law bans cash transactions for secondhand goods.

[waggy]

well. the OP is not being 100% honest.

http://consumerist.com/2011/10/louisiana-outlaws-cash-for-trading-used-goods-more-than-once-a-month.html

In order to combat the rising threat of metal theft, Louisiana passed a law that prohibits anyone who trades used property more than once a month from conducting that transaction in cash. This should cut down on metal vultures stripping down the infrastructure to turn it into money for their drug habit. However, this also means you can't really hold a garage sale more than once every 30 days without some burdensome restrictions.

The law excludes non-profits and pawn shops. But flea markets, trading posts, and even the mom who wants to have more than one garage sale a month are caught up in the crossfire too. The new law will now require them to keep detailed records of every transaction, only accept personal check, money order, or electronic transfer, and log their customers' ID's.

"The government is placing a significant restriction on individuals transacting in their own private property," local lawyer Thad D. Ackel, Jr. Esq told KLFY. "Lawmakers in Louisiana have effectively banned its citizens from freely using United States legal tender," he added in an online article.

Pawnshops have had to keep detailed records for a long time, but under the new law they will still be allowed to transact in cash.

The law passed both houses with only one nay vote.




So you can still use cash. but only once a month. EVEN then many places are except from it. This is just a stupid way to try to combat theft (won't work). I also suspect after all the backlash (really garage sales?) it will get dumped (though most likely wrong on that happening)

 

[Zenmervolt]

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

Technically, when you receive a good or service, you instantaneously owe a "debt" to the merchant. When you pay for groceries, you're paying a "debt" in the financial and legal sense. On that aspect, your analysis breaks down.

The reason that businesses (acting on an individual level) can refuse to accept cash or coins has to do with freedom of contract and their ability to choose the terms of a transaction. You can't "force" a business to sell something they don't want to sell and the business is free to establish what the terms of a sale will be (barring certain prohibited discriminatory practices).

However, that is not analogous to a state flatly denying businesses the ability to accept cash if the business chooses to do so. In the case of an individual business refusing cash, it's a permitted action under freedom of contract and does not in any way involve the business denying the currency's status as legal tender. In the case of the state prohibiting the use of cash, the state is effectively stating that the currency is not legal tender and such an action by a state is preempted by 31 U.S.C. 5103. See sjwaste's comments.

It's a stretch but there's also the potential for a 14th Amendment due process claim on the basis that the state law unduely restricts business' and consumers' freedom to contract, though I think that the preemption argument is substantially stronger (and since courts hate dealing with constitutional questions if it's at all possible to avoid them, I doubt a court would reach anything beyond the preemption claim).

ZV

 

[woolfe9999]

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

Under what theory would such a state law be unconstitutional? I agree it's a bad law, even a terrible one, but I'm not seeing the illegality of it.

 

[Wreckem]

Technically, when you receive a good or service, you instantaneously owe a "debt" to the merchant. When you pay for groceries, you're paying a "debt" in the financial and legal sense. On that aspect, your analysis breaks down.

The reason that businesses (acting on an individual level) can refuse to accept cash or coins has to do with freedom of contract and their ability to choose the terms of a transaction. You can't "force" a business to sell something they don't want to sell and the business is free to establish what the terms of a sale will be (barring certain prohibited discriminatory practices).

However, that is not analogous to a state flatly denying businesses the ability to accept cash if the business chooses to do so. In the case of an individual business refusing cash, it's a permitted action under freedom of contract and does not in any way involve the business denying the currency's status as legal tender. In the case of the state prohibiting the use of cash, the state is effectively stating that the currency is not legal tender and such an action by a state is preempted by 31 U.S.C. 5103. See sjwaste's comments.

It's a stretch but there's also the potential for a 14th Amendment due process claim on the basis that the state law unduely restricts business' and consumers' freedom to contract, though I think that the preemption argument is substantially stronger (and since courts hate dealing with constitutional questions if it's at all possible to avoid them, I doubt a court would reach anything beyond the preemption claim).


ZV

Again, the LA law does NOT say cash is NOT a legal tender. Legal tender status only APPLIES to debt to creditors. Business transactions, are NOT considered debts, unless they are actually a debt, and no, buying something at point of sale is not instantaneously a debt, at least not under federal/treasury interpretations of the current law.

Again, the current interpertation by the feds/treasury is 31 USC 5103, Legal tender status, ONLY APPLIES TO DEBTS. Not transactions. They themselves make this distinction. Debts and transactions are not the same thing under 31 USC 5103.

And if there is a constitutional issue, all they will do is just narrowly tailor it and they probably should anyways. They should have tailored the law to recyclers, and buyers/sellers of metal, scrap metal, etc. Second hand sellers may be to broad.

Either that or they will just scrap it and require every second hand seller to maintain the paperwork pawns shops must maintain. There is no question that would be legal. There is also no question that doing so would create an even bigger burden on businesses.

 

[sactoking]

Federal law only requires that transactions be denominated in dollars; it does not require that Federal Reserve notes be accepted anywhere.

 

[gevorg]

Just another freedom that we'll give up in the name of war on theft, terrorism, child porn, etc.

 

[Jaskalas]

Nice to see Republicans staying true to their small government rhetoric

Fascists cloak themselves in both parties. Nothing conservative about this.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Selectively.

Any business that this law would effect better start donating to their local sheriff.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your number tattoo is next. Be afraid.


Doesn't look like it's passed the senate. Bet it's d.o.a.

I'm not really that afraid. I don't cheat and if nobody else could I would pay far less in taxes.`I want the gov to collect every dime in taxes owed via electronic money. Privacy that equals anonymity equals crime.

 

[waggy]

Privacy that equals anonymity equals crime.

whaa? that's insane.

I pay my taxes. i don't cheat any system. BUT i also want my privacy.

 

[Darwin333]

Again, the LA law does NOT say cash is NOT a legal tender. Legal tender status only APPLIES to debt to creditors. Business transactions, are NOT considered debts, unless they are actually a debt, and no, buying something at point of sale is not instantaneously a debt, at least not under federal/treasury interpretations of the current law.

Again, the current interpertation by the feds/treasury is 31 USC 5103, Legal tender status, ONLY APPLIES TO DEBTS. Not transactions. They themselves make this distinction. Debts and transactions are not the same thing under 31 USC 5103.

And if there is a constitutional issue, all they will do is just narrowly tailor it and they probably should anyways. They should have tailored the law to recyclers, and buyers/sellers of metal, scrap metal, etc. Second hand sellers may be to broad.

The sad part is that every purchaser of scrap metal around here that I have done business with requires a copy of your ID and pays with a check. They have, imo, done a very good job of voluntarily working with LEO to crack down on people selling stolen goods.

Off topic a bit, the scrap metal I sell is drop off from our sheet metal shop. The fact that it is drop off means that it has never been used so technically I could sell the scrap yard my copper and this law wouldn't apply, correct? I personally like the paper trail since it is a business transaction, just curious.

 

[crownjules]

I get the intention behind what they're trying to do, but they really did not think this one through. Both from a constitutionality standpoint or the impact it would have on the people and businesses of the state.

 

[Moonbeam]

whaa? that's insane.

I pay my taxes. i don't cheat any system. BUT i also want my privacy.

So does the Mafia which can exist only because of it. Get used to not having privacy, it's a luxury of the past. We could set it up where you voluntarily inform the government you are exchanging money for something with a death penalty if you try to hide and get caught.

 

[JS80]

lol guess the party of Rickey Hardy

 

[SilthDraeth]

Awesome... does this mean hookers are now required to accept mastercard?

Sorry, but LOL.

 

[highland145]

I'm not really that afraid. I don't cheat and if nobody else could I would pay far less in taxes.`I want the gov to collect every dime in taxes owed via electronic money. Privacy that equals anonymity equals crime.

Moon, the bolded, 100%.

 

[Darwin333]

I get the intention behind what they're trying to do, but they really did not think this one through. Both from a constitutionality standpoint or the impact it would have on the people and businesses of the state.

Even if this law worked as intended and made it drastically harder to steal and sell metal (it won't) they are really late to the party. The bulk of the thefts took place during the rebuilding phase after Katrina. I knew people in certain areas that got together and hired off duty police to patrol their houses at night because of the rampant theft. One guy had his AC compressor stolen 3 times! Another guy had the copper pipes for his plumbing stolen so he set up cameras, when they came back the 2nd time they stole his pipes and his cameras.

Of course it was much easier back then because the neighborhoods were deserted and it was very easy for the criminals to find targets.

 

[Genx87]

I bet if we look deep enough we will see a few pawn shop owners who donated to certain legislative reps that basically erased their competition. They just created a nice barrier of entry in the used market.

 

[airdata]

So, should I grab my tin foil hat? or not?

Somebody please explain a logical, non NWO cashless society way to explain this.

 

[herm0016]

Sue them for discrimination on lower class citizens. This puts a huge burden on those without credit.

 

[Jhhnn]

The sad part is that every purchaser of scrap metal around here that I have done business with requires a copy of your ID and pays with a check. They have, imo, done a very good job of voluntarily working with LEO to crack down on people selling stolen goods.

Off topic a bit, the scrap metal I sell is drop off from our sheet metal shop. The fact that it is drop off means that it has never been used so technically I could sell the scrap yard my copper and this law wouldn't apply, correct? I personally like the paper trail since it is a business transaction, just curious.

This. Denver area scrap dealers also pay by check, themselves. It protects them against any charges of wrongdoing, and also against armed robbery. They have no cash on the premises.

 

[DrPizza]

Some of the states seem to be combating the theft of scrap metal just fine. Could Louisianna copy what those states are doing? Nope. They decided to just craft their own idiotic policies that really won't fix the problem.

 

[sjwaste]

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.

Forcing businesses to accept cash as a state matter is distinctly different than the states forbidding businesses from accepting cash for the same transactions.

I see First and Fourth amendment issues with this, and I think a constitutional attorney is going to throw in a claim under the Fifth (but I think that's the weakest).

LA is enacting this law for the express purpose of being able to track transactions. It's not just stolen copper, now we're into the territory of used books and other media. Yes, there's no express Constitutional right to privacy, but there are some fundamentals that arise out of the First Amendment (speech) and Fourth (unreasonable search).

I don't think this law is drawn up narrowly enough to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Again, the LA law does NOT say cash is NOT a legal tender.

For all intents and purposes, yes it does. It's specifying that cash is not legal tender in specific situations. If you are prohibited by law from tendering cash, then cash isn't legal tender.

Legal tender status only APPLIES to debt to creditors. Business transactions, are NOT considered debts, unless they are actually a debt, and no, buying something at point of sale is not instantaneously a debt, at least not under federal/treasury interpretations of the current law.

Doesn't matter. 35 U.S.C. 5103 covers more than just 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. (emphasis added)

Even if one accepts your definition of debt, your reading still fails because 35 U.S.C. 5103 covers charges as well.

Preemption is going to hit here.

ZV

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by coldmeat
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.

It does not new goods only on the money.

So is the wording for "all debts" going to be changed?