The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 20, 2011, 08:36 PM   #26
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcase
What happens if the business doesn't maintain the record or doesn't produce it upon demand? The law states that failure to do so is prima facie evidence that the person who received the material knew that it was stolen.
I doubt that part would hold up if tested, either. Suppose I bring in a family heirloom and sell it to a pawn shop or thrift store or something of that nature, and the store subsequently sells it for cash. Store owner gets arrested. He's been a friend for 50 years, which is why I sold it to him rather than the guy across town. His lawyer puts me on the witness stand, where I testify as to the origin and authenticity of the item. "Stolen? Hawgwarsh. Thet thar thang has been in my fambly fer two hunnert 'n fifty yars. T'wasn't stolen, no how no way."

So how can a law declaring something "prima facie" evidence of a crime alter facts? How can a law invent a theft that never occurred?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 20, 2011, 08:57 PM   #27
RLWII
Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Location: Alabama
Posts: 91
From what I heard today on a New Orleans station, the law was originally intended to adress the problem of stolen metals being sold to junk dealers for cash. Something similar has been proposed in the recent past here in Mobile, Al. The idea being that anyone buying junk metal would have to pay the seller by check and records kept.
RLWII is offline  
Old October 20, 2011, 08:57 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,729
Some interesting questions are being discussed, but PLEASE leave off ALL political comentatry, or this thread WILL be closed.

Discussion of candidates, who would be better, vote for XXXX, etc. are prohibited here. Those are politics. Discussions of law, civil rights, and such matters may briefly (briefly!) touch on politics because they are tangential to the discussion, but mentioning candidates, or parties and their stances as the main content of a post will not be condoned.

We've been there, done that, and know where it leads. And we are not going there again.

PLEASE read the sticky about what is to be discussed in L & CR, and stick to it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 20, 2011, 09:53 PM   #29
RamItOne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 983
Lol thought it was interesting seeing a staffer getting into some political debates.

As for the OP, times are tough in this recession depression or what have you so I'm sure we will be seeing some new tactics by the gvt local state and fed to get more money in taxes. Dont even want to get into the VAT. I hope this measure by the fine people of LA will get squashed pretty quickly. I live in a tourist state, waiting for them to add a tourist tax and have to present my DL anytime i buy something to avoid an extra tax.

I don't think this is a direct affront to the 2A, but more of a way to collect more in taxes.
RamItOne is offline  
Old October 25, 2011, 02:09 PM   #30
CountryHombre
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2011
Location: MO
Posts: 5
I recently moved near a big city. The other day I ran a red light and was spotted by a traffic camera. The ticket came in the mail. I took the $100 to the City Hall/Police Station. They do not accept cash; they only accept money orders or checks and they HAVE to be mailed. Or you can pay online by card, but they charge you an extra $4.

If they are going to force me to pay a fine for running a red light, do they have the right to refuse cash and make me mail in a check or money order or pay online with an extra $4?

From my understanding of the U.S. code, they do not have that right.


On a happier note, I shot skeet for the first time yesterday and loved it!
CountryHombre is offline  
Old October 25, 2011, 02:19 PM   #31
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
I would tell the police dept. that I pay all fines in us currency... My bank account transactions are reserved for actual, factual, agreed upon debt... Robbers do not get a check! Robbers do not get access to the brown swipey thingy on the back of my credit cards either...

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old October 25, 2011, 02:24 PM   #32
CountryHombre
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2011
Location: MO
Posts: 5
I was told

A) pay how they want

B) get a lawyer

C) wait for my warrant

I picked A.

If it happens again, I'm picking B.
CountryHombre is offline  
Old October 25, 2011, 09:20 PM   #33
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,242
Micro,

Actually, you're the one who's engaging in semantics that are really outside of this discussion.

A civil court action has no bearing on this discussion.

The reason any damages are fixed in US currency is because it's a standard, understood, recognized and generally accepted medium of exchange.

But, you're missing the point that the court is not saying "you MUST accept this settlement in US currency," it is saying "the court has determined that you are entitled to relief for cause in the sum of X dollars US currency."

But, no where in the court's judgement does it say that the winning party MUST accept printed money.

A check is not printed money, nor is a credit card, and judgments are often paid via that method with no US issued cash ever changing hands.

But there are also many court cases that end with the winning party being granted tangible property in lieu of cash, so your argument really doesn't hold water.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old October 27, 2011, 11:26 PM   #34
Micropterus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 29, 2009
Location: Newport News, Virginia
Posts: 306
First, my post clearly stated "Notwithstanding a dispute over the ownership of property..." Your final sentence was unnecessary and simply restates my own assertion.

Second, you stated there "NO law requires that US currency be accepted by either any governmental or private entity." "Currency" is not just cash. "Currency" is simply a medium of exchange by which individuals can transfer "value." Currency, in modern parlance, can be cash. But it can also be checks, debit cards, wire transactions, gold bars, etc. For instance, a check for $10 is just as valid a form of "currency" as a $10 dollar bill.

If you intended to say, "NO law requires that CASH be accepted by either any governmental or private entity," you would be correct. Otherwise, your statement is wrong. Debt (and fees and whatnot are debt) is ALWAYS denominated in currency. And in the US, it will be denominated in US currency.

And forgive my "example" wherein I referred to the denomination of debt in civil court cases. It was, after all, an example in this thread that went off on a tangent early on, perpetuated, in part, by yourself.
__________________
Regards,
Rowland
Micropterus is offline  
Old October 28, 2011, 11:41 AM   #35
TATER
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 942
Cash Is being used and transferred by Proxy.
TATER is offline  
Old October 28, 2011, 01:39 PM   #36
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,158
As far as I can tell, this law does not say, "X, Y, and Z kinds of merchants are required to accept cash." What it says is, "X, Y, and Z kinds of merchants are prohibited from accepting cash." Now, I've been known to split a few hairs before, and some of you may think that I'm doing so again, but the issue is not whether a business or private entity is required to accept cash. The issue is whether the business or p.e. can be prohibited from accepting cash.

Now, if there were a federal statute that required all businesses to accept cash (which I don't believe there is), then we'd have an argument over whether a State could countermand a federal statute. It cannot. In the absence of such a statute, we're simply left with the question of whether the State (or a county, or a municipality) can dictate the manner of payment which a merchant is allowed to accept. I haven't researched every state, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that my hunch is that every single state has statutes on acceptable and unacceptable business practices. However, I've never seen one that dictates how payment may be made.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old October 28, 2011, 02:07 PM   #37
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
As far as I can tell, this law does not say, "X, Y, and Z kinds of merchants are required to accept cash." What it says is, "X, Y, and Z kinds of merchants are prohibited from accepting cash." Now, I've been known to split a few hairs before, and some of you may think that I'm doing so again, but the issue is not whether a business or private entity is required to accept cash. The issue is whether the business or p.e. can be prohibited from accepting cash.
A merchant's price is an offer to sell at the stated price. Although we ordinarily don't go through the following steps, and simply assume them, a customer has to accept that price, creating a debt, and offer to pay.

To "tender" is to offer. The Coinage Act states that currency is "...legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues" means that is a legal offer to satisfy any of those debts." In other words, currency is always a legal offer of payment in satisfaction of all debts.

While federal law will not always control over state law, in a matter genuinely involved in interstate commerce, it will legitimately control over state law. A state law that says US currency is not legal tender or "offer" to pay a debt, it should be pre-empted by the Coinage Act.

Last edited by zukiphile; October 29, 2011 at 05:47 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09366 seconds with 9 queries