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).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cash, louisiana, money, privacy, secondhand sales, transactions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: DandonTRJ on Oct 20th, 2011 @ 9:23am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Oct 20th, 2011 @ 9:23am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DandonTRJ
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, the police want to make sure that every single citizen is always doing something illegal at all times, so that they always have probable cause. Welcome to the police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also; honestly, the licencing keys and serial information on the exposed faces of portable products is ludicrous; behind a protected face /is/ where that information belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right, I thought that was clear.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Louisiana and law..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't cash good for all debts public and private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't cash good for all debts public and private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't cash good for all debts public and private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't cash good for all debts public and private?
doesn't get around the anonymity thing, but does allow you to pay cash. in theory, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't cash good for all debts public and private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you don't borrow money from the grocery store to get your groceries and then immediately pay it back. That just isn't what happens. It's an exchange of money for goods, not a loan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Language
Chances are that both deviate from "common perception".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Me: I have this used car. Tell you what, you can have it, but then you're in debt to me for $5k. The agreement for the debt is to pay before you leave with the car.
Other Person: Here's your debt payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't, not in the context of the legal tender aspect of US currency.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/17424316421/louisiana-makes-it-illegal-to-use -cash-secondhand-sales.shtml#c1258
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But only one they have the car back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
.http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/legal-tender.aspx
but if you have a cite for your position post it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Renting a car
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You got it backwards...
"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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You got it backwards...
I reserve the right to go about my daily life without every single transaction being monitored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "no cash" allowed in LA
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "no cash" allowed in LA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "no cash" allowed in LA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "no cash" allowed in LA
Not sure but the actual subject-related point had not been made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only thing this accomplishes is to devalue and diminish the certainty of cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yard sales and thrift stores...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)
> 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? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)
Therefore we should strive to maintain our government as a police state in order to make police work easier.
Fixed for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are freetards against helping law enforcement? :-)
Ask the IRS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Craigslist?
If not, anyone trying to get rid of junk in the for sale section just became a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Craigslist?
Yard sales would also seem to qualify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Craigslist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Craigslist?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Craigslist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you know the article he links to.
Oh wait he used the a similar line of thought as your article, you know the line of thought most of us had upon reading the title...
You can do better trollbot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because certainly no two people in this world could have thought the same thought on the same subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1& q=louisiana+cash
The state of trolling today is very telling of our education system...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He got his story from klfy.com
They published the story Oct 18.
Your provided link was published Oct 19, in fact, probably after the story was available here for crystal ball users, (how far ahead is the time window on that, guys?)
I'm calling bullshit, you slimy weasel-fucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
@Mike: We need some new CwF+RtB offerings. My Techdirt Crystal Ball Expires in 83 days! I guess I could just renew that, but we want "Looooooots of T-Shirts". :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I thought it was much longer than that.
Also, I could've read that myself, if I'd thought about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I learn something new from trolls every day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I may have jumped the gun on this one. My apologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But since that admission means you aren't one of our usual trolls, I'll take back my "slimy weasel fucker" comment :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: volekh
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read William Gibson!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read William Gibson!
We are there now. Welcome to 1984.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional
I give it less than a century before all paper currency is outlawed, and every single transaction can be tracked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe this bill was written by someone hoping to get people to use gold instead of cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cashless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm ready
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm ready
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm ready
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cashless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal Preemption
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal Preemption
I appreciate your time! Thanks and have a great day!!
R. Sommer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Federal Preemption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rambling Poster & Party Affiliation
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rambling Poster & Party Affiliation
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear garage sale, please put this on hold...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No checking accounts
Is the state also making Cheque accounts a right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Florida already did this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything is second hand
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything is second hand
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. :) Have A Nice Day!
Hard Tymes ~~ hardtymes@goatmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a student... what will I do with my books?
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a student... what will I do with my books?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As a student... what will I do with my books?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As a student... what will I do with my books?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As a student... what will I do with my books?
> 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Amendment Dimensions of Secondhand Sales
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment Dimensions of Secondhand Sales
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clothing as Language and as Performing Art
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overreaching through stupidity
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:looks for a bag to put over my head
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cash for secondhand items?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cash for secondhand items?
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next stop
Will all kinds of electronic cashes available, it's only unknown "when" they'll attempt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A future leap for the NWO
"cash will indeed be outlawed all over the world someday, this is just a start"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Louisiana outlaws cash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traceable payments for stolden goods.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are these people making these laws really qualified to be in these offices?
It would seem not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark
Ok, yeah - I'm a holy roller :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This Note is Leagle Tender for all debts public and private"
So LA is going against the failed montary system!
so the 20.00 note is not good in LA for private debt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Cash Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Cash Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is about Bobby Jindal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Narrowly Crafted Legislation
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scary
Oh, I get it...Louisiana wants to build a used store monopoly so the 99% can't do it....gotcha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
treasury police.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: treasury police.
I guess if this law declared cash illegal that would be relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Cash Law
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
someone said something...
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clarification...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxes?
Maybe LA needs more money. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Louisiana sellout!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
outlawing the use of currency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Cash Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about the Gold dummy...
Follow the money people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I wrong?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the wrong approach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOUISIANA SECONDHAND SALES LAW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Louisiana Second Hand Sales Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the Anti Cash Movement
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cash Is Outlawed?
sig heil comrades..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This law is gonna be thrown out. Trust me.
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This law is gonna be thrown out. Trust me.
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal To Use Cash
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about Gun Sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money is a note
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no cash law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want more Socialism? Keep voting DEMOCRAT, stupid!
Want more Socialism? Keep voting DEMOCRAT, stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]