Comments on: Yes, I would like some wine with my whine http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2005/05/17/yes_i_would_like_some_wine_with_my_whine/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:42:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: markm http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2005/05/17/yes_i_would_like_some_wine_with_my_whine/#comment-15676 markm Tue, 17 May 2005 22:09:55 +0000 /?p=5561#comment-15676 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 <i>nobody</i> 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. 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.

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2005/05/17/yes_i_would_like_some_wine_with_my_whine/#comment-15659 Xrlq Tue, 17 May 2005 13:54:44 +0000 /?p=5561#comment-15659 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. 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.

]]> By: smijer http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2005/05/17/yes_i_would_like_some_wine_with_my_whine/#comment-15657 smijer Tue, 17 May 2005 13:37:48 +0000 /?p=5561#comment-15657 Did you call my long island iced tea? See, I thought you were out when the stakes went high. Did you call my long island iced tea? See, I thought you were out when the stakes went high.

]]>