Yes, I would like some wine with my whine
The Supreme Court has ruled that shipping wine across state lines is OK. This was important to me because Kevin, one of the Brutal Huggers (who are now back from their four month hiatus, apparently, but located here), Chris, Xrlq and Smijer all owe me beers over our little wager on the outcome of the presidential election.
But here in Tennessee, the ruling likely won’t mean much because:
Tennessee is among the 24 states that currently bar out-of-state shipments, but state officials said that because it bans wine shipments from all sources, it might not have to change the law so wineries are treated equally.
Xrlq seems happy to get out of paying up, since it would be illegal. I guess I could insist he drive 3,000 miles. And he has a good analysis of the ruling, which notes that it probably doesn’t apply to beer. Even if I call it barley wine.
So, it looks like no beer for me.
Ravenwood thinks the precedent applied here could be applied to guns:
Of course one of the reasons I’m so happy about this decision is not that I like to drink out of state wine. No, I’m thrilled because this logistical model was very close to the way firearms are sold between states.
Buying guns across state lines requires that you arrange the sale through a federally licensed dealer from your home state. So if you see a gun being sold in a magazine or online, you cannot buy it directly from the federally licensed dealer who is selling it because he lives in another state. Even if all the proper paperwork is filed, you must still route the transaction through a local dealer and pay any transfer fees that they apply.
I won’t hold my breath but sounds reasonable to me.
May 17th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Did you call my long island iced tea? See, I thought you were out when the stakes went high.
May 17th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Ravenwood’s theory doesn’t work. Yesterday’s decision was decided under the “dormant commerce clause,” applies only to state laws. Congress has plenary power to regulate interstate commerce, so it could do anything it wants, including undoing yesterday’s decision completely by passing a law authorizing the states to enact the very laws that were struck down yesterday.
May 17th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
What Xlrq said. The courts ruled a long, long time ago that as an implication of the Interstate Commerce clause, a state cannot discriminate against out-of-state vendors. That would clearly apply to state gun laws that imposed restrictions only on interstate gun transfers beyond the federal laws.
The reason New York’s discrimination against out of state direct wine sales was that the 21st Amendment gives states extra authority to regulate alcohol. This was to ensure that states that wanted to stay dry, let counties go wet or dry (like Texas), or impose a cockamamie halfway Prohibition scheme (like Oklahoma) wouldn’t find their local law nullified by shipments from out of state. The question was how broad that authority was; five Justices decided it didn’t extend as far as letting the state totally out of state vendors from something in-state vendors could do.
It doesn’t mean a damned thing if the state decides that nobody can sell guns, nor does it affect federal laws at all. You’ll have to get a court to take the 2nd amendment seriously to challenge such laws.