What specific changes to the UCC has David Rogers Webb advocated to prevent the Great Taking?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
David Rogers Webb has called for state-level revisions to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)—most centrally to Article 8—to overturn what he describes as 1994-era “redefinitions” of securities ownership that make investors “entitlement owners” and leave individual property rights subordinate to intermediaries and secured creditors; his remedy is to strike or amend the specific provisions that create those exemptions and restore direct property ownership rights in state codes and related statutes [1] [2] [3]. Webb’s campaign combines legal drafting, testimony at state legislatures (notably South Dakota and Wyoming), public education, and urging citizens to back bills that would restore Title-holder protections and limit secured-creditor priority in insolvency [4] [5].
1. What Webb says was broken: Article 8 “entitlement owner” regime and the 1994 changes
Webb argues that revisions to UCC Article 8 and related harmonizing instruments converted shareholders and bondholders from direct owners into “entitlement owners” — a contractual, intermediary-based claim that is weaker in insolvency and allows intermediaries or secured parties to treat client assets as collateral or contract rights rather than titled property — a shift he traces to UCC amendments and subsequent international harmonization starting in the 1990s [1] [6] [7].
2. The specific UCC fixes Webb advocates: strike exemptions, restore property rights in Article 8
The core legislative prescription Webb and his legal team push is explicit: strike or amend the UCC language that creates the “entitlement”/intermediary regime and the exemptions that allow secured creditors or intermediaries to assert priority claims over client securities, effectively restoring explicit state-law recognition that securities are owned by individuals and not merely contractual entitlements held by intermediaries [2] [3] [8].
3. Complementary legal targets Webb and allies mention: Article 9, bankruptcy law, and state commercial codes
Beyond Article 8, Webb and commentators propose parallel changes to state commercial codes built on the UCC model and even to bankruptcy priorities and Article 9 lien rules so that secured-creditor hierarchies cannot be used to strip retail owners of title in systemic insolvency events; several of Webb’s public materials and allied analyses specifically recommend amendments in state codes and, in some accounts, changes to bankruptcy law to prevent derivative claimants from bypassing bankruptcy processes [9] [10] [7].
4. How Webb’s campaign is proceeding in practice: state bills, hearings, and public mobilization
Webb has focused on state legislatures as the locus of change, supporting bills such as South Dakota HB122 and similar measures in Wyoming to reopen UCC Article 8 language, participating in committee hearings, and urging citizen attendance and lobbying to overcome banking-industry pushback; reporting documents committee passage and ongoing hearings in multiple states as of 2025 [4] [5] [11].
5. Conflicting perspectives, practical limits, and evidentiary gaps
Reporting backing Webb’s proposals comes primarily from Webb’s own appearances, allied podcasts and advocacy outlets, and sympathetic commentators; those sources assert court precedent upholding current UCC interpretations and warn that wholesale federal or international systems (such as central clearing parties or CBDC-driven controls) could still enable concentrated control even if states amend codes, meaning Webb’s state-level fixes may reduce particular legal pathways for a “taking” but might not eliminate all systemic risks — mainstream legal analysis and counterarguments are not present in the provided reporting [3] [10] [6].
6. Political dynamics and the banking lobby objection Webb describes
According to Webb and allied reports, banking and financial-industry lobbyists oppose the proposed UCC rollbacks because they would limit secured-creditor protections and change custody practices; advocates frame the fight as one between state sovereignty over property law and entrenched interstate/international financial practices embedded in the UCC model code [2] [4].
Conclusion
David Rogers Webb’s demands are concrete: amend or strike the Article 8 provisions and related UCC/exemption language that convert titled ownership into “entitlements,” adjust related commercial and bankruptcy rules to prevent secured-creditor primacy in systemic insolvency events, and push those changes through state legislatures to restore explicit individual property rights; the movement’s evidence and momentum are documented in Webb’s media appearances and state bill activity, but the sources provided are advocacy-aligned and do not include independent legal rebuttals or comprehensive assessments of whether the proposed fixes would fully prevent the scenarios Webb warns about [1] [2] [4].