Legal Tender? Maybe Not, Says Louisiana Law 655
First time accepted submitter fyngyrz writes "Lousiana has passed a law that says people may no longer use cash for second hand transactions. The idea is to make all transactions traceable, thus foiling copper theft, etc. This move has profound implications that range from constitutional rights to Bitcoin, Craigslist and so forth; I wonder if there are any Slashdotters at all that support such a move." On the list of exceptions: people who deal in used goods or "junk" less frequently than once per month, and (drumroll, please) pawn shops. That means a pretty big chunk of the population who post in online classified ads in Louisiana are probably already in violation.
Craigslist? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if I sell a motorcycle on Craigslist and the buyer pays in cash, this is now illegal? That's somehow gotta be unconstitutional, but I need a lawyer for that... And can I pay the Lawyer in cash?
May I be the first to say... Fuck You Louisiana. I'm never going there and I hope you get wiped out by a Hurricane.
Traceability (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding is that pawn shops are allowed to use cash because they're already legally required to keep detailed records about the individuals with whom they deal, and this law is all about making it hard for criminals to sell stolen goods without a paper trail.
But this seems like a case of legislatively throwing the baby out with the bath water: "I'll sell you this book of mine for $5, but you'll have to write me a check because I sold someone an old XBox game last week for cash." Or are small private transactions not regulated by the law (I haven't read the text of the bill, obv.)?
If not, this seems outrageous, and I'm all about the outrage!
Le Tax? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Federal Law State Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Federal Law State Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.
To quote my $20 - "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
In a technical sense, accepting goods places a burden of debt upon the recipient.
Sounds like something which will be brought to the Supreme Court, where a state claims rights in interstate (even if it is intrastate) commerce which supersede the domain of the federal government.
Interesting ambition, but flawed.
Re:Federal Law State Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, in that case, the new law should be easy to circumvent: You don't sell the product for cash, but you give it on credit, and the debt is then immediately paid back using cash.
Re:Federal Law State Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the libertarians on my facebook aren't too happy about this either.
I mean, surprise surprise, libertarians aren't happy when restraints are put on personal liberty by a governmental institution. Does it matter if it's a federal government or a state government?
Re:Federal Law State Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. It strikes me that simply signing an IOU and then immediately paying it ought to take care of the direct cash payment angle. Just make sure you save the IOU along with any invoices and other source documents, and I don't think there's anything the state could do about it.
Re:What is the economic motive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Other motive?
Law enforcement: when someone steals your stereo and sells it to the second hand shop, they'll have a record of who did it, and when someone buys it from that shop before you find out and can recover it, you can find it and get it back.
LA Can Strike Au/Ag Coin, Can't Require Use Of (Score:4, Interesting)
A state has the right to strike alternative legal tender, per Article 1, Section 10. They don't have the enumerated right to require it. Much like an employer asking your favorite sexual position, they can try. Thus, someone will soon see the state of LA in court, I suspect.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)