Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Legal Tender? Maybe Not, Says Louisiana Law

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the this-is-pretty-nuts dept.

Bitcoin 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.

cancel ×

655 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Federal Law State Law (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 years ago | (#37782416)

Sorry Louisiana, you dont get to decide what federal currency can be used for.

Re:Federal Law State Law (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782452)

Precisely what law? You're only required to take cash when servicing debt, not at the time of the transaction.

Re:Federal Law State Law (3, Informative)

Verdatum (1257828) | about 3 years ago | (#37782564)

I've wondered about this before. The wording of the law is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5103.html [cornell.edu]

I don't know if transactions are the same as "public charges" or not.

Re:Federal Law State Law (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 3 years ago | (#37782650)

They aren't. This is why it's perfectly legal to refuse cash when you sell something. But you must accept cash for loan payments and any other repayments of debt.

Re:Federal Law State Law (5, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#37782740)

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 (5, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 years ago | (#37782634)

The only way a transaction does not involve "debt" is if the parties involved agree to it before hand. And if there is no debt for the transaction, I dont need to give you a traceable payment. If I do, then its debt and US currency is good for it. There are a bunch of federal trade and commerce laws out there to back this up and it could also be argued that it falls under the US Constitution. Having a legal requirement that the government can track all sales transactions violates a whole bunch o' stuff.

Re:Federal Law State Law (0)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782846)

It's not debt if you make payment at the time of service. Apple did a similar thing with its iPhone release where they wouldn't allow you to pay with cash so that they could enforce purchase limits.

Re:Federal Law State Law (0)

whoever57 (658626) | about 3 years ago | (#37782904)

In most cases, buy buying objects, the buyer hands over the money first. Hence there was never a debt,

If, on the other hand, the seller hands over the object first, then a debt exists and the constitution takes over.

Re:Federal Law State Law (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37782646)

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 (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 years ago | (#37782696)

So, "loan" the price of the item to the would be buyer. When they take a step from the counter, demand payment. It is now a debt and may be settled with U.S. currency.

Re:Federal Law State Law (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37782772)

So, "loan" the price of the item to the would be buyer. When they take a step from the counter, demand payment. It is now a debt and may be settled with U.S. currency.

Or enter into a written or verbal contract which implies a debt.

Re:Federal Law State Law (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | about 3 years ago | (#37782506)

I wonder how that works, since the government doesn't actually own that money. It is legal tender, provided by the Federal Reserve (which isn't "federal" at all, it's a private bank). It is loaned, at interest, to the government and, by extension, everyone who lives in the USA.

Re:Federal Law State Law (-1, Flamebait)

Ironchew (1069966) | about 3 years ago | (#37782546)

Sorry Louisiana, you dont get to decide what federal currency can be used for.

(Cue the "baww, federal government doesn't get to trample on states' rights!" Libertarian shitstorm)

Re:Federal Law State Law (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 years ago | (#37782880)

Most American libertarians still defer to the Constitution, however, and minting currency is something they generally agree the Federal government is allowed and even has a responsibility to do.

Re:Federal Law State Law (3, Interesting)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 3 years ago | (#37782898)

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?

What states rights? (2)

Quila (201335) | about 3 years ago | (#37782900)

The Constitution specifically reserves to the federal government the power to coin money.

Re:Federal Law State Law (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 3 years ago | (#37782552)

Indeed. According to this nice pretty $20 bill I have here, it is a "LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" and is signed by the Treasurer of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury. I'm pretty sure that, in matters of currency, their authority thoroughly trumps that of the Louisiana legislators.

How the hell did they even think this would work?

Re:Federal Law State Law (2)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about 3 years ago | (#37782644)

Because there's no debt if the sale isn't made, and the law appears to be preempting the sale if the purchaser can't provide payment with some kind of paper trail. As I understand it, if you have an existing debt, and the creditor refuses to accept cash, then the debt is null and void, but there's no obligation for them to make a sale/establish a debt simply because you are presenting cash. Whether any other laws figure into this, I can't say.

Re:Federal Law State Law (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 3 years ago | (#37782862)

Despite the fact that Lousiana doesn't subscribe to the UCC, a debt is uncurred when you purchase something, until you satisfy that debt-- by paying for it.

I think the whole idea of passing such a law means they've been out in the bayou snorting swamp gas again. What a goofy bunch of elected officials. Oh, wait.

Re:Federal Law State Law (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 3 years ago | (#37782682)

Because you misunderstand what is debt and what isn't?

Re:Federal Law State Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782716)

How can Apple legally get away with refusing to take cash for iPhones?

Re:Federal Law State Law (1)

Srsen (413456) | about 3 years ago | (#37782642)

Yes they can. They can regulate businesses within the state. They can't decide that Federal currency has no value, but they can definitely regulate record-keeping (which is what this is about).

Re:Federal Law State Law (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 years ago | (#37782774)

By saying you cant spend the money, they are in fact saying that it has no value. Next step will be for them to issue "Louisiana Fun Bucks" that must be used instead of cash.

I thought.. (2)

aldousd666 (640240) | about 3 years ago | (#37782418)

I thought this was a joke when I first read it. Apparently it's been on the books a few months though.

The South... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782420)

...Leading the charge for stupidity.

That's not debt. (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782428)

It's only debt if the companies are accepting the goods without paying, as long as they pay up when the transaction occurs there's no legal requirement that they pay cash. Apple did a similar thing a while back when they refused to sell iPhones for cash.

Where is my news for nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782430)

nt

BitCoin Spam (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | about 3 years ago | (#37782436)

Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or secondhand property and made payable to the name and address of the seller. All payments made by check, electronic transfers, or money order shall be reported separately in the daily reports required by R.S. 37:1866.

BitCoin is an electronic transfer, hence as long as it is reported it is as legal as everything else.

To me it looks like speculators have finished dumping [slashdot.org] and now want more buyers to drive up the price.

Anyway, this isn't a legal tender issue. Legal tender only applies for debt, this is why Apple can get away with no cash [tuaw.com] policies.

IANAL

For All Debts Public and Private (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782438)

n/t

Re:For All Debts Public and Private (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 3 years ago | (#37782514)

Great but what they are banning aren't debt payments. An upfront payment for a good or service is not servicing a debt.

Re:For All Debts Public and Private (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about 3 years ago | (#37782708)

It would seem to me that if a buyer and seller agree to make a transaction and the seller hands over the item; then, until the buyer pays, the buyer is in debt to the seller. Correct?

Craigslist? (3, Interesting)

tekrat (242117) | about 3 years ago | (#37782440)

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.

Re:Craigslist? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782490)

So you wish horror on an entire state because of the actions of a few legislators?

Congratulations! You'd make an excellent religious extremist!

Re:Craigslist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782556)

I've seen plenty of atheists wish for the same thing due to the mere existence of religious people in a certain area. I guess that means some atheists can be excellent religious extremists as well.

Re:Craigslist? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782660)

Atheism is a religion. And they have extremists. Quite a few here on slashdot.

Re:Craigslist? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37782700)

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

Yes (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 years ago | (#37782758)

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

It is when you spend a lot of time telling other people how stamp collectors are idiots and seek out stamp collectors to tell them they should stop.

Re:Craigslist? (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | about 3 years ago | (#37782800)

Depends upon your definition of hobby.

religion: Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Re:Craigslist? (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | about 3 years ago | (#37782902)

Man, from Teller's ass to his puppets' gaping mouths. For all their pride in independent thinking, militant atheists are about as unique in their talking points as the Christians they so love to deride.

Re:Craigslist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782744)

The absence of something is not that something.

Re:Craigslist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782858)

Belief that there is no god is still belief. Belief that there is no FSM is still belief.

Re:Craigslist? (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | about 3 years ago | (#37782674)

Religious people claim to KNOW there is a "god". Atheists clam to KNOW there is NOT a "god". To truly rebel against religion and superstition, you have to be an Agnostic, those of whom say "I DO NOT KNOW if there is a god or there isn't, but neither of you know for sure so shut the fuck up"....

Re:Craigslist? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37782750)

Atheists do not claim to know there is no god anymore than other people claim to know there is no bigfoot/santa claus/tooth fairy/free lunch. You can decide to be ignorant if you want, and that is often the position of pointless rebels.

Re:Craigslist? (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | about 3 years ago | (#37782892)

Atheists do not claim to know there is no god

Really? Someone might want to tell Atheists that then. lol

...people claim to know there is no bigfoot/santa claus/tooth fairy/free lunch

But...3 out of those 4 things are 100% FOR SURE not real. Santa Claus is your parents, and so is the tooth fairy. And the idea of "Free Lunch" if false because somewhere, somebody is paying for that lunch. Whether through man power and labor or strictly outright gov't payment (like the Free Lunch program at schools). Bigfoot? No hard evidence either way yet. ;)

Re:Craigslist? (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | about 3 years ago | (#37782592)

Legislators who were elected by the people who live in that state. Sooo....more than the actions of a few legislators. Unless Louisiana seceded recently and have set up their own totalitarian government with no election process?

Re:Craigslist? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#37782824)

And can I pay the Lawyer in cash?

Only if his advice is not second-hand. :-)

Tag sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782450)

Doesn't this make all tag sales, flea markets and most Craigslist transactions illegal as well?

Re:Tag sales (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37782842)

Doesn't this make all tag sales, flea markets and most Craigslist transactions illegal as well?

Excuse me, does your Yard Sale accept American Express?

Reason #666 to move out of LA (0)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37782454)

Losing the ability to use cash when buying or selling is one of the signs of the end times documented in the holy text of at least one major religion.

Re:Reason #666 to move out of LA (3, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37782502)

In my just as fictional religion I made up on the spot it is a sign of bright new future that will give everyone a free pony and a lifetime supply of cheese in can.

Re:Reason #666 to move out of LA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782662)

The cheese is dispensed by pressing your forehead barcode tattoo to the scanner on the cheese truck.

It's also used.

Re:Reason #666 to move out of LA (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37782802)

How else can we make sure everyone gets their cheese?

Re:Reason #666 to move out of LA (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 years ago | (#37782794)

Then the clergy of your shiny new religion can urge their congregations to re-elect these guys.

The clergy of that other religion can urge their congregations to vote the bums out.

Let's see who wins.

Re:Reason #666 to move out of LA (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 3 years ago | (#37782804)

Mmm Mmm Mmm, so, how often do I get my free stea-----um pony?

Is cheese in the can the proper condiment for pony?

Re:Reason #666 to move out of LA (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37782722)

Losing the ability to use cash when buying or selling is one of the signs of the end times documented in the holy text of at least one major religion.

Relax, it's nothing more than a state trying to swat flies with a hammer, rather than shut the window.

It'll be slugged out in court and ultimately retired as it's effectively a State attempting to regulate commerce by feat of selecting its own coin.

All debts, public and private (1)

NorthWestFLNative (973147) | about 3 years ago | (#37782462)

I'm not sure that the new Louisiana law would hold up in a court. Last time I checked US currency states "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". The key word being "all".

Re:All debts, public and private (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782582)

You're ignoring the keyword "debt".

Re:All debts, public and private (1)

ArcherB (796902) | about 3 years ago | (#37782688)

You're ignoring the keyword "debt".

Fine. You give me the widget you're selling and I owe you a debt of whatever you were selling it for. I pay you in cash, which "is legal tender for all debts, public and private"

Re:All debts, public and private (1)

itzdandy (183397) | about 3 years ago | (#37782770)

agreed, debt was clearly intended to cover what is owed for a sales transaction. Simply put, you could force a customer to receive the goods before they may payment, then there is in fact a debt to be paid.

The actual law behind that (1)

Quila (201335) | about 3 years ago | (#37782850)

Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, "United States coins and currency are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

Re:All debts, public and private (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 3 years ago | (#37782590)

And they aren't banning using cash for debt payments. Upfront purchases are not debt payments. Hence why I can sell something and refuse to take cash. Now if I loan out money I can not refuse a cash payment.

Re:All debts, public and private (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 years ago | (#37782818)

What if I loan you the value of an item and then demand payment of the debt 10 seconds later?

Re:All debts, public and private (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782738)

The key word is "debts", actually.

I agree with you on principle, however. It's funny how the original authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't foresee a future where non-anonymous forms of payment were easy and ubiquitous thus allowing a possible restriction of privacy by outlawing anonymous forms of payment. If they had they wouldn't have had to put in a mechanism whereby we could codify additional rights, such as a right to privacy. Unfortunately, they also didn't foresee a future where it would be practically impossible to codify additional rights due to political power being coalesced in the hands of the rich. Damn.

This is a Federal issue (3, Insightful)

bl968 (190792) | about 3 years ago | (#37782466)

It would seem that this would be federal issue, not a state one since this can affect interstate commerce. Basically it's unconstitutional.

Can state law supercede federal mandate? (1)

fishnuts (414425) | about 3 years ago | (#37782468)

Can a state elect to locally invalidate the federal mandate that states that bills issued by the US Treasury are "Legal tender for all debts public and private"?
This may be something that can be easily challenged in federal court, and I truly hope someone does challenge it.

The worst part of this state bill is that every transaction, along with the verified identity of both parties, be recorded and submitted to law enforcement on demand.

Re:Can state law supercede federal mandate? (1)

pclminion (145572) | about 3 years ago | (#37782578)

Can a state elect to locally invalidate the federal mandate that states that bills issued by the US Treasury are "Legal tender for all debts public and private"?

This is a common misunderstanding. The currency is legal tender for all DEBTS, not all transactions. When you purchase something, you are doing exactly that -- making a purchase, not paying off a debt.

Re:Can state law supercede federal mandate? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | about 3 years ago | (#37782672)

So, you sell the item to the person under net 60.

Seconds, of course, not days.

Still, that's a debt...

Re:Can state law supercede federal mandate? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | about 3 years ago | (#37782720)

Can a state elect to locally invalidate the federal mandate that states that bills issued by the US Treasury are "Legal tender for all debts public and private"?

This is a common misunderstanding. The currency is legal tender for all DEBTS, not all transactions. When you purchase something, you are doing exactly that -- making a purchase, not paying off a debt.

Fine. You give me the widget you're selling and I owe you a debt of whatever you were selling it for. I pay you in cash, which "is legal tender for all debts, public and private".

The "transaction" was you giving me the widget. The paying of the debt was me giving you the cash.

Re:Can state law supercede federal mandate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782602)

Well to play devil's advocate-

The last time I looked the bills say "federal reserve note" I.E. a private corporation, NOT United States Note....

So are they really even US bills anymore????

Re:Can state law supercede federal mandate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782746)

If I've not given you the item before you give me the cash, it's not in payment of a debt. Extending a line of credit to everyone, to be settled later in cash, may be a way around this but most of the exchanges they are targeting here would be plenty averse to that.

Re:Can state law supercede federal mandate? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 3 years ago | (#37782762)

Can a state elect to locally invalidate the federal mandate that states that bills issued by the US Treasury are "Legal tender for all debts public and private"? This may be something that can be easily challenged in federal court, and I truly hope someone does challenge it.

The worst part of this state bill is that every transaction, along with the verified identity of both parties, be recorded and submitted to law enforcement on demand.

Considering there is no federal mandate that says some one *must* accept US currency for payment, I think your question is moot. US currency is legal tender so you can accept it, just as you can accept anything else in payment that you want. That is the real question, IMHO - is the state's argument for limiting the use of cash compelling enough to allow it to limit your ability to choose to pay with cash?

Just a quick thought... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782492)

For the record, there was a slight uproar about this a couple of years ago because Apple would not accept cash. If you don't support this law, then I hope you weren't one of the ones lashing out at Apple back then. It's one or the other. I can understand why they would make a law like this, but I'm not sure that I see it being as effective as what they are expecting, especially because pawn shops and frequent buyers/sellers are excluded. Those seem to be the biggest two issues, and this law doesn't address them.

On another note, consider that it also offers security and protection to everyone. If you pay in cash, what proof do you have? Otherwise, if you pay via PayPal, check, or other form, you may have a course of action, if there is a problem with what you bought on craigslist or other online ad sites. Not all bad.

--Master Joe

Re:Just a quick thought... (2)

Samalie (1016193) | about 3 years ago | (#37782714)

It is one thing for a private business to refuse to accept cash for a transaction.

It is another entirely for a government to mandate that ALL businesses (dealing in secondhand goods) cannot accept cash for a transaction.

As much as people like to give Apple a dick in the ass on /. this is a VERY different situation.

relocate the server (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 3 years ago | (#37782516)

Wonder if you can get around it by relocating the server (and payment system?) to a state/country where it's legal.

Hm, why not do it all transactions? (2)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 years ago | (#37782534)

What makes second hand goods different than first hand goods?

Oh, I know, because it is unwieldy and likely an illegal invasion of privacy.

No, you don't have the right to find out what I buy. Not even if I am poor and can only afford second hand stuff.

Re:Hm, why not do it all transactions? (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | about 3 years ago | (#37782742)

This is just because corporations don't like second-hand goods. Why? Because corporations can't make money on second-hand goods. If people were not allowed to sell items to each other directly, or buy second-hand, it would force the people who buy used things to buy new, which would make more money for the blood sucking corporations, and by extension anyone who works for or with them which includes politicians and lobbyists.

Traceability (3, Interesting)

almitydave (2452422) | about 3 years ago | (#37782538)

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!

Use gold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782548)

Embed gold in a counterfeit proof scannable pingable plastic coin and call it a day.

I wonder if any large banks are behind this. (1)

JeremyMorgan (1428075) | about 3 years ago | (#37782550)

Step 1: Raise ATM Fees on customers
Step 2: Hire lobbyists to pass laws like this
Step 3: Profit

It's a crazy conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.

Le Tax? (4, Interesting)

FlavaFlavivirus (2021178) | about 3 years ago | (#37782568)

I'm thinking that this has less to do with trying to catch "criminals," and more to do with the state missing out on all that sales tax.

Re:Le Tax? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37782620)

I am thinking you are 100% correct!
You win one free internets, not redeemable in states that require tracking of electronic transactions.

Summary is completely false (5, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#37782594)

The first link in the summary contains the complete text of the bill. It does not ban cash transactions at all. Rather, it requires second-hand dealers to keep very thorough records of any cash transaction exceeding $25.

This is a terrible law, and would make business difficult for a lot of people, and (depending on how it's interpreted) could make garage sales more trouble than they're worth. But it does not ban the use of cash. I kind of wish it did, because then it would be struck down. As it stands, the law may pass constitutional muster, and become an enormous pain in the ass for a lot of people.

Re:Summary is completely false (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#37782692)

I didn't sell it for $50 officer, I sold it for $20 and he donated 3 installments of $10.

Slashdotters? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#37782596)

I wonder if there is any sane human being that supports such a move.

Fixed that for you.

Interesting (1)

kammat (114899) | about 3 years ago | (#37782614)

While cash can or cannot be accepted for transactions based on merchant preferences, is it allowable for a state to regulate that? Are there any federal regulations or others that may disallow this?

Yeah, but how would they know? (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 3 years ago | (#37782618)

Are they going to get a bunch of undercover agents to stake out craigslist? And what happens when people figure out they're living in an evil distopian future? You can't start pulling this sort of shit on the average joe until it is actually too late for them to do anything about it.

All laws created to help "Law Enforcement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782636)

compromise individual rights and privacy. The US is well on its way to becoming the third world, totalitarian police state people like Cheney have worked so hard to establish. The Tea Party says they are for smaller government, but what they mean by that is less social help and individual freedoms and more police and law enforcement. Totalitarianism cloaked as freedom loving grass-roots.

Why did their Republican Governor sign this? (2)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 3 years ago | (#37782670)

Louisiana's Governor is the young GOP superstar, Bobby Jindal. Doesn't this move restrict personal freedoms in order to wring more taxes out of the populace? Is that the GOP way all of a sudden?

Railroad tracks? (1)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#37782704)

This is just a law to keep scrap dealers from buying stolen metal. There's been trouble with people stealing copper power lines (this usually makes the news when someone tries to steal an energized one), manhole covers, and the aluminum access covers at the base of street light poles.

Much of the bill is about people selling railroad tracks and parts thereof. Railroad tracks? Do you realize what it takes to lift and move a railroad rail? That's not something one homeless guy could do. It takes teams, cranes, and trucks.

Re:Railroad tracks? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37782840)

There's been trouble with people stealing copper power lines (this usually makes the news when someone tries to steal an energized one), manhole covers, and the aluminum access covers at the base of street light poles.

So maybe instead of imposing a stupid burden on everyone, they could catch people who are stealing stuff?

Just an idea.

Re:Railroad tracks? (1)

Platinumrat (1166135) | about 3 years ago | (#37782884)

So says you. I was working on a Railroad project in Indonesia, when there was a derailment. On investigation it turned out that some enterprising lads had stolen 5 meters of track. They cut the rails with nothing but hacksaw blades. They carried it away by hand, or at least loaded it onto a pickup by hand.

Isn't this the state... (1)

richieb (3277) | about 3 years ago | (#37782726)

...where PI is set to 3.0?

Occupy Louisiana (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 3 years ago | (#37782748)

Yet another example of the wealthy politicians trying to hurt the poorest among us.

Tin foil hat (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about 3 years ago | (#37782788)

I love how people over the years say I need to wear a til foil hat every time I mention that it is just a matter of time before the governments move to try to limit, stop, or remove the idea of "cash". Obviously there are Constitutional issues around this, but that never seems to stop the governments. And when it gets too annoying, they can just change the Constitution.

It is not difficult to imagine a world where anything that gives you freedom from being monitored, traced, taxed, restricted, recorded, etc, is eliminated. I keep hoping it will at least wait until I am very old. Younger people don't seem to care about privacy or freedom anyway- they only want safety and convenience, so let THEM deal with it!

hmm (2)

Khashishi (775369) | about 3 years ago | (#37782826)

So how much is that in cigarettes?

All I can say is... (2)

Torinir (870836) | about 3 years ago | (#37782828)

SCOTUS will have a field day with this.

down mod plz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782830)

hahahaha, HAHAHAHAHA, wat?

you can't do that. lol.

checking calendar. Nope, its not April 1, wtf? (1)

itzdandy (183397) | about 3 years ago | (#37782838)

Is this a serious thing? IANAL but this could be attacked from a number of angles. Invasion of privacy. Regulation of currency beyond state's rights.

not the only place putting limits on cash payment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782844)

Denmark has had a law for a few years now banning cash payment of over ~13000euro, the idea being that anyone crazy enough to pay that much in
cash probably got the money illegally or "forgot" to pay taxes else the they would have put them in the bank and paid with a creditcard or check

Misplaced outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782906)

I just read the text of the bill, and there is nothing about prohibiting cash transactions. If the purchases are a one-time deal between individuals and you aren't reasonably considered a second-hand junk dealer, none of the provisions apply to you. If you are in the business of buying and selling junk, the state is tightening the requirements for records of transactions to make sure stolen railroad tracks and other such items aren't being sold, which is already illegal. Seriously, does no one actually read?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?