OTOH, if Bitcoin is not a currency, then it would not be subject to these laws--but in such case it would be unlikely for Bitcoin to ever become more than an extremely niche means of exchange.
The main reason many Bitcoin-related business are potentially covered by money transmitter (and related) rules is because of how they handle traditional currencies like US dollars in connection with their Bitcoin-related business.
Per the FinCEN guidance on virtual currencies [1], " An administrator or exchanger that [...] buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person."
So, no, the situation isn't the same in the eyes of the federal regulator, and its not really surprising that state regulators whose scope of authority is set by the federal rules view things the same way as the federal regulators.
[1] http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001....
Bitcoin advocates can't seem to make up their mind as to whether Bitcoin actually qualifies as "money". It's money right up to the point where the law starts talking about "money", then magically it's just some arbitrary good that's not actually a currency at all.
1. Hard liquor not for consumption on site: illegal to sell in Virginia, only the state can.
2. Firearms: highly regulated.
3. Food: must meet health department regulations.
4. Computer parts: fairly open, must still meet basic business licensing requirements, collect sales tax, etc.
You can talk about how things ought to be all you want, but all that matters here is how things are, and how things are appears to be that this Bitcoin operation falls under a certain category of law with which they are not compliant. The law is not written with Bitcoin in mind at all, so conspiracy theories about governments specifically targeting Bitcoin do not appear to have any basis.
