both parties actually got from reading a ten-dollar bill.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I love how you “steal” this story from Volokh: http://volokh.com/2011/10/19/louisiana-bans-secondhand-dealers-from-paying-cash-for-secondhand-goods /

Wow. I found the story because Mike Costanza, who works for me, sent me the link that I used in the story above. I have no idea where he found it.

It looks like the story I used came out before the Volokh version.

I link to Volokh all the time. If I found the story there I would have linked to it.

Also: learn what “steal” means.

But you (of course) don’t link to that story or give Volokh any credit. You even pretend to come up with this argument: “I do wonder if that’s even legal. Our cash clearly says that “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” While businesses may have the right to refuse cash, can a government outlaw the use of cash? That seems pretty extreme.” Of course, as you full well know, Volokh addresses that point in the story you ripped off.

Um. Really? Do you really think I’ve never looked at money myself, and have never heard that phrase before?

I also *don’t* know that Volok addresses the point, because until you linked to it, I didn’t even know Volokh covered this story.

God, you’re slimy (and transparent). LMAO! Classic.

Dude. Seriously. WTF?

Neil (SM) says:

Re: volekh

I love how you “steal” this story from Volokh: http://volokh.com/2011/10/19/louisiana-bans-secondhand-dealers-from-paying-cash-for-secondhand-goods /

But you (of course) don’t link to that story or give Volokh any credit. You even pretend to come up with this argument: “I do wonder if that’s even legal. Our cash clearly says that “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” While businesses may have the right to refuse cash, can a government outlaw the use of cash? That seems pretty extreme.” Of course, as you full well know, Volokh addresses that point in the story you ripped off.

First of all, two people reporting on the same story is not stealing or plagiarizing. It happens all the time. In fact, plenty other news sources reported on this including the one Mike linked to.

Mike’s and Volekh’s observations about the “legal tender for all debts” issue is really neither new nor obscure. For one thing, it’s printed on the goddamn bills! For another thing any partly-related discussions of businesses refusing cash tend to bring up that point. For you to refer to that as stealing an idea, or to think Volekh should get credit for it is laughable.

John N. Seattle, WA (profile) says:

Read William Gibson!

In William Gibson’s classic, Neuromancer, there is something said at the beginning of the story about cash being illegal. It makes sense to think that eventually ALL cash will be outlawed. After all, if you dont have anything to hide, you shouldnt mind your purchases being tracked by the government! (heavy sarcasm here) The governments of the world would like nothing better than to be able to track every person every minute of the day and then be able to SELL that information to others. This is the future we are all heading for unless we take a stand NOW to prevent the “1%” from grabbing even more power!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional

its amazing how people seem to have forgotten that there was a time, before 1913, when ghasp!, the FED did not exist! Why? Because we all forgot about the passage in the constitution where it says “only congress shall be authorized to print currency,” not a cabal of private bankers. Remember the dude that got locked up for minting the “liberty dollar?” Similar issues at play; the bankers want constant control over money at all times, it is what our lives revolve around. Not allowing other currencies to be minted, forcing the use of bank issued cards/checks to create an electronic trail, etc. Its all moving to traceable 0’s and 1’s.

I give it less than a century before all paper currency is outlawed, and every single transaction can be tracked.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Federal Preemption

I talked to a buddy of mine about this yesterday. He’s an attorney for the Dept. of Treasury. They’re looking into the details of this, but their first impression is that Louisiana has overstepped its bounds here. The entire rationale for a national currency was based on the mess that existed when various states were not only imposing different currency regulations, but printing their own separate state currencies. The federal governmet specifically preempted all that by establishing a national currency.

This Louisiana law is most likely going to be rendered void the first time someone challenges it in federal court. The federal government may not even wait for a citizen to challenge it; it may take the case up on its own.

Revelati says:

“I don’t think it is as nefarious as it first reads. You can still buy something from a pawn shop for money, you just can’t sell your stuff to them for cash.”

Thus completely negating the point of pawn shops. Most people pawn things because they NEED CASH NOW, and its not just for drugs booze and hookers. Sometimes the family of five who had both working parents laid off needs to pay rent…

This bill is stupid, has no chance of becoming actual law, would be ignored if it did, and would generally make the world a worse place to live in.

FLSmBizMom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Rambling Poster & Party Affiliation

The First,
I think it was an intro of sorts, and has the feel of cranking up to an opinion to be expressed, perhaps was sent before the writer was finished?
Not sure but the actual subject-related point had not been made.
Then the Second, which is where someone said it was a Republican who wrote the law…. (Really?) and WeNeedHelp is So right that there is NO Difference anymore….
That said, the Socialist Democrat party is in Control now and doing More to Advance said agenda of Police State Control of the Public, than any other regime in recent history, AND more to Expand the federal debt, and all the while blaming it on his predecessor…
Why? Because they have the Perfect Weapon to incite the Victim mentality in Obama. How better to turn Americans against each other? He is the most Partisan and Dictatorial president in (history I think)
This is all Possible because Americans are often asleep at the wheel, wanting “convenience” like Robert from Canada, who says he Prefers plastic and its paper trail over cash.
Funny how Dems SAY they are all for the Poor, but LOOK at this Dem/New Orleans/Victim/Someone Owes us mentality! What ever happened to Personal Responsibility and Individual Freedom?? Please!

FLSmBizMom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Rambling Poster & Party Affiliation

The First,
I think it was an intro of sorts, and has the feel of cranking up to an opinion to be expressed, perhaps was sent before the writer was finished?
Not sure but the actual subject-related point had not been made.
Then the Second, which is where someone said it was a Republican who wrote the law…. (Really?) and WeNeedHelp is So right that there is NO Difference anymore….
That said, the Socialist Democrat party is in Control now and doing More to Advance said agenda of Police State Control of the Public, than any other regime in recent history, AND more to Expand the federal debt, and all the while blaming it on his predecessor…
Why? Because they have the Perfect Weapon to incite the Victim mentality in Obama. How better to turn Americans against each other? He is the most Partisan and Dictatorial president in (history I think)
This is all Possible because Americans are often asleep at the wheel, wanting “convenience” like Robert from Canada, who says he Prefers plastic and its paper trail over cash.
Funny how Dems SAY they are all for the Poor, but LOOK at this Dem/New Orleans/Victim/Someone Owes us mentality! What ever happened to Personal Responsibility and Individual Freedom?? Please!

Coward (Anon) says:

Florida already did this

Back when I lived in Florida (4 years ago) the legislature banned used CD/DVD stores from giving cash for used CDs/DVDs along with requiring a waiting period to receive your check and some sort of bond being required to be posted by the store. The law was written and pushed through by Best Buy who claimed they were losing millions to people stealing CDs/DVDs and reselling them. The law resulted in most (if not all) of the used CD/DVD stores closing down. It was also the point where I stopped buying anything from Best Buy.

CRD (profile) says:

Everything is second hand

Would not everything fit this this law? If an item is sold to a retailer by a wholesaler, could this not be considered second hand? Granted the item has never been used, but it could be stretched that way.

It looks like the yardsale and thrift stores will be in the dumper. I wonder of the banks and credit card companies forced this through just to garner more seond tier revenue? Can you imagine a prostitute having to carry a point of sale terminal?

Hard Tymes says:

Re: Everything is second hand

TO: CRD, Oct 20th, 2011 @ 11:57am:

I hate to tell you but cell phones already have a small tool that will accept credit card information right into the phone. Quote: “Can you imagine a prostitute having to carry a point of sale terminal?”. The idea isn’t that far from reality, ya know! And another thing that comes to mind here is the fact that this could very well be the crack in the door to the biblical anti-Christ’s microchip 666. Just imagine if this “Law” was established in every state and refined. How much buying and selling are you going to do then. ๐Ÿ™‚ Have A Nice Day!

Hard Tymes ~~ hardtymes@goatmail.com

Anonymous Coward says:

I am sure this is one of the considerations being taken up by law enforcement, not only in La but in many other states. Not to say it has been made law anywhere else but that it is under consideration.

The object with most state won’t be what it is with the pawn shops in La. The object will be to track down those stealing copper and selling it to the scrap yards. If you haven’t been tracking it on the news, ever since copper reached $3 a pound and the economy went south, there has been a rash of copper theft across the nation. It’s been the object of law enforcement to track who is getting paid to locate those likely to have been involved with copper theft.

Personally, I don’t agree. I’m gonna pay for stuff by cash or I am not going to do patronize that business. The cash you use plainly says, legal for tender. The Feds are always interested in who is trying to pass counterfeit. Crap, you can’t even pay for something with a $20 bill without half the merchants checking for counterfeit before they take the payment.

If our money is no good for payment of any sort then it’s back to barter. Good luck on taxing that.

A New Orleans Student says:

As a student... what will I do with my books?

… You know this is going to be a problem. You see, I am a student, and I have to buy books. When you sell back your books, you are paid in cash. Moreover, the second hand book stores, and the college store for that matter (both of which are for-profit businesses), have no method available for payment. They would have to set up an entire new payment system for this bill.

Also there are some thrift stores around which buy bulk from non-profits, which turn around and sell those items. They operate as for-profit but have a strict cash only policy. So I guess they would also be caught up in this law.

So yea… this might make things rather miserable for me this Christmas season. (Sorry to be so self-centered)

A New Orleans Student says:

Re: As a student... what will I do with my books?

Wow, another thought, this will kill book sales between students. I mean, no matter how you read more then once per month, it is unlike you would sell five books in one day, or to one person. And I would not trust an unknown student’s check. I mean I guess I could force them to bring a money order but what a pain… any ways. Yea just another realization.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: As a student... what will I do with my books?

> I dont see private citizens selling to private
> citizens being effected. Unless that other
> student is an undercover cop there is no way
> for you to get caught.

The problem comes from the fact that they’re turning everyone into technical criminals merely for going about their normal daily lives.

Why should you have to commit a crime– even if you probably won’t get caught– just to do something as simple as sell some old household junk?

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 First Amendment Dimensions of Secondhand Sales

In response to BTR1701 (#105, Oct 20th, 2011 @ 4:45pm), Ricky Hardy apparently has a certain reputation:

http://thehayride.com/2010/03/rickey-hardys-legislative-diarrhea/

I had never heard of the school he graduated from, so I tried to look it up:

http://www.collegeview.com/schools/southwest-paralegal-college/figures

Not exactly Harvard Law School, one thinks. Now, with reference to the bill, for which the entire body of the state legislature, not just Ricky Hardy, shares joint and several responsibility:

http://la.opengovernment.org/sessions/2011/bills/hb-195

One obviously objectionable point of Louisiana House Bill 195 is its presumption that anyone who buys used goods regularly is a used-goods dealer, and can be regulated, and/or required to get a license. That is an objective falsehood in many cases. My concern is with books, and by extension, with used book dealers. Regulating the purchase of used books has obvious first amendment issues, and rather reminds one of the antics of Governor Huey P. Long, “The Kingfish,” the notoriously corrupt and authoritarian governor of Louisiana during the 1930’s. Among other things, Long attempted to put a special tax on newspapers with a circulation greater than 20,000, that is, urban newspapers, which opposed him politically, while small rural newspapers supported him. This was struck down, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1864

One thing which emerges is that the vast majority of Louisiana legislators are “non-readers,” the kind of people who never in their lives read a book they were not compelled to read. They cannot grasp why someone should want to read a book more than once a year. Someone who reads a book every day necessarily finds ways to obtain books at a dollar or so each, and thus frequents used bookstores, browses porch sales, etc. Of course the internet has changed things a bit. But, before the internet, at least, it was simply normal for a bookworm to stop off at a used bookstore on the way home, on a more or less daily basis, the same as one might stop off at a restaurant.

Used bookstores have an important constitutional function, to serve as the antithesis of the “memory holes” in George Orwell’s _1984_. Used bookstores sell old books for cash, and keep no records of the purchaser, and it is therefore impossible to find out who has copies of a given book. Used bookstores also have a social function. Running a used bookstore is a means to live an intellectual lifestyle, without having a bunch of degrees and diplomas. A used bookstore tends to become an outpost of reason. Of course, there is a certain kind of primitive southerner who feels very threatened when people read books. Someone like that is desperately afraid that used bookstores might spread information questioning the in-errancy of the Bible. Someone who tries to ban used bookstores, under whatever pretext, is presumptively engaged in a plot to suppress freedom of expression.

In the “first amendment merchandise” area, that is, books, sound recordings, etc., most dealers find that they do not need to pay money for used goods. They can get enough used merchandise to fill their stores by offering trade credit, and this effectively insulates them against charges of receiving stolen goods.Of course, many used bookstore customers have effectively used the bookstores as de-facto lending libraries, only without the bother of worrying about due dates and library fines. It would be straightforward enough to write a general exemption for used dealers who only pay in trade credit against kindred objects. One of two things will happen. Either the Louisiana legislature will write such corrections, or they will stand confessed of attempting to suppress democratic institutions.

Part of the problem is that the new law was tacked onto pre-existing laws, from a time when consumer goods were much more expensive. Most consumer goods, being manufactured in China, have ceased to be stores of value. To take an example, people do not go shopping for clothes at a thrift store to save money over buying at Wal-Mart. They go to the thrift store to find something which makes an artistic statement about themselves. For example, an old wedding gown has little or no resale value in its original role. It may have originally have cost two thousand dollars, but it eventually gets donated to a thrift store (probably after the divorce), and is bought by a twelve-year-old girl for twenty dollars, there being no other bidder. The twelve-year-old girl uses it to play dress-up in private, not for a confirmation dress, or to wear as a flower girl, or for anything like that.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 First Amendment Dimensions of Secondhand Sales

Good post.

To take an example, people do not go shopping for clothes at a thrift store to save money over buying at Wal-Mart.

I’m not a thrift store shopper myself, but wouldn’t one motivation be to save money on clothes without getting clothing of abysmal quality?

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Clothing as Language and as Performing Art

To: nasch, #125, Oct 21st, 2011 @ 8:20am

There’s a kind of Gresham’s law which operates in respect of used goods. People keep their good stuff, and discard their junk, according to how they define good stuff and junk. You have to ask why the previous owner was willing to sell, for a fraction of what he paid in the first place. For books, the answer is simple– the previous owner has already read the book, and doesn’t want to read it again. Often, he has read the book under duress, in the course of taking classes for a degree or diploma, and feels even more strongly about the subject. When I decided to learn some Computer Science, being a mechanical engineer originally, I picked up almost all the necessary books at college-town yard sales for about two dollars each. There was only one book, a Theory of Computation text, which I had to get from a mail-order remainder house, for the comparatively astronomical sum of ten dollars. The over-riding fact was that a lot of people were being made to learn how to write an operating system, when all they wanted to be was IT managers. Not to worry, they soon forgot again.

Serviceable and comfortable clothing is different from books. It is generally easier to mend it than it is to find replacements. So people tend to wear out their favorite clothes. It is only when people use clothes as stage costume that they tend to generate large quantities of usable discards. There are certain exceptions of course. When someone dies, his clothes may get packed up and given to the Salvation Army. Most of the clothing which gets dumped into Salvation Army boxes is shipped to Africa, which is unfortunate because it displaces native traditions. At any rate, the manager of the local thrift store knows her market, and knows what can be sold locally, and what should be dumped into the shipping container out back, to be eventually hauled away to Africa. The kind of clothing that goes on the rack is likely to be the kind of clothing which the original owner could only wear once. The whole idea of fashion is to wear clothes which surprise people, and naturally, the surprise wears off on the second showing.

A thrift store’s clothing department can be operated cheaply, in large part, because it does not carry a wide range of sizes, colors, etc., and “depth of supply,” the ability to provide multiple identical items, the way a regular clothing store would. What you see is what is available, and if you want something in particular, you must come back again and again. Rather like a used book store, in fact. Now, of course you can get sturdy clothes from a mail-order uniform outfitter or workman’s outfitter at quite low prices, reflecting the fact that their inventory is all concentrated at the warehouse, and not dispersed over a thousand shops. Twenty or thirty dollars for a man’s shirt or pair of trousers is about right. You buy one to check the fit and quality, and, upon those being satisfactory, you buy nine more. Assuming you don’t work construction, those are likely to last you for years, and cost really isn’t an issue. Dickies, to name one firm, has an especially good reputation. By contrast, the ideal thrift store clothing customer is someone willing to buy something which needs additional sewing. If a garment is larger than her size, she simply opens up the seams, and takes some material out, and sews it back together again. That means that the thrift store competes with the sewing supplies store, and nothing is cheaper than fabric and patterns. The thrift store is attractive to someone who is willing to play with clothing, the way a fashion designer does (*). The great virtue of a used goods store, in general, is its serendipitousness, the quality of finding things which one would not know to ask for. A used store contains about the maximum possible variety of basic type, considering its size.

(*) Of course, the most famous fashion designers go out on the street, to find out what the young girls have made for themselves, and are wearing, and then return to the studio, to copy it, or, if you prefer, steal it. They then complain that someone else has “stolen their design.”

Anonymous psuedo-coward says:

Overreaching through stupidity

I wonder if this has to do with the scrap metal laws recently introduced. There’s been a rash of people stealing scrap, including copper wiring, and selling the scrap metal. This IS a serious problem, one of my neighbors has had thousands of dollars worth of parts stolen.. by meth-heads, and currently law enforcement has NO way to track these transactions. IIRC, there has been recent legislation requiring scrap yards and metal processors to record a TON of information in these types of transactions, in order to curtail the thefts.

My guess is that a typical politician (i.e. more style than substance) wrote an exceptionally broad law, originally intended to be involved with this PARTICULAR type of crime, and was convinced/bought by LE to make it a blank check.

br112 (profile) says:

Re: cash for secondhand items?

As a resident of Louisiana, I am not thrilled with this law. But, our legislators have come up with worse and have wasted their time arguing about tons of things instead of fixing actual problems. If you read the actual law carefully, you will see that it says that a “second-hand dealer” may not pay a person with cash to buy an item from them. So, garage sales would be exempt since you are selling your own items to another person. You would fall into this if you buy items from people to then sell in your garage sale. You would have to pay by check and record/report the transaction for what you buy to sell in your garage sale. This law mainly came about because we had a rash of A/C compressors stolen from people’s yards and the copper taken to scrap yards and sold for cash.

And I am waiting for someone to challenge this to see the outcome. And, no, I am not an attorney – just a lifelong Louisiana resident who has laughed and cried at what our Legislature spends its time and my taxdollars on! :0)

Carl A Voigtsberger says:

Traceable payments for stolden goods.

Hey Folks, unless you are a crook, you should not object to this Law. I endorse it wholeheartedly. Too long have the thieves in this world pawned or sold their illgotten items
to a unsuspecting (or not) dealer. This should put everyone on notice. You steal (or take in Hot merchandise), you go directly to Jail.
An Honest Citizen

Anonymous Coward says:

It seems to me that a lot of people posting on here don’t quite understand what the article is saying. A lot of the posters seem to think that it would be illegal for them to use cash to BUY something from a second hand dealer. That is NOT the case. The article clearly states that the dealer cannot buy second hand goods from the public for cash (presumably to prevent thieves from selling stolen property). Having said that however, I still feel that the state is WAY overstepping its authority here since only the federal government (rightly or wrongly) has the ability to determine what is legal tender and what is not.

Danola says:

This is about Bobby Jindal!

This law was to show that Governor Bobby Jindal is not a Conservative. If and/or when he runs for national office, the liberals now have something to hold against him. Jindal was stupid and showed he is not a true Conservative or he would have not signed this bill. This was a smoke screen used as an excuse to keep people from selling stolen copper from abandoned homes in New Orleans. The liberals have succeeded in setting up Jindal for future condemnation and Jindal was not smart enough to see through it.

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Re: Narrowly Crafted Legislation

To: Danola, #151, Oct 22nd, 2011 @ 3:57am

The legitimate interests represented by the bill, that is the prevention of metal theft, can be addressed by a much narrower law. One can craft language, suitably, to address the exact problem.

For example, a reasonable reporting limit might be (a) twenty-five pounds of copper, tin, zinc, lead, or their various alloys, viz brasses, bronzes, pewters, solder, etc.; (b) fifty pounds of aluminum, or alloys thereof; or (c) a hundred pounds of iron or steel. Manufactured durable objects not normatively bearing a serial number (ie. which never had a serial number), and not otherwise classified, to be treated according to their primary material, and at half of their weight. A collection of small kitchen appliances (toaster oven, blender/food processor, coffeemaker, electric can opener, etc.) would have to be two hundred pounds before it became reportable. In practice, that would work out to the small appliances from three or four households.

Appropriate regulations are to be specified for major kitchen and laundry room appliances (one set of rules for refrigerators, another set for stoves, and so). Likewise, similar regulations are to be specified for those appliances which are permanently connected to a building’s plumbing, wiring, and ventilation systems, and whose installation requires a building permit (water heaters, central air conditioners, etc). Electronic goods, not designed to be hand-portable (eg. desktop computers), which bear a serial number and a date indicating them to be at least two years old, should be treated as if they had been manufactured without a serial number. In the case of portable electronics, that is laptop computers, smartphones, and watches, the time after manufacture should be five years. This is a reasonable application of Moore’s Law. After five years, the machine is more or less completely depreciated.

Parenthetically, I have met young men who each owned a couple of dozen obsolete computers, in order to have their own private networking/cluster computing laboratories. Again, this is probably beyond the ken of the Louisiana legislature.

Leigh Anne says:

Scary

This bill is terrifying in its broad attempt to control the people. Yard Sales, selling used school books, used furniture etc can all be punishable by law all because I don’t have a debit card scanner or don’t want to accept a strangers check?????

Oh, I get it…Louisiana wants to build a used store monopoly so the 99% can’t do it….gotcha!

John says:

I think most folks are missing the point here. The Government wants to collect tax on these. Thisk about that!Cash transactions are easy and hard to track. TRUE. But this has LARGE ramifications; Antique Atores, Flea Markets, Second Hand Furniture, Estate Jewelry, Auctions, Yard Sales, etc. And you can be fined or face jail time for not using cash??

Charles says:

treasury police.

yeah, a legislator’s stupidity can be one thing, but to sign it, is illegal. there are laws against declaring cash illegal, it says right on the money “this note is for all debts, public and private”. anyhow, this law doesn’t help the cops. but a cop, isn’t gonna stare a gift horse in the mouth, and of course– some pawn shops are linked with skip tracers, which off duty cops do work doing.. then again, it’s a meg whitman-ish style conspiracy. cops that go on ebay, aren’t paid for doing it. it’s organized crime up the butt, seriously, and there should be an online auction tax, but there isnt’ one. that’s the golden calf.

no, bobby is committing treason. plain as that. he’s got an attorney general as near as bad as old florida does. I can go on for days about this one. but i am not “anonymous” when it comes to this. heck no. organized crime bs.

itzybitzysnow (profile) says:

New Cash Law

There are over 141,180 people in Lousiana unemployed.
Louisiana?s poverty rate is 19.2% ? the second highest rate in the nation, and the highest in the South. (U.S. Census Bureau). These government officials need to get there heads out of their a$$es. Most poor people use cash. The ones with jobs still cash their checks at the check cashing places. The people don’t need a new burden.

Every citizen, black, white, rich and poor, need to challenge this new law. Citizens need to go, en masse, to their nearest Salvation Army and try to buy one item with cash. They can’t arrest everyone. That law needs to be tested. The US dollar is the currency of the land.

Charles says:

someone said something...

estate sales… I could do without those. it’s part of the same cult of misfortune.

and we’re not a gang of pagan romans here. but your right, this will and should probably go into the occupy movement shortlist, but, someone we know is sitting there to do this sorta thing, legislation for agitprop.

definatly need to rip the law to pieces on this one. I don’t even want to tell you that Jindal signed this, illegal nontheless, but into law there, when he can’t feign ignorance, nor could the rest of them, when it’s time to talk about credit card machine fees, and check verification systems and so on. vendors can’t band together, under the laws of free association, and collective bargain for better fees. the associations get busted up…

Man I could go for a funnel cake! someone slap me and make me madder!

Alvin says:

Louisiana sellout!

Since 911 I have seen what our country is made up of, literally unpatriotic people back here in the states if you are only to look at the legislation that has been allowed to pass taking away our freedoms without an outcry from the general public, and suspending the rights of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution! Giving away Freedoms and Liberties all for the sake of feeling safe if you can call it that. Now goverment whether state, local , Federal are all tightening the noose on all us regular fokes struggling to get by. But still the sheep sit by and watch and do nothing. Just like TSA at airports they can literally make your day a living hell before you can fly, but at what point do the American people say no more, and actually draw a line in the sand, It is my thought, that by that time, Freedom and Liberty, and personal privacy, and private property rights, will probably be long gone. The very thing that America was always known for and loved. Gone forever because people stood silent and elected the officals that lobbyist owned news and media allowed you to pick from. I mean who shops and second hand stores that the state wants to tax them so bad in a recession, frugal people and the poor at the bottom of the food change. And the resale shop just exist they do not make a grand profit. Most are there to make money to survive. At least all the ones I know. Help the cops and homeland security their bosses, they already want you to spy on your neighbors reporting anything more or less. Guess they will want camera’s in our house in a few years so they know exactly what we do and say. Far as money goes the very worst thing that can happen is going without cash or coins, when they try to do that then you better put your foot down and be heard. Especially if you have been to lazy to do so thus far.

James (profile) says:

outlawing the use of currency

I realize that drugs and drugrelated crimes are a big problem. However this action takes away the rights of the people to conduct business. With this law you are closing all flea markets, swap meets, gun shows, coin shows and outher simalar events. Plus as stated in the artical, U S coin and currency is legal tender both public and private. This law is banning the use of legal money. This is just anouther way goverment is punishing the people for something they are not responsible to oontrol. We expect to be protected from crimals. But not at the expence of our own freedom.

Mthomas says:

No Cash Government

Wow it amazing that the government still thinks it could face one more challenge with criminals…. they have yet able to reduce unemployment, they have yet been able to cut down on crime rate, they have not been able to stop illegal drug use…. oh but wait they think they can stop cash use to control thieves, gangs, criminals, and drug dealers by having them report cash transaction. Darn who is really up in our government that really thinks this can work? …yes as someone above mentioned they need to get their head out of their asses and try to fix something much easier like our children getting a good education!!!!!

Hawkeye says:

It's about the Gold dummy...

This isn’t a move to prevent crime…its an attempt to limit the free use of Gold, Silver, and other precious metals as a means of barter. Essentially, this makes all Barter activities illegal as one would be exchanging one form of 2nd hand property for another. What they really want to eliminate is the privacy and untraceability of transactions. Money orders, checks, etc. can all be traced and taxed. When you pay for something with Gold or Cash…it cannot. Often they tout a piece of legislation as a means of combating some social ill only to use it elsewhere for more nefarious means.

Follow the money people…

Bob says:

Yes I disagree with this law but I think everyone is missing the letter of the new law.Every one should read the law as written. It appears to me to apply to all secondhand ‘buyers’ that operate as a business. “THEY” are the ones that must use something other than cash when purchasing an item from an individual. I see nowhere in this law that prevents an individual from using cash at any second hand store, garage sale, etc.

Am I wrong?!

Carrie says:

This is the wrong approach

I fail to see how this could keep people from reselling stolen goods. Do they really think someone is going to steal stuff, and then think, “oh, it’s illegal to use cash for this transaction, I’d better not do it”? This is a simple restriction in freedoms. What about garage sales? Flea markets? Not to mention the fact that using cash helps small businesses because they don’t have to deal with bounced checks and the fees charged by credit card companies- this will hurt consignment shops and thrift stores that are run for charity. This will only hurt people, and I doubt if it will stop any illegal sales.

rociano says:

the Anti Cash Movement

I only just found this debate, it’s interesting from the point of view that, I as the seller can decide how I am to be paid, as I am strictly against the use of cash I can refuse to accept it, the fact that it is legal tender is irrelevant, it’s a free country, and I can sell my goods on my own terms, which includes the method of payment.

Cash is only an IOU anyway, what’s the big deal? Without cash there’d be no misery caused by the illegal drug trafficking, no bank heists, the mob would be finished, corruption would be a lot more difficult as every transaction would leave a trail, the IRS lose $billions a year in tax fraud and false accounting as ‘respectable’ businessmen siphon greenbacks out of their businesses, close the loophole, get rid of cash, money is the root of all evil, yours truly Ciano.

Russ says:

Re:

You’re confusing “mandated” and “permitted”.

You’re now merely arguing that the BUSINESS doesn’t get its arm twisted if it CHOOSES not to accept dollars, but that isn’t what the law is about. This says if a business CHOOSES to accept dollars, those dollars would be illegal, which directly contradicts the dollar itself, claiming “LEGAL tender”.

nasch says:

Re:

You’re confusing “mandated” and “permitted”.

I’m not confusing anything. You and some others are arguing that buying something from a store involves a debt. I was pointing out that according to the US Treasury department, which is in charge of money, that is not correct.

This says if a business CHOOSES to accept dollars, those dollars would be illegal, which directly contradicts the dollar itself, claiming “LEGAL tender”.

Legal tender for debts. Which has nothing to do with this law. Go read the Treasury Dept website that I cited above and come back if you have a credible reference that contradicts it. I can’t imagine what would be more authoritative than the agency in charge of US currency, but if you post something I’ll read it.

R Sommer says:

Federal Preemption

Hey, there! I was reading your post about the law in LA (state) forcing businesses to use a paper-trail currency vs cash. I work for a metal recycling shop in St Louis, MO. A local law was passed last year forcing me to pay my customers in the form of a check in the mail for certain materials. I do realize that the local law official have put this law into effect in order to cut down the theft rate in the area and to force junkies to wait to get their fix… However, I still believe this law to be unconstitutional. I have pointed this out the the local law officers who believe I am incorrect… I have implemented the check system to show my compliance, but as a member of the We (as in, “We the people…”) I have been increasingly interested in what I, as a single person, can do to call attention to the injustice this law is will lead to. If you or your friend in the Dept of Treasury have any ideas or comments, please feel free to email me at rsommer89@live.com
I appreciate your time! Thanks and have a great day!!
R. Sommer

anon says:

This law is gonna be thrown out. Trust me.

The exact phrase on a dollar bill is:
“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”

What this means is it is a statement that this peace of paper has value as money, that is to say it has purchasing power. No you don’t have to accept cash as a business, but NO STATE GOVERNMENT CAN OVERRULE THAT STATEMENT. By the Luisiana government stating that cash can only be considered valid currency in some situations, but not in other situations, the Luisiana government is in DIRECT VIOLATION of that printed statement that can be found on any denomination of dollar bill. While it may not be printed in the official U.S.C. (United States Code) legal code anywhere, the fact that the dollar bill is government issued paper, gives the printed statement on the dollar bill force of law. Therefore Luisiana’s law is in DIRECT VIOLATION of US LAW, and I predict the US government will be hauling the Luisiana government into FEDERAL COURT over this.

nasch says:

This law is gonna be thrown out. Trust me.

The exact phrase on a dollar bill is:
“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”

What this means is it is a statement that this peace of paper has value as money, that is to say it has purchasing power.

That is not correct. The statement on the bills means exactly what it says. I posted an explanation with links to the treasury dept statement on the matter earlier.

Esteban says:

Illegal To Use Cash

Music, movies, video games etc… coincidence that you no longer own the product but rather own a license to use it? is it a coincidence that the video game industry has recently expressed interest in shutting down sales of used games by stores such as GameStop? they claim it hurts the video game industry because game developers do not make money from used games sales… well neither do manufacturers of any other good in the world but I don’t see anyone trying to make illegal the used car business.
Welcome to Louisiana, the new testing ground for a new violation or rights and liberties, because that is all it is, a testing ground, they want to see if people will put up with it and how far they can get away with it, just like they tested how people would react to democracy being taken away completely in Michigan back in March 16, 2011.

jsam says:

Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)

You realise that this (open to perception law) would include the Purchaser, say…you. to have to pay with only said payment methods, and thus your information too would be included in the police statement, as you would be purchasing junk from a seller.
This goes against any privacy act, and would be certain to kill any second hand, thrift, charity, or pawn stores.
This is a ridiculous law.

Jim says:

Re:

I read that this bill exempts pawnbrokers. So I don’t really see how it’s supposed to help law enforcement. Running a garage sale or flea market or roadside veggie stand will be impossible by accepting bankcards or money orders.

Just the method in which these and other excerpts of the bill are worded makes me think that no one has clearly thought this through. Yet they passed it…..

This Is My Display Name says:

Re:

“Businesses are required to deal in US currency, but the *form* of that currency is up to them. They can specificy cash only, credit card only, check only, etc., so long as they accept US dollars. They just can’t require Euros only, for example.”

What? Of course they can.

There is absolutely no law at the Federal level that requires that businesses accept US currency. If you want to open a business that will only sell goods in exchange for Cocoa Puffs, you’re perfectly free to.

The reason companies don’t do that isn’t a matter of law, but, rather, one of intelligence. Businesses exist to make a profit. The average customers in the US carry US currency, not Euros, Pounds, Gold bullion, or Cocoa Puffs. So, in order to sell products to them, that’s what you need to accept. Otherwise, they’ll walk out the door and you’ll go out of business.

Stupid, but still perfectly legal.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...