A gun lobbying association has urged people to protest a proposal to exclude crypto from the definition of ‘money,’ which they claim effectively criminalizes buying guns with digital currency.
Just last week, the state of South Dakota proposed legislation that would alter the definition of money within the Uniform Commercial Code.
It says ‘money’ should exclude “an electronic record that is a medium of exchange recorded and transferable in a system that existed and operated for the medium of exchange before the medium of exchange was authorized or adopted by the government.”
This would basically exclude crypto from being considered ‘money.’
In response, the non-profit gun rights organization Gun Owners of America (GOA) has urged firearms owners to protest what it sees as a threat to the country’s Second Amendment. This stipulates that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“While it may not seem like a Second Amendment-related issue at first glance, it impacts our freedom to pay for firearms in the way we choose. This bill would effectively prohibit people from using cryptocurrency to purchase firearms,” the group’s site reads.
Readers were asked to call Governor Kristi Noem’s office, or send a prepared message:
“Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to use whatever payment they want to exercise their rights. Please VETO House Bill 1193,” with the subject line, “HB 1193 is anti-gun.”
Currently, the GOA doesn’t accept crypto as a means of donating to the association.
Why exclude crypto?
According to officials at the Uniform Law Commission, the amendment aims to clear up confusion brought on by El Salvdor’s recognition of bitcoin and the legal implications this had for crypto lenders.
In an email posted on Twitter, the commission said: “With [El Salavdor’s] announcement, the definition of money under the UCC arguably included bitcoin. This meant that rather than the new rules for controllable electronic records (including cryptocurrencies) in Article 12, a court might apply the UCC’s old rules for transactions that involve money.
“Under those rules, a lender in physical possession of money (which is impossible for cryptocurrency) has a perfected security interest in that money, but a lender who files a UCC-1 financing statement would not be perfected, meaning another party could have a superior claim to the cryptocurrency used as collateral.”
It’s also reported that while crypto is seemingly excluded from the definition, Central Bank Digital Currencies would still qualify.
Protos has reached out to the GOA and will update this story if we hear back.