law bans cash transactions for secondhand goods.

[Jaepheth]

law isn't legal, and should be smacked down first time it comes up in court

 

[JTsyo]

So basically any cash deposit means you're breaking the law. Either you're getting paid in cash, or you sold something for cash.

Nope, you can sell new things for cash.

 

[spidey07]

Legislators can pass any law they want. It's then up to the courts to establish constitutionality.

True. But even thinking it's a good idea is what is worrisome. The common sense bells should have been ringing in all their ears saying "this is terrible, this idea".

 

[Zenmervolt]

I doubt this law would withstand scrutiny in federal court as it seems to be preempted by 31 U.S.C. 5103 which establishes that US Currency is legal tender for any transaction.

Yes, businesses are free to individually contract for non-cash payment, but that's not the same as a state issuing a blanket law. In the former case, a business is recognizing cash as legal tender, but refusing to accept it because they prefer payment in another form. In the latter case, the state is attempting to say that cash is not legal tender for certain subsets of transactions which runs counter to federal law.

I think that the first person to challenge this law will likely win.

 

[rudder]

The problem with laws like this is they can pass without being challenged. Likely a court would overturn this law... but it would take someone who is willing to spend some money going through the state court system.

 

[Pheran]

Guidry says, "I think everyone in this business once they find out about it. They're will definitely be a lot of uproar."

This law is idiotic. Sadly, the author of this article seems to be in the same boat.

 

[Wreckem]

looks like 'legal tender for all debts public and private' is a load of bullshit now

The key word their is debt. Its long been held businesses can refuse to take cash or coin.

 

[Thump553]

If we had the costs of defending obviously unconstitutional laws deducted from legislators' pay rather than being paid by the taxpayers we'd have a lot less stupid laws like this one.

Unfortunately the real victims here are small business, as they either have to buckle under or pay the costs to fight this horrible law-costs that they won't recover back from anyone.

 

[CPA]

Nice to see Republicans staying true to their small government rhetoric

Yeah, except Rickey Hardy is a Democrat.

 

[Fayd]

How can passing this law be legal? That's what I want to know.

any court will immediately throw it out.

 

[Wreckem]

I doubt this law would withstand scrutiny in federal court as it seems to be preempted by 31 U.S.C. 5103 which establishes that US Currency is legal tender for any transaction.

Yes, businesses are free to individually contract for non-cash payment, but that's not the same as a state issuing a blanket law. In the former case, a business is recognizing cash as legal tender, but refusing to accept it because they prefer payment in another form. In the latter case, the state is attempting to say that cash is not legal tender for certain subsets of transactions which runs counter to federal law.

I think that the first person to challenge this law will likely win.

No, 31 USC 5103, does NOT say US currency is legal tender for any transaction.

Yanked from treasury.gov

Legal Tender Status

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "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."

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. 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. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Bottom line is, LA isn't technically breaking any constitutional law or federal statutory law. Is the law stupid and misguided? Yeah. Is it illegal. No.

 

[Gooberlx2]

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.

Makes no sense at all. Of all the businesses likely to inadvertently transact stolen goods, despite maintaining records, pawn shops are exempt. The entire thing is retarded, but this especially so since it defeats the whole purpose.

 

[Wreckem]

Makes no sense at all. Of all the businesses likely to inadvertently transact stolen goods, despite maintaining records, pawn shops are exempt. The entire thing is retarded, but this especially so since it defeats the whole purpose.

Pawn Shops are required to document every transaction, including the address phone number and PHOTO ID of the person selling to them. Yes stolen goods a hocked at pawn shops all the time but there is a paper trail and evidence of who sold it to the pawn shop. Thats probably why they are exempted. I am sure LA thought about requiring all second hand sellers do the same, but that would probably cost the businesses even more money.

 

[Lithium381]

but those are the rights of businesses to accept not accept cash. . . . not a states' right.

 

[preslove]

Yeah, except Rickey Hardy is a Democrat.

The Louisiana House and Senate have Republican majorities. Hardy is one of 15 sponsors of the bill, 9 of which are Republicans.

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

 

[Eli]

Cashless society in 3, 2, 1...

That'll stop the criminals!

 

[lxskllr]

The Louisiana House and Senate have Republican majorities. Hardy is one of 15 sponsors of the bill, 9 of which are Republicans.

Virtually 50:50. Good old bipartisan stupidity, and working together for a common cause. Namely subjugating the population, and striving towards the totalitarian state they all desire.

 

[bradley]

Nice to see Republicans staying true to their small government rhetoric

Nice to see Americans staying true to their polarizing false left-right dichotomy.

 

[sjwaste]

No, 31 USC 5103, does NOT say US currency is legal tender for any transaction.

Yanked from treasury.gov

Legal Tender Status

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "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."

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. 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. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Bottom line is, LA isn't technically breaking any constitutional law or federal statutory law. Is the law stupid and misguided? Yeah. Is it illegal. No.

No, Zenmervolt is likely correct. No one is arguing that businesses must take cash. What he said was that the state government is restricting the opposite - that businesses shall not accept cash for second hand goods. There's a difference between when a business says cash is no good here and when the government tells a business cash is no good here.

There's also probably a constitutional claim under the First Amendment as well.

 

[Wreckem]

No, Zenmervolt is likely correct. No one is arguing that businesses must take cash. What he said was that the state government is restricting the opposite - that businesses shall not accept cash for second hand goods. There's a difference between when a business says cash is no good here and when the government tells a business cash is no good here.

There's also probably a constitutional claim under the First Amendment as well.

Federal law says nothing about transactions, only about debt payments to creditors. Theres nothing on the books that says a state cannot regulate cash transactions. In fact its is quite the opposite, the feds leave it up to the state on whether or not to force businesses to accept cash for transactions. Federal law says nothing about the issue at hand. And without a federal law, there is no invoking the supremacy clause.

 

[Paratus]

I am fine with this if politicians are considered "second hand" merchandise and any transaction where they are bought must leave a paper trail.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I'd guess the ACLU would take something like this on because it screams the question of constitutionality. It's also almost certain to have a hugely lopsided effect on poorer demographics.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

they can argue pretty easily that they do business across state lines and the states laws do not apply to interstate commerce or soemthing like that?

 

[Wreckem]

they can argue pretty easily that they do business across state lines and the states laws do not apply to interstate commerce or soemthing like that?

Just because they do sales outside the state, doesn't mean they are exempted from state laws. Sales and buys conducted instate would be regulated by the state laws. In interstate commerce, the laws may still apply depending of factual circumstances.

 

[xBiffx]

I would be shocked, shocked I tell you to find out this has more to due with being able to tax all transactions and less with keeping criminals at bay. Also, how do you enforce this? An unenforceable law is a worthless law.