Texas Lawmaker Launches Resolution to Protect Bitcoin Investors, Support BTC Economy
A legislative proposal has been introduced to support the bitcoin economy in the U.S. state of Texas. “The individuals who own bitcoin should be protected” under the Texas Constitution, the proposal describes. “No citizen of Texas shall ever be deprived of their right to own bitcoin and that all bitcoin owners will be protected as they enjoy all the privileges associated with the cryptocurrency.”
Resolution to Support Bitcoin Economy
A legislative proposal called House Concurrent Resolution 89 (HCR89), which expresses support for the bitcoin economy in Texas, was introduced in the state’s House of Representatives on Monday by Rep. Cody Harris. Concurrent resolutions require the approval of both the House and the Senate in the state but do not have the force of law.
The resolution reads:
The individuals who own bitcoin should be protected under Section 9, Article I, Texas Constitution, which states that ‘The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches’; this right should also extend to digital possessions, such as cryptocurrencies.
Moreover, the resolution not only aims to obtain backing from the state legislature to protect “individuals who code or develop on the Bitcoin network” but also welcomes bitcoin miners “to seek out any forms of energy to help secure the Bitcoin network in the state of Texas.”
The resolution adds: “Individuals who mine bitcoin in Texas will never be inhibited by any law or resolution that restricts the practice of securing the Bitcoin network for the safety of the virtual currency.”
Furthermore, the resolution states:
No citizen of Texas shall ever be deprived of their right to own bitcoin and that all bitcoin owners will be protected as they enjoy all the privileges associated with the cryptocurrency, including the immunity afforded by censorship-resistant spending of bitcoin and the ability to store bitcoin in an unhosted wallet without undue interference from any state agency.
Comments
Post a Comment