SCOTUS strikes down Maine interstate tobacco tax

Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
1,924
Likes
197
Feedback: 21 / 0 / 0
Story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/20/scotus.internet.tobacco/index.html

Why should we care, you ask? Well, strike "Maine" insert "Massachusetts" and strike "tobacco" insert "ammunition." Does not this ruling provide solid precedent for the AG restrictions on interstate sale of ammo and components being declared unconstitutional? It sounds like the only exemption allowed by Congress is for alcohol sales (equally inane, IMHO).

For the lawyers on the Forum: is there some way this ruling could be used to allow us to openly purchase ammo from out-of-state vendors again? What would need to be done?
 
Story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/20/scotus.internet.tobacco/index.html

Why should we care, you ask? Well, strike "Maine" insert "Massachusetts" and strike "tobacco" insert "ammunition." Does not this ruling provide solid precedent for the AG restrictions on interstate sale of ammo and components being declared unconstitutional? It sounds like the only exemption allowed by Congress is for alcohol sales (equally inane, IMHO).

For the lawyers on the Forum: is there some way this ruling could be used to allow us to openly purchase ammo from out-of-state vendors again? What would need to be done?

Congress (at least any in the past 85 years) has nothing to do with that exemption. It's embodied in the 21st Amendment (repealing prohibition).

Ken
 
Congress (at least any in the past 85 years) has nothing to do with that exemption. It's embodied in the 21st Amendment (repealing prohibition).

Ken

You're absolutely correct, Ken, and thanks for the clarification. The way the article was worded it implied that the exemption came from an act of Congress. But the larger question still stands - given that the Court has ruled that Maine cannot restrict the importation of tobacco, and (again, if the article is correct) the states don't have the power to restrict anything other than alcohol, does this ruling offer us some hope that the de facto ban on importation of ammo into Massachusetts can be changed?
 
I wonder if Gov. Baldacci will refund all those smokers who had to pay retroactive tax bills because of this issue. Some had to pay tens of thousands in back taxes from internet tobbacco sales.
 
I wonder if Gov. Baldacci will refund all those smokers who had to pay retroactive tax bills because of this issue. Some had to pay tens of thousands in back taxes from internet tobbacco sales.

A person I work with got hit with $1200.00 for tobacco taxes. I told her she should be rolling her own [wink]

Which brings me back to point: Where are the lawsuits here in Massachusetts???? I'd gladly pay double my GOAL Membership fees if 100% went to a legal fund....I'm weary of "feel-good" action...It's time to fight!
 
Today's SC Ruling Have Bearing on Ammo/Gun Sales?

In today's T&G.

The package delivery case could provide the impetus for the transportation industry to get out from under state laws regulating cigarette deliveries in the Internet age.

The court unanimously invalidated parts of a Maine law that bars Internet tobacco sales to minors.

The justices said the state cannot impose a regulatory scheme on transportation companies delivering tobacco products directly to consumers. The justices said federal transportation law prevents state-by-state regulation.

“Despite the importance of the public health objective, we cannot agree” with Maine’s approach, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote. He said federal law “says nothing about a public health exception” enabling state regulation.

Federal law bars states from regulating prices, routes or services of shipping companies.

Thirty-one states besides Maine have cigarette delivery laws targeting the problem of underage smokers.

Maine’s law requires delivery companies to intercept packages from unlicensed tobacco sellers and to verify the age of buyers. This requirement hits delivery companies with huge additional costs, the industry said.

Yesterday’s ruling could enable the industry to argue that similar laws in other states are invalid. The decision could clear the way for companies to challenge an aggressive campaign by New York that led the industry’s biggest players to stop shipping cigarettes directly to consumers from illegal Internet sellers.

The case is Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 06-457.
 
Unforetunately, I don't think this can have any affect on mail-order ammo sales in MA. It's not the transportation that's the issue.
 
Unforetunately [sic], I don't think this can have any affect [sic] on mail-order ammo sales in MA. It's not the transportation that's the issue.

Correct. The AG's edict does not address shippers; it goes directly against the sellers.

The fundamental premise of the decision; that states cannot interfere with interstate commerce of legal goods, might be useful, but the decision does not directly deal with our situation.
 
Back
Top Bottom