Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Supreme Court Wine decision (and guns)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Telperion, May 17, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    The Supreme Court just struck down some puritanical state laws in Michigan and New York that prohibited people from buying wine directly from out-of-state wineries. Winos everywhere rejoice! (But if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving!) The Court said the three-tiered distribution system forced on out-of-state wineries discriminated against interstate commerce (in-state wineries are not subject to these burdens and can sell directly), in violation of the Commerce clause, Art. 1, sec. 8.

    So can we sue California for the same thing with its "unsafe handgun" laws? How's it similar? Handguns not on the "approved list" cannot be imported for sale... unless if you move to California with one, and subsequently sell it "private party" (you still have to go through an FFL). So the State is forcing anyone who wants an evil, "unsafe" pistol to go through a very limited, in-state secondary market. I would say it's similarly discrimination against interstate commerce. And it will only get worse as the roster is slammed shut in 2007 to any new handgun without both a magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator.
     
  2. jdberger

    jdberger Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    309
    i haven't read the opinion, but it does have some possibilities. The connection between interstate commerce might have some merit. The best part about a suit of this kind, is that it doesn't need a plaintiff who has "broken the law" like in Miller and the recent Texas case whose name is eluding me, care of Mr. Beam.

    It would be fun to see who filed amicus briefs on this. I'm willing to bet that Lockyer was one of them. Wouldn't it be a joyful thing to shove (Justice) Kennedy's and his own words up his...ummm...mailbox? :neener:
     
  3. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    That sounds like a "passive commerce clause" holding, and if it was it's going to be tough to apply it to state gun laws. You'd have to find a situation where in-state gun makers were not being forced to go through a "safety" inspection or drop test system, but out-of-state gun makers were. I don't believe ********** and similar states draw a distinction.
     
  4. Langenator

    Langenator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    Cosmoline got it. The PRK law doesn't discriminate between in-state and out of state gun manufacturers. They all have to get the same certification from the state.

    Side note: I don't think there actually are any handgun manufacturers in the PRK. But if there were, they'd still have to do the tests.
     
  5. Colden

    Colden Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    Messages:
    49
    Pistolsmith and small handgun manufacturer in CA:

    John Jardine, Valtro USA.
    http://www.valtrousa.com/

    Very, very well recommended.
     
  6. jdberger

    jdberger Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    309
    I'm thinking that Cosmo got this right. All new handguns for sale in the PRK need to be 'safety tested.' Of course, if you are a LEO, it doesn't apply (cause they are all well trained and would never drop their handguns) <sarcasm>.

    There are LOTS of handgun manufacturers in the PRK. Jennings, Phx Arms and AMT are just a few. All of their guns need to be tested too.

    Definitely a drag...I thought that there was a glimmer of hope out there... :(
     
  7. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    Oh well, was worth the thought. Even if the wine cases could apply, California could retaliate legislatively, much as I imagine New York and Michigan may try to do.
     
  8. ke6guj

    ke6guj Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    81
    I read about the decision, and glossed over it.

    I had a couple thoughts on how it could apply for CA gunowners.

    ONe, is that it could apply interstate transfer of C&R handguns directly to a CA C&R holder, whereas that is currently prohibited.

    And the other way is the current prohibition of purchasing a CA-legal firearm out of state and bringing it back to CA.
     
  9. jazurell

    jazurell Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    Careful now guys....all handguns must be tested....hmmm...I can see a whole new bureaucracy developing here….just imagine working for the department that has to test all bottles of wine…
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page