IIRC, legal tender means that they have to accept U.S. currency, not that they must accept any form of that currency. So you can’t neccessarily pay your electric bill in pennies.
So much for my idea of a roach market.
Logic suggests to me that if this note in my hand says, “This note is legal tender,” and a merchant can’t accept this note, it’s clear that there is a conflict here.
Not that all legal opinion is logical.
Yeah, it might drive drug sales underground.
The law says a secondhand dealer is anyone who buys/sells used goods more than once a month.
I would personally read that as one transaction per month. Otherwise, what is it? Are weekend long garage sales exempt? Week long? Can you go indefinitely provided you never close and call it all “once a month”? Per transaction seems like the only reasonable determination in which case garage sales are not exempt unless you have the saddest garage sale ever and only sell one item.
I wish I had a dollar (heh) for every time I’ve had to point this out: A purchase is not a debt. It is an offer. I have the right to sell my goods and accept only gummy bears as payment. If you don’t have any gummy bears, I don’t sell you the item. A debt occurs when you owe me money from a previous transaction.
The articles I’ve seen on this say that pawn shops, of all places are exempt. It looks like flea markets would have the biggest problem here. This law maybe constitutional, but I wonder if they really thought of the consequences.
I’m not sure what the bible’s got to do with it.
This bill particularly smells rotten because it’s allegedly about preventing sale of stolen property, yet it explicitly exempts pawnbrokers and pawn shops. Because stolen merchandise never ends up there, I guess.
Probably The Transparent Society by David Brin.
Sounds like SF writer David Brin.
The position he staked out was that since all this surveillance will be going on anyway, the best we could hope for (and should work to make happen) was for the fruits of such surveillance to be universally shared, rather than be available just to persons in privileged positions in governments, and those in the private sector with the wealth or muscle to get hold of it.
I’ve had 20 years to think about it, and I’m still undecided.
ETA: I see duality72 was faster. 
If the only thing the voters are selecting for is bible-thumpin’, and more generally full-on devotion to ideological conservatism, you’re gonna get people who aren’t reasonable and nuanced thinkers.
Pawnshops are already pretty heavily regulated. I suspect the point of the law is to try and prevent people who are using flee markets to avoid the pawnshop regulations.
Please! This law is a little more broad than other states, but many states are enacting similar laws mostly targeted at scrap metal theft. You can no longer be paid cash for selling scrap metal in Oregon, Washington, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, about 30 states in all, so far. It is an attempt to keep meth users and other thieves from cashing in anything they can steal and sell.
I seriously doubt if flea markets and garage sales are the intended target.
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Easy-Money-For-Metal-Thieves-may-be-over-80548417.html
http://midtennmetal.com/scrap-metal.html
http://brunswickwinair.com/new-law-in-sc-targets-metal-sales/
Current state law in Louisiana is that the pawn shops have to hold any item they get for 30 days in case someone reports it as stolen and law enforcement identifies it as such. It seems to me that the above law would have enhanced that, so why not include pawn shops…which, judging from the Louisiana papers I perused, still seem to be destination #1 for stolen goods despite the current laws?
Well, that is an interesting theory. But regardless of whether or not it’s a good idea, the bill passed overwhelmingly. So it’s hardly a narrow or partisan issue. While I don’t really consider it a good idea, my objection is that the bill is unneccessary and unenforceable rather than specifically harmful.
I think you would find, however, that Louisiana voters do not simply select for… “Bible-thumpin’”.
I can’t claim to be an expert in this technical interpretation, but I find it hard to believe that whoever wrote and/or inserted that wording on our bills intended it to apply only to debts (by your definition) and not ordinary, simple purchases.
I would call your goods vs. gummy bears transaction a barter. A barter only happens if both sides offer goods or services that the other accepts. Legal tender doesn’t have to be any part of it.
AFAIK, gummy bears don’t say they are legal tender on the wrapping. Although they are tender and not illegal. 
Wow, doing a search for actual reporting on this bill involves wading through a lot of PrisonPlanet type conspiracy crap. Had to click through to page 5 of a Google search. But the law is targeted at junk, or scrap sales.
Was the book Minority Report? 'Cause it’s just like that in the movie.
Bitcoins it is, then. Way to grow the userbase, Louisiana!
I am not an expert either, but I believe that it has been resolved that way in the courts.
Nobody has to sell you anything, although in some cases there can be repercussions for not doing so. But once you owe money, they have to accept legal tender. Note that coins do not fall in that category.
ETA: Also, this is a stupid law, because it was written by stupid people. We actually need to get rid of cash as the mainstay of monetary exchange, not to keep track of everybody, but because it’s the 21st friggin’ century.
I would guess that you are right, but what’s to stop people from agreeing that a particular debt must be paid in gummy bears?