Supreme Court Wine decision (and guns)

[Telperion]

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.

 

[jdberger]

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?

 

[Cosmoline]

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 California and similar states draw a distinction.

 

[Langenator]

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.

 

[Colden]

Pistolsmith and small handgun manufacturer in CA:

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

Very, very well recommended.

 

[jdberger]

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>.

I don't think there actually are any handgun manufacturers in the PRK.

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...

 

[Telperion]

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.

 

[ke6guj]

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.

 

[jazurell]

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…