Louisiana Law: No cash sales for used stuff

[Hardcase]

Apparently in the name of "making it easier for the police", nearly all second hand sales in Louisiana must now be tendered in a traceable form of currency - a check, money order or electronic transfer.

http://www.klfy.com/story/15717759/s...and-dealer-law

Now, I get the rationale - stuff gets stolen and sold for cash, then it gets really hard to track down. But seriously...banning cash as a valid currency for the sales of used items? It's as if a Constitutional attorney sat down with the legislature and told them that he really needed an easy case so that he could make a bunch of money.

If my mind was capable of it, it would be boggled right now. But this just sort of seems to be becoming the norm in legislative lunacy.

[Spats McGee]

Let me get this straight: Louisiana now has a state law that prohibits me from using my federally-minted cash (which, IIRC, states that it is "legal tender for all debts, public and private") to buy used items?!?

Wow.

[Don H]

The Treasury on legal tender:

Legal Tender Status

Page Content
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.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

It seems to me that if a business can opt to not accept currency as payment for goods or services, a government entity could possibly legally mandate whether cash is acceptable in some usages. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes down in the courts. It does seem to be an unwarranted intrusion into business practices, however.

[Mike38]

They are telling you that it’s to help prevent sales of stolen items. I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut the real reason is to be able to tax the income of the sale.

[Spats McGee]

But that's a little bit of apples-n-oranges. It's one thing for a private entity to decide that it only wants to be paid in cash, or by credit card, or what have you. It's a different ballgame when a government entity comes in and prohibits the business from accepting what is otherwise perfectly legal tender.

Edited to add: Cross-posted. I'm referring to Don H's post.

[RamItOne]

Remember what loserana did after Katrina with confiscating weapons of private citizens while in their own homes.

[hermannr]

Actually, US currency is to be accepted for any debt, public OR PRIVATE. I do not believe it is legal to require someother form of payment.

I think this law will end up in court. (and the state will loose)

[shootniron]

How will they ever be able to enforce this law?

[Stressfire]

How will they ever be able to enforce this law?

Pretty much what I'm wondering, as cash really leaves no paper trail.

Likely some government oversight, like requiring dealers in 2nd hand merchandise to submit receipts for all sales and have a bean counter do the math & compare to taxes.

So does that include thrift stores? I doubt many people who frequent Goodwill & Salvation Army have a checking account, much less a major credit card.

How about TJ Maxx? Marshall's? Gabriel Brothers? They all deal in 2nd hand goods.

[Spats McGee]

And then we get to the more on-topic issues:

• Gun shows
• Private sales of used guns

What about those? If I sell a gun, am I "dealing in used goods," so as to subject myself to that law?

[secret_agent_man]

The entrance to the Louisiana State Capitol Building in Baton Rouge says it all:

[ripnbst]

VOTE RON PAUL! He is a strong 2A supporter and would without a doubt declare garbage like this unconstitutional.

[Mike Irwin]

"US currency is to be accepted for any debt, public OR PRIVATE."

Incorrect.

NO law requires that US currency be accepted by either any governmental or private entity.

Don H went to the trouble of posting the applicable information, which came straight from the US Treasury.

Please read it.


Lousiana's law is interesting. It seems to tread into territory reserved for the Federal government. I suspect that if it's challenged, it may well fall.


Oh, and fellows?

If ALL you have to offer is some childishly derisive term for Louisiana (Banana Republic, loserana, etc.) keep your thought to yourself, please.

[Mike Irwin]

"VOTE RON PAUL! He is a strong 2A supporter and would without a doubt declare garbage like this unconstitutional."

Uhm... I may be wrong, but I certainly don't think that I am, but I don't believe it's within the president's power to declare anything like this unconstitutional.

That's a matter for the courts to decide.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by hermannr

Actually, US currency is to be accepted for any debt, public OR PRIVATE. I do not believe it is legal to require someother form of payment.

Mike Irwin="US currency is to be accepted for any debt, public OR PRIVATE."

Incorrect.

NO law requires that US currency be accepted by either any governmental or private entity.

To my mind, the question is not whether any entity is required by law to accept US currency. That's not what I see here. Quite the opposite: the question is whether any governmental can prohibit a certain class of persons or entities from using it in their transactions.

[Mike Irwin]

I addressed that aspect, Spats. Read my entire message, please.

Hermannr is, however, incorrect in his assertion that US currency "is to be accepted."

There is no law that requires any individual, governmental, or business entity to accept printed or coined money.

None.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Let me get this straight: Louisiana now has a state law that prohibits me from using my federally-minted cash (which, IIRC, states that it is "legal tender for all debts, public and private") to buy used items?!?

Wow.

That was my immediate thought, too. I seriously doubt such a law could possibly stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. First, used or not, unless the item or items were made entirely in Louisiana, they are part of interstate commerce and state laws can't interfere with interstate commerce. Secondly, the money itself came from out of state ... which again suggests that (Federal) interstate commerce laws probably apply.

[Crazy88Fingers]

VOTE RON PAUL! He is a strong 2A supporter and would without a doubt declare garbage like this unconstitutional.

I'm voting for him anyway, but I don't think this is a 2nd amendment issue.

[Slugthrower]

The little pieces of paper like cloth that we accept as money aka cash are nothing but. Cash being short for a cashier's note would be redeemable for something. Pray tell what it is that you are able to redeem them for? Nothing... other than goods or services and those are often not worth the exchange these days.

These Notes that are legal tender for debts , both public and private are nothing but a receipt of debt or an I.O.U.

They are merely recognized as a legitimate means with which to exchange debt among ourselves by our Federal government across state borders. What this means is that they appove of it as a means so long as you agree to accept it for the value it is supposed to represent.

No one has to use their "money". You just have to find something else that people will accept for value in general and that which can't be construed to be some form of counterfieting on your part. Barter is another option though they'd like to make that illegal too.

The irony is in that they used to be certificates backed by gold or silver, as per the U.S. Constitution, and you could redeem them at a bank for gold or silver. Since those precious metals were accepted for the intrinsic value that the whole of the world recognizes in them it was perfectly sensable and lawful.

The other irony is that if you could have redeemed your notes for gold 10 years ago and hid it under your bed you'd have more "money" than you would have ever had by putting it in a bank and collecting interest or investing it in some other stocks or bonds or saving those notes under that same bed.

Today the currency is fiat and only backed by the full faith and credit of the government. Personally, I have no faith in them and their credibilty is wanting in so many ways.

The fact that Congress has deferred their power to mint to a private company who now produces those receipts of debt, which are not backed by anything as per the Constitution makes them unlawful, yet somehow they keep it legal.

I guess it is the same thing when it is unlawful to murder a person, but the goverment can make you a spook and license you to do the same and it is nice and legal.

This is just another way to prevent you from exercisng your personal liberty to persue your hapiness in a lawful manner, where you are nither harming or defrauding your fellow citizens.

It really is a good way to make sure no one sells a firearm to another in a private sale without Daddy knowing what his children are doing. It is for our own good you know...

Louisana can tell you that you cannot use Federal reciepts of debt.

They cannot stop you from exchanging your goods or services for the same in kind or something else that both parties can agree on to accept for value.

If worse came to worse and they said you cannot trade goods, then you just pull a political double talk on them and just give each other gifts.

If they go further than that you need to leave that state, and if it becomes a national phenomena, you need to pursue that redress of grievances to the fullest extent. It will be intersting to see how much BS they will tolerate there in LA.

[Hardcase]

Veering back onto the original topic, I took a look at HB 195 (which I should have done before starting the thread.)

The law only applies to people who fit the definition of second hand or junk dealers. That doesn't make it any less troubling, but it does leave private transactions off the hook. The law also requires those businesses that it does apply to to keep a record of all transactions (that is, transactions where the business is doing the buying) that includes a ton of information about the individual who is doing the selling. The business has to maintain those records for three years and has to make them available for inspection "at any time" to a "peace officer or law enforcement official".

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.

Now, an interesting thing is that when this bill was first introduced, it was basically just a records-keeping rule. Somewhere along the line, it got seriously futzed with and the no-cash thing was inserted. Again, the mind would boggle if it hadn't already built up a huge resistance to boggling.

[Don P]

VOTE RON PAUL! He is a strong 2A supporter and would without a doubt declare garbage like this unconstitutional."

We are better off with the current white house occupant rather than RP. As far as the law goes how is BIG Brother going to know who sold what to who in a cash sale. This should go over real well in the flea market arena and yard sale crowd.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

There is no law that requires any individual, governmental, or business entity to accept printed or coined money.

None.

Just to clarify, the Coinage Act appears to effectively do exactly that in the case of an existing debt. "...legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues" means that is a legal offer to satisfy any of those debts." If you refuse legal tender and demand payment in the form of chocolate chip cookies instead, you may be estopped from asserting that debt in the future.

None of that means that any other party is required to become your creditor or enter any prospective transaction.

Originally Posted by Mike38

They are telling you that it’s to help prevent sales of stolen items. I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut the real reason is to be able to tax the income of the sale.

I can't tell whether you should win a doughnut or one of those chocolate chip cookies for that one.

[Hardcase]

From the US Treasury Frequently Asked Questions:

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.

[zukiphile]

"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."

To further clarify, we should ask why a government would enact such a law.

There was a time when it would have been unnecessary. If I owed you $100, the currency I gave you was worth $100 in gold or silver. When that changed, and $100 in coins might be worth only $20 in silver, you might imagine a merchant-creditor demanding $100 in silver in satisfaction of the existing debt. In other words, the new and less valuable currency might not be accepted for its face value. So that acceptance is mandated by law.

None of that would prohibit a prospective creditor from stating the future debt in gold, silver, corn or coffee. However, collection even then would be reducable to a dollar amount for judgment.

LA is doing something very different.

[Micropterus]

Incorrect.

NO law requires that US currency be accepted by either any governmental or private entity.

Rather semantical.

Nothwisthanding a dispute over the ownership of property, courts will always, without exception, resolve a dispute regarding an obligation of one party to another in monetary value. If one owes a service that he refuses to perform, he will be required to pay the value of the service in money. Damages in civil cases will be awarded in money.

Money will always be seen as a (really as the most) base form of debt satisfaction.

You are correct that there is no law requiring and entity to "accept" currency. But currency will always be seen as satisfactory and final way to absolve a debt. If the debtee refuses to accept it, then he does without. Money is the last recourse.