Cash transactions banned by Louisianna

[Cail]

Cash Transactions Banned by Louisiana: Government Takes Private Property Without Due Process

This summer, the State Legislature and Governor of Louisiana passed a law that bans individuals and businesses from transacting in cash if they are considered a "secondhand dealer". House Bill 195 of the 2011 Regular Session (Act 389) broadly defines a secondhand dealer to include "... Anyone, other than a non-profit entity, who buys, sells, trades in or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or secondhand property more frequently than once per month from any other person, other than a non-profit entity, shall be deemed as being in the business of a secondhand dealer. " The law then states that "A secondhand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or secondhand property. 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..." The broad scope of this definition can essentially encompass everyone; from your local flea market vendors and buyers to a housewife purchasing goods on ebay or craigslist, to a group of guys trading baseball cards, they could all be considered secondhand dealers. Lawmakers in Louisiana have effectively banned its citizens from freely using United States legal tender.

The law goes further to require secondhand dealers to turn over a valuable business asset, namely, their business' proprietary client information. For every transaction a secondhand dealer must obtain the seller's personal information such as their name, address, driver's license number and the license plate number of the vehicle in which the goods were delivered. They must also make a detailed description of the item(s) purchased and submit this with the personal identification information of every transaction to the local policing authorities through electronic daily reports. If a seller cannot or refuses to produce to the secondhand dealer any of the required forms of identification, the secondhand dealer is prohibited from completing the transaction.

This legislation amounts to a public taking of private property without compensation. Regardless of whether or not the transaction information is connected with, or law enforcement is investigating a crime, individuals and businesses are forced to report routine business activity to the police. Can law enforcement not accomplish its goal of identifying potential thieves and locating stolen items in a far less intrusive manner? And of course, there are already laws that prohibit stealing, buying or selling stolen goods, laws that require businesses to account for transactions and laws that penalize individuals and businesses that transact in stolen property. Why does the Louisiana State Legislature need to enact more laws infringing on personal privacy, liberties and freedom?

Motivating the introduction of this legislation was an increase in criminal activity, necessitating law enforcement to develop additional tools in tracking potential criminals. Thefts of copper and other precious metals have risen recently with higher commodity prices and mounting pressures from the economic downturn. The added restrictions under this recent legislation have come about under the pretense of cracking down on crime and helping the government take care of you, all at the cost of your individual privacy, economic, civil liberty and freedom.

Interestingly enough, although Pawnshops are still required to obtain clients personal information and transmit their client database information to law enforcement, they are exempt from the restriction of cash payments. A jeweler next door to a pawnshop cannot offer clients the same payment method offered by its competing pawnshop neighbor.

Act 389 passed by unanimous consent of the Louisiana House of Representatives and only mustered one nay vote (Senator Neil Riser) from the State Senate. The governor signed legislation into law on July 1, 2011.

Hell in a handbasket.

[dmc-4359]

Agreed. This is very bad precedent.

[Vraith]

Is there any possible interpretation that can make this law anything but unconstitutional??
Is anybody even challenging it in court?
The variety of ways this and the data obtained can be misused [from simple minor unethical, to constitutional violations] seems extreme to me...in addition to being a violation on its face.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

How is Louisiana ever going to prosecute anyone under this statute? Are they going to have mystery shoppers at every pawn shop and flea market, looking for secret cash deals? Are they going to require inventory lists and financial records from all the antique stores? Have you ever seen how much stuff is in one of those places? It would be extremely difficult to count every item.

What about cash transactions between private citizens? What about garage sales? What about church bake sales? "Sorry, Deacon, you can't buy a slice of blueberry pie for $3--you have to use a credit card or a personal check."

According to the definition, if you buy old furniture from people around town at a frequency of more than once per month you are now a "secondhand dealer".

This law is too broad and will thus fail.

[sindatur]

Why don't they just mandate that we all get chips implanted into our arms, and wear a watch like control panel so we can all transfer money back and forth to each others' accounts. Then the banks can charge us $1.00 per transaction <SIGH>

Regarding the Copper, here in Sacramento, CA, you can take Copper to a recycle booth, along with your cans and bottles, but, they give you a receipt and make you come back a few days later to collect the money for the Copper.

I can't imagine going to a thrift store (The lines get pretty outrageous as it is) and having to provide all that information before being allowed to purchase the 2 action figures or McDonald's toys that cost .25 each, and then having to pay for them in other than cash? GOOD GRIEF.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Interesting that this law gets passed in Louisiana, which is notorious for its routine and shameless corruption and back-office dealings.

dw

[Cail]

Interesting that this law gets passed in Louisiana, which is notorious for its routine and shameless corruption and back-office dealings.

Notice that pawn shops are exempt too.

[sindatur]

Interesting that this law gets passed in Louisiana, which is notorious for its routine and shameless corruption and back-office dealings.

Notice that pawn shops are exempt too.

Which is truly mind-boggling as a Pawn Shop is amongst the most likely places that someone would go to unload stolen Goods

[DoctorGamgee]

Interesting that this law gets passed in Louisiana, which is notorious for its routine and shameless corruption and back-office dealings.

Notice that pawn shops are exempt too.

Which is truly mind-boggling as a Pawn Shop is amongst the most likely places that someone would go to unload stolen Goods

Being as the Pawn Shops are already required to collect the information on all sellers already, it is not surprising. Especially as the article noted that they are already required to log all of their client information to the State Police as they are, as you say, the most likely place to unload stolen goods.

[jelerak]

proud to be here

[Avatar]

WTF? How can you ban cash? It's cash FFS. And all those people will have to have machines for cards now too. Which they'll have to pay for if things work the same way there as here.

This criminal thing is bullshit. We just had a similar thing here...everybody had to register their cell phone, because cops listen in to calls to fight crime, and need to know where the people whose phone it is live.

Except, because of the millions of people who don't have fixed addresses, you could register with the address of your nearest church or school. Which rather defeats the whole bloody object.

And a few months ago, anybody who hadn't registered had their phones cut off.

The crime thing is just an excuse. And even if it isn't, we must suffer because criminal break the law? (I use suffer lightly, but you know what I mean.)

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

Louisiana is doing it to piss off all the MMT advocates here.

[Rawedge Rim]

I think Lousianna loses the first time this goes to the Courts.

Believe my cash states "Legal Tender for all debts both public and private"

[Orlion]

I think Lousianna loses the first time this goes to the Courts.

Believe my cash states "Legal Tender for all debts both public and private"

Yep, and federal trumps state.

[Savor Dam]

I think Lousianna loses the first time this goes to the Courts.

Believe my cash states "Legal Tender for all debts both public and private"

Yep, and federal trumps state.

Good luck with that. I have been making the "Legal Tender for all debts both public and private" argument for several years and have been getting zero traction with it.

Surely you have noticed that the right to pay by cash has already been infringed with little-or-no outcry? A few years ago, I discovered that I could not buy a drink on an airplane flight with cash, as I have done for over thirty years. They insisted that plastic was the only form of payment they accepted. Pointing out to the flight attendant that the cash clearly said it was legal tender for all debts public and private did nothing to change the situation. Supposedly this was done so they would not have to carry change, but I had the exact amount, so no change was required -- other than a change of this ludicrous policy.

Then the situation spread to some ground-based retailers. They would ring up a purchase and ask "credit or debit?" Offering cash was treated as though I was trying to pay with colored slips of paper and little bits of metal. OK, I was...but those slips of colored paper and bits of metal have an agreed-upon financial exchange value in our society.

As someone who uses cash extensively (admittedly because it leaves no footprints compared to credit or debit cards), having the right to pay in cash diminished by commercial fiat was infuriating. To now have it infringed by governmental decree is only adding insult to injury.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I wonder if they are protected by the semantics? In the airline's case, you aren't incurring a debt unless you first consume an offered drink and then figure out what your payment options are. In the actual case, the airline is simpy warning you that they will refuse your business unless you provide them the payment instrument that they have chosen to accept. Which means they are losing your business, and they obviously don't care because the marginal profit to them is insignificant.

I find it interesting that in general it is the bigger airlines that say "Card Only," and the smaller ones that say "Cash Only". But it is so unpredictable, you never know until its too late whether you have an acceptable form of payment. Annoying.

dw

[aliantha]

Yup, this has got to fail. I hope they find a really good test case for this law. It will have the effect of driving poor people (who often don't have credit cards or bank accounts) further into the black market.

Plus, it's one thing for a vendor to set up rules for transacting with them (cash/no cash, Visa/Mastercard only, no debit cards, etc.) and another thing for a state government to say that certain classes of merchants are prohibited from accepting cash. If one vendor won't take your cash, or your AmEx card, you can buy from somebody else. You kind of don't have that option if the only way you can get X product is to go to a thrift store, but they're prohibited from taking your quarter.

I wonder whether they "get tough on crime" rationale was a smokescreen, and whether what they were *really* after was more tax revenue. The state can't collect sales tax on informal and under-the-counter cash transactions.

[Cail]

I wonder whether they "get tough on crime" rationale was a smokescreen, and whether what they were *really* after was more tax revenue. The state can't collect sales tax on informal and under-the-counter cash transactions.

I'm normally not conspiracy-minded, but there's some real sense to this.

[Savor Dam]

Accordng to the letter of the law, are sellers in informal and under-the-counter transactions supposed to collect sales tax? Obviously they do not, but if they are supposed to and have been flying under the radar up until now, perhaps this might be considered by the legislators as being part of the "get tough on crime" rationale, and therefore not really part of a hidden agenda.

[Vraith]

I wonder whether they "get tough on crime" rationale was a smokescreen, and whether what they were *really* after was more tax revenue. The state can't collect sales tax on informal and under-the-counter cash transactions.

I'm normally not conspiracy-minded, but there's some real sense to this.

I can see it too...in NY, where they're always trying to collect taxes from peeps who go onto the reservation to buy gas and smokes, a similar thing was part of one of their attempts.