Ban On Out-Of-State Wine Shipments Ruled Unconstitutional

I'm not sure that it applies. If I understand correctly (and I have NOT read the opinion), part of the reason that the laws were thrown out is because they allowed in-state companies to deliver wine direct to the doorstep, but forbid out-of-state companies from doing the same. Therefore, the states in question were using the laws to protect in-state companies from competition.

In MA, it is illegal for in-state dealers to sell ammo by mail. So I don't think the situation is the same.

That said, IANAL and I don't play one on TV...
 
Unfortunately, the original article has been slimmed down to what is now there, "Be sure to tune in at 11 for the whole story". There was a paragraph relating to Interstate Commerce. It basically said that states could not ban the commerce but could regulate it. The ruling needs to be picked apart but something maybe there to open the door just a crack.
 
Jon, I wish that I could agree with you here, but I don't expect it to have any effect in MA. I'm sure that MA does not (or they will pass a “Consumer Protection” Reg/Law to prohibit it if they have to) allow mail-order sales from in-state wineries to Residents. That's the hook on this ruling . . . treating in-state and out-of-state wineries the same.

I bolded the text that I believe makes this issue irrelevant in MA. MA doesn't allow in-state mail order guns/ammo/alcohol. Thus, they are already treating out-of-state sources the same as they treat in-state sources! Therefore, no discrimination could be proved (except against the citizens, and they don't count!).

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/05/16/court_oks_direct_interstate_wine_sales?mode=PF

Top court allows direct interstate wine sales
By James Vicini | May 16, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - States cannot ban direct out-of-state wine shipments if they allow their wineries to sell directly to consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a decision that could lead to lower prices and more easily available choices.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that the bans involving out-of-state wineries unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. Such laws have been adopted in 23 states while the other 27 states allow direct wine sales, industry officials said.

Defenders of the laws argued that states under the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition in 1933, have the power to regulate the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages.

The laws generally banned direct shipments from out-of-state wineries through sales on the Internet or on the telephone, but allowed direct sales to consumers by wineries within the state.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court majority that the laws at issue from Michigan and New York were designed to grant in-state wineries a competitive advantage over wineries located in other states.

"We hold that the laws in both states discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) and that the discrimination is neither authorized nor permitted by the 21st Amendment," Kennedy concluded.

Kennedy rejected the arguments by the states seeking to justify the bans as necessary to protect minors from alcohol and to be able to collect taxes on the sales.

In states with the ban, out-of-state wineries may sell only to wholesalers, who distribute to retailers, who in turn sell to consumers. A U.S. Federal Trade Commission report has found the bans reduce consumer choice and increase wine prices.

The two cases have been closely watched by the wine industry, which has annual U.S. sales of more than $21.6 billion.

There are more than 3,700 wineries across the country, according to the industry trade association. Most of them outside the top 25 are small, family-run enterprises.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the cases from Michigan and New York in an effort to resolve conflicting U.S. appeals court rulings on the constitutionality of the laws.

Michigan officials said Congress delegated to the states the right to regulate the shipment and transportation of alcoholic beverages within its borders.

Opponents of the Michigan law, wine connoisseurs, wine journalists and a small California winery, described the ban as protectionist, discriminatory and anti-consumer.

Those challenging the New York law included two small family-run wineries in Virginia and California and three New York wine drinkers.

Joining Kennedy in the majority opinion were Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Thomas wrote that the court majority suggested it believed the decision would enhance consumer welfare and serve the nation well. He said the 21st Amendment and a 1913 federal law "took those policy choices away from judges and returned them to the states."

© Copyright <http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright> 2005 The New York Times Company
 
Len, I just checked MGL Chp 140s131E SALE OF FIREARMS, which you know covers the sale of firearms, rifles, shotguns and ammunition feeding devices and I can't find anywhere that in state mail order ammunition sales are prohibited. Is this another of the AG's whacky consumer protection regs?

I guess I'm a wishful thinker in a crappy state always looking for an angle.
 
Well, in this case our AG is actually being somewhat clever rather than simply using brute force. The law says that anyone selling ammunition in Massachsetts needs to have a dealers license, which is where he claims the out-of-state dealers/distributers are violating the law. The problem is that the generally accepted law on interstate sales of a product is that the sale is regarded as taking place at the location of the seller, not the buyer. And second, the law is worded in such a way that it's effectively impossible for an out-of-state seller to obtain the required license, even if they wanted to jump through the hoops. (One wonders what the AG's opinion of the locus of interstate sales would be if I were to set up an on-line ammunition sales company here in Massachusetts, but only deliver to out-of-state customers. Of course it was a Massachusetts writer who first opined on consistency and "little minds".)

Ken
 
I'll see if I can remember to ask Carl tomorrow if I see him, but since you need a LTC to purchase ammo, I don't know of any in-state place that will sell and ship in-state . . . not in my 29 years of shooting. I'm sure it is illegal, but I couldn't point to where it is written.

Likewise there is a winery in Plymouth and a large mail-order wine seller around Canton, MA. I know that the Canton place will not/can not sell in-state by mail-order. I doubt that the winery can either.

We're an "equal opportunity state", we ban everything here!
 
You're right Ken, the law does make it impossible for an out of state dealer of ammo to be licensed. But if the law is found to be unconstitutional by the SJC or SC then it would be kicked back to the legislature to be repaired.
To fix the law, a simple sentence could be added.

In my limited reading of the opinion, they hinge much on the Commerce Clause of 21st Amendment. But they do continually mention Intersate Commerce and free trade between states.

Thanks Len, if anything, it's interesting.
 
So, How does the sale of cigarettes thru the Internet to minors in Ma. differ? Or is this a totally different issue?

I'm sure that there would be a bigger outcry from smokers compared to what the gunowners have shown.
 
Much to my shock, I found that Blanchard's will ship wine to MA residents. Since they are a MA alcohol dealer, it looks like one of two things:
- MA will have to allow out-of-state dealers to ship here under the SJC ruling. Of course, nothing will prevent Reilly from declaring that these out-of-state dealers have to get a MA wine dealer's license . . . and of course there would be no procedure for anyone to issue said license! This could also earn him votes for "protecting MA businesses".
- Blanchard's may be "wishful thinking" and changed their website yesterday after the SJC ruling in the HOPES that they can sell via mail-order in MA.

Ref: http://www.blanchardsliquor.com/main.asp?request=SHIPPING_INFO

MA wine dealers are MUCH MORE organized (with highly paid lobbyists i the state house) than MA gun dealers and thus are more likely to lobby effectively to allow them to sell mail-order. I don't see that there would be any real interest in MA gun dealers selling ammo mail-order, so they are less likely to push for that (which if allowed it could open the door to SJC ruling similarly on ammo sales).

[e.g. When I was a Special/Reserve PO, every Christmas the local alcohol dealers (we were a dry town, so no dealers were in the town) would drop off cases of bottles, one bottle of booze for each FT PO (we who were PT never counted <sniff>). There would be many cases stacked up in our PD for the ~25 POs as a Christmas gift. Even that is "lobbying". When was the last time that a gun dealer from neighboring towns dropped off cases of practice ammo or targets at a PD each Christmas! I'd venture NEVER!]

The fact that Reilly doesn't really "prohibit' out-of-state ammo dealers from selling here . . . he requires a permit (that they can't get) may be subtle enough to slide under the radar. There is also a lot more emotion about firearms issues that allows people to be blinded by their fears/hatred and thus NOT see the inconsistencies of law/regs. Declaring all mail-order/Internet out-of-state ammo sales as happening "in state", whereas all other products are treated as sales occurring in the state where they are shipped from (which is also in agreement with the UCC) seems to get ignored (helping prove my theory).

For those interested: GOAL has NO legal standing (in court) in any action to change our situation. The ONLY aggrieved party who can bring an action under law must be an out-of-state dealer (or out-of-state dealers assn) . . . and they don't see the profit equaling the cost of litigation, so it just "ain't gonna happen" here.
 
MikeD122 said:
So, How does the sale of cigarettes thru the Internet to minors in Ma. differ? Or is this a totally different issue?
Click to expand...

If you read the "rules" from the Blanchard's URL (my prior post) you will see that the carrier will ask for ID that the person who signs for the booze is >21. Similarly, if the AG wanted ammo sales to happen in MA (he doesn't) all he'd have to do is insist that the person signing for the ammo shipment shows a LTC/FID to the carrier, a notation on bill of lading with the LTC/FID number written in by the signature of the receiver would cover the intent of the law nicely.

Easy to do, IF you want to . . . but when you don't want to allow such transactions it is also very easy to "just say no".
 
I'm a little confused as there seems to me to be some disparity as to which state the sale actually takes place. Consider this senario and clarify:

If a GA resident comes to my shop , in GA, and buys a box of ammo, he pays sales tax.

If a GA resident CALLS my shop and orders a box of ammo and I ship it to a GA address, he pays sales tax.

If a non-resident drives to my shop and buys a box of ammo, he pays sales tax.

If a non-resident CALLS my shop and orders a box of ammo and I ship it out of state, he DOES NOT pay sales tax. [?]

Things that make you go, hmmm.
 
Tony, I didn't realize that you are FFL too! Tell us more. [twisted]

I've had a MA Sales Tax Registration Number since ~1966 and also held a CT Sales Tax Reg Number from 1971 to 1974 (when I lived there).

The rules in MA, CT and many/most states are tricky indeed on sales tax. Sales tax is due on purchases "in state". But most have provisions for "use tax" (same rate as sales tax) for items purchased from outside your state and "imported" (by mail/common carrier/hand-carry) into your state.

Proof on what is due for use tax is pretty tough to do, but occasionally states flex their muscles and subpoena dealer records and then send bills to the buyers.

When we speak we usually use the term "sales tax" to actually mean either sales or use tax. In fact, looking at my MA certificate it is called "Sales and Use Tax Registration" (ST-1).
 
Len - I'm not a FFL, I was using that as an example. My point is, when I order something from out of state I pay the advertised price plus shipping, no tax that I'm aware of.


I should add that I do have a corp. and tax ID but since I don't sell a product, I've never had to deal with sales tax issues.
 
Tony, for clarification:

- Use tax is supposed to be paid by the buyer direct to the state of residence.

- Use tax is not collected by any merchants.
 
LenS said:
Tony, for clarification:

- Use tax is supposed to be paid by the buyer direct to the state of residence.

- Use tax is not collected by any merchants.
Click to expand...

Len - That still doesn't clear up my confusion from my earlier post. If no sales tax is being collected, which state is it actually being sold in? Just wondering if that is a loop hole your Comrade Reilly is using on the ammo issue.
 
TonyD said:
LenS said:
Tony, for clarification:

- Use tax is supposed to be paid by the buyer direct to the state of residence.

- Use tax is not collected by any merchants.
Click to expand...

Len - That still doesn't clear up my confusion from my earlier post. If no sales tax is being collected, which state is it actually being sold in? Just wondering if that is a loop hole your Comrade Reilly is using on the ammo issue.
Click to expand...

Tony - we the people are supposed to declare what we buy in another state and then pay the sales tax on it. Of course we're good little conrades and do just that. [lol] [lol] [lol]
 
Lynne said:
TonyD said:
LenS said:
Tony, for clarification:

- Use tax is supposed to be paid by the buyer direct to the state of residence.

- Use tax is not collected by any merchants.
Click to expand...

Len - That still doesn't clear up my confusion from my earlier post. If no sales tax is being collected, which state is it actually being sold in? Just wondering if that is a loop hole your Comrade Reilly is using on the ammo issue.
Click to expand...

Tony - we the people are supposed to declare what we buy in another state and then pay the sales tax on it. Of course we're good little conrades and do just that. [lol] [lol] [lol]
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but I don't believe it's legal for a state to collect taxes from out of state commerce.
 
What our Dept of Revenue says is, if you make an out of state purchase of something that will be used in this state and you do not pay sales tax or a tax less than our 5%, you must pay a USE tax equal to the 5% to this state. This is for internet, mail, phone, or in person out of state sales.
 
JonJ said:
What our Dept of Revenue says is, if you make an out of state purchase of something that will be used in this state and you do not pay sales tax or a tax less than our 5%, you must pay a USE tax equal to the 5% to this state. This is for internet, mail, phone, or in person out of state sales.
Click to expand...

Wow, the stupidity and tyranny has no bounds.

Is that legal?
 
TonyD said:
Wow, the stupidity and tyranny has no bounds.

Is that legal?
Click to expand...

What? Being stupid? Sure is, the libs are stupid and they have everything sewn up.

Seriously, yes the tax is legal until some judge rules that it's not.
 
Tony, check your sales & use tax laws in GA. It might also be the law there.

Most folks don't know it, but it is the law in many states, not just MA.
 
LenS said:
Tony, check your sales & use tax laws in GA. It might also be the law there.

Most folks don't know it, but it is the law in many states, not just MA.
Click to expand...

The majority of states have this "tax" rule. They figger iffn they can't get it one way, they'll get it another. Is it legal, Tony? Hell son, paying the federal tax isn't legal...but there ya go.
 
Back
Top Bottom