Looks to me like just one more example of judges who don't give a damn about the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment XXI
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession
of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in
violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

I personally think this should be amended and also that the government should butt out of private transactions in general but while it is there EVERY court in this country should uphold it just like their oath of office requires.

Yeah, but what does that have to do with guns?

"Yeah, but what does that have to do with guns?"

If you mean _directly_, then not a thing.

However, it appears to me that most, if not all, of the "gun control" laws are in conflict with the U.S. constitution and usually with a state constitution. If judges stood by their oath (i.e., gave a damn about the constitution) then these laws would have been struck down long ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Also, the gov butting out of private transactions would include transactions that involve guns. I guess I should clarify: private transactions are ALL transactions to which the government is not a party (a business being involved does NOT make it a non-private transaction).

Yup. A conflict between the interstate commerce clause article and an amendment.

Apparently the SCOTUS can't figure out that an amendment alters the original, and should be followed when the original text is in conflict with it.

Just another case of the SCOTUS being unable to read english.

It's a matter of priorities - what law is more powerful than what other law. Today the Commerce Clause wins, but for GENERATIONS the above mentioned Section 2 was king.

This decision resolves the conflict between Section 2 of the 21st and the Commerce Clause. What it amounts to, though they don't say so specifically, is the fundamental concept of Equal Protection. So, while the states can regulate booze sales all they want, they can't make special laws that favor the in-state producers over the out-of-state ones. That's my read.

On the other hand, judge Thomas makes a fine dissenting opinion arguing that today's decision is a reversal of long established precedent and throws the Webb-Kenyon Act out the window. I agree; it does.

As a fast aside, Webb-Kenyon is the worst written, most unreadeable piece of legaleese I think I've ever seen; its really only reiterating 21.2 in painful detail: "The shipment or transportation, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of any spiritous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind from one State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, Territory, or District of theUnited States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which said spiritous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is prohibited.” 27 U. S. C. §122."

I agree with kbarett; I think the Amendments are the ones to follow. Which means today's decision is WRONG, even though I favor the results because they enlarge my freedom to purchase what I want from where I want.

The States have rights too you know.

Uuugh, nothin' on the side of the road today?

By the way, All great posts today.

The states in question were challenged because they allowed in-state vintners to sell direct to the public, including over the internet, but forced out of state vintners to go through wholesalers. States that require all alcoholic beverages to be sold first to wholesalers may continue to do so.

As far as applying this to interstate gun sales, you run into the problem that this case was directed at state governments and thier laws, while the gun transaction law is federal. And the fedgov is the one given the power to regulate "commerce among the several states."

Ravenwood, your theory won't work. Yesterday's decision doesn't apply to federal laws, or even to state laws authorized by Congress. The theory is that Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce carries with it a presumption that where Congress hasn't explicitly authorized a state to enact a protectionist scheme, it has implicitly prohibited it from so acting. While yesterday's decision is lazily called a "constitutional" one, it's really not, as Congress could pass a law tomorrow authorizing the states to do exactly what the SC said they couldn't.

Yea ... NY's decision to allow intrastate Wine sales via the internet while forbidding interstate sales is more than a bit hypocritical.

It's also a violation of the commerce clause article.

But I still am inclined to think that an amendment should take preference over an article. Or else there is absolutely no point to amendments.

Kristopher: It does, but the question was whether the 21st amendment language giving states the authority to regulate imports of alcohol into the state gave it the authority to discriminate against out of state vendors, or merely the authority to regulate state imports the same as locally produced booze. Note that this can include not only banning all mail-order booze, but banning booze entirely, allowing counties to ban it entirely (Texas), or allowing it to be sold only by state-run liquor stores (Oklahoma, with some odd exceptions).

Understand, if the subject was potatos (say), the constitutional rules are mostly clear. Michigan cannot try to give Michigan growers an advantage over Idaho growers by putting extra restrictions or taxes on potatos from out of state. Michigan could (if the legislature gets tired of being re-elected) ban potatos or impose a special potato tax that was applied equally regardless of where the potato came from. Illinois cannot tax potato shipments that pass through the state on the way from Idaho to the East. However, Congress can regulate interstate commerce in potatos, and it can tax imported (from out of the US) potatos differently than domestic potatos.

Of course, thanks to FDR's intimidation of the Supreme Court in the 30's, there is a precedent for Congress to regulate even potatos that you grow and eat yourself, even though they do not enter commerce and do not cross state lines, on the theory that otherwise you'd buy potatos and thereby (even if you live in Idaho and would buy from one of the potato farmers next door) affect the interstate commerce in them. (It's not clear that the precedent applies if you eat the food yourself - Wickard concerned wheat used as cattle feed when the cattle might be sold in interstate commerce - so if it ever comes up in a real case, it could go either way.)

For liquor, Congress's authority is limited by the 21st Amendment in that it can't write regulations and not allow the states to go beyond them. For guns, Congress's authority ought to be limited by the 2nd Amendment, but judges seem to have trouble with reading or with English comprehension when it comes to that...