PDA

View Full Version : Transporting liquor across state lines.



Enoch
12-25-2011, 07:16
Out of curiosity I have been doing a little research on whether it is illegal to buy liquor in one state and take it to another state. (ie. when I buy alcohol in Ga and bring it back to SC.) So far I have confirmed that in SC, NC, VA, PA, NH, MA, and TN it is illegal to purchase any amount in another state and bring it into these states by any means even for personal use. (ie. TN: misdeamenor if under 3 gallons; felony if over 3). Not sure of other states. It appears that it is seldom enforced unless you are pulled for another reason, etc. I got interested when I was returning from GA with about 3 cases and got pulled for speeding in North Augusta, SC. The state trouper asked about the whiskey as it was on the seat next to me. I explained that I was a collector and he seemed satisfied. But I would have been hard pressed to say I bought it in SC when some of it had old GA tax stamps on it. (MORAL: Don't speed with liquor!)

Just curious what your thoughts on this are.

MarkEdwards
12-25-2011, 07:27
Just curious what your thoughts on this are.

My thoughts are:


Better to keep it hidden in the trunk - out of sight, out of mind.
Pay better attention to speed traps. :cool:Personally, I think these laws reek of prohibitionism, although it's probably more related to tax revenue. In either case, I don't like it. :hot:

Enoch
12-25-2011, 08:08
My thoughts are:
Better to keep it hidden in the trunk - out of sight, out of mind.
Pay better attention to speed traps. :cool:Personally, I think these laws reek of prohibitionism, although it's probably more related to tax revenue. In either case, I don't like it. :hot:

One article I read had to do with Mass and NH. When MA passed a new tax on alcohol, NH store owners put up billboards in MA suggesting they drive across the border to get cheaper alcohol. MA started looking for ways to stop it. And yes, I do not speed anymore

Special Reserve
12-25-2011, 08:32
At the border, you can buy at the duty free and import into MI (or US) by paying the tax of about $3/bottle.

This is not too good for bourbon but for Scotch and Canadian it is an excellent buy if you get a larger quantity to cover the tunnel fees.

In the past I've done this with friends that would get a case at a time.

Make sure you declare and are prepared to have your car thoroughly searched including by dogs.

It's all about collecting the alcohol tax.

Enoch
12-25-2011, 08:46
"Six of these states -- Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee and Utah -- actually make it a felony..."

It's funny I could not find any states that care if you purchase and take out of state....

Hershmeister
12-25-2011, 08:47
Sounds like a clear violation of the commerce clause to me.

ethangsmith
12-25-2011, 15:17
Yep, not only do you HAVE to buy your whiskey from a "State Store" in Pennsylvania, you're not allowed to import any either. I often wonder if that is a violation of some right or other law and could be taken off the books.

jburlowski
12-25-2011, 18:16
Sounds like a clear violation of the commerce clause to me.

How so?....................

ILLfarmboy
12-25-2011, 22:04
How so?....................

Originally the commerce clause was set up to give the federal government the power to ensure that commerce across state lines was free IE that Illinois did not slap an excise tax on goods coming from Iowa. They were concerned trade wars between and among the states might spring up in the absence of federal authority to "regulate' such commerce.

I think what he means is that for one state to make the act of bringing in goods from another state illegal, constitutes something akin to the trade wars the founders sought to prevent. (forget about alcohol for a minute and imagine we are talking about beef or wheat)

bluesbassdad
12-25-2011, 22:13
Sounds like a clear violation of the commerce clause to me.

From Article I, Section 8:



The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[snip]

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;



Amendment XXI:


Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

[B]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.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Note that Section 2 clearly carves out an exception to the so-called "commerce clause". That exception was deemed necessary in order to secure ratification -- or at least to provide political cover for some of its advocates. It also has the curious effect of making a violation of state law a federal crime. I don't know whether any Federal legislation has ever established penalties, however.

bluesbassdad
12-25-2011, 22:16
Originally the commerce clause was set up to give the federal government the power to ensure that commerce across state lines was free IE that Illinois did not slap an excise tax on goods coming from Iowa. They were concerned trade wars between and among the states might spring up in the absence of federal authority to "regulate' such commerce.

I think what he means is that for one state to make the act of bringing in goods from another state illegal, constitutes something akin to the trade wars the founders sought to prevent. (forget about alcohol for a minute and imagine we are talking about beef or wheat)

Yep.

And it's worth noting that the word "regulate" meant "to make regular" in those days. It most assuredly did not mean to restrict, as it has come to in the past hundred years or so.

ILLfarmboy
12-25-2011, 22:19
Ah, yes the exception. how could I have forgotten?

ILLfarmboy
12-25-2011, 22:43
Yep.

And it's worth noting that the word "regulate" meant "to make regular" in those days. It most assuredly did not mean to restrict, as it has come to in the past hundred years or so.

Take that a step further----regulate comes to mean restrict and while Congress is the only body with the Constitutional authority to "regulate" interstate commerce, the FDA does it, too.

The FDA instituted an interstate ban on raw milk sales in 1987.

Now, I know why I forgot about the alcohol exception. Who needs a written exception?

Hershmeister
12-26-2011, 07:10
Interesting - never knew about that amendment clause!

So the states ensured themselves a monopoly on liquor sales and taxes.

Still a violation of the intent of the commerce clause IMHO. Plus as noted, interesting to see a federal law making the violation of state law illegal. Weird.

bluesbassdad
12-26-2011, 14:37
Take that a step further----regulate comes to mean restrict and while Congress is the only body with the Constitutional authority to "regulate" interstate commerce, the FDA does it, too.

The FDA instituted an interstate ban on raw milk sales in 1987.

Now, I know why I forgot about the alcohol exception. Who needs a written exception?

As the task of regulating (in the modern sense) has become more complex, it has become impractical for Congress to implement it through detailed legislation. This has led to the passage of laws that establish bureaucracies to create the details.

It turns out that in regard to the health care bill Speaker Pelosi got it wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To). Until a few thousand more pages of rules are issued, we still won't know everything it does. To get a general idea of this process go here (http://www.ropesgray.com/files/upload/RegulationsPursuanttothePPACA.pdf).

The phrase "play by the rules" takes on a wholly new meaning, doesn't it?'

Amendment XXI is a model of simple clarity in comparison.

Enoch
12-27-2011, 06:06
As the task of regulating (in the modern sense) has become more complex, it has become impractical for Congress to implement it through detailed legislation. This has led to the passage of laws that establish bureaucracies to create the details.

It turns out that in regard to the health care bill Speaker Pelosi got it wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To). Until a few thousand more pages of rules are issued, we still won't know everything it does. To get a general idea of this process go here (http://www.ropesgray.com/files/upload/RegulationsPursuanttothePPACA.pdf).

The phrase "play by the rules" takes on a wholly new meaning, doesn't it?'

Amendment XXI is a model of simple clarity in comparison.

I do not think political opinions/agendas should be posted on SB. It opens up too much potential for contention and bad feelings. My wife is a Democratic political consultant who currently works for a former national chairman of the DNC. She also worked in Kentucky two years ago helping a Democratic governor change some archaic laws. (The reason I got interested in bourbon.) I refrain but it is so tempting to post a rebuttal which could start a chain reaction. MHO.

Josh
12-27-2011, 06:09
In Michigan written permission is needed for a consumer to transport liquor into the state from another state. As for whether I've ever asked permission, I plead the 5th (or 750 ml as the case may be).

Mark's advice is sound. Keep it in the trunk. Also always remember if a cop asks to search your car you have a right to say no.

Halifax
12-27-2011, 06:23
I didn't realize this about traveling over the state line. I know that it is illegal to travel in your vehicle in NC with more than 8 liters of alcohol unless you get a permit.

BourbonBaron
12-27-2011, 08:36
So I can buy a bottle in another country and bring it back on an airplane, and that's all fine and dandy, but if I drive to Kentucky for a bottle and bring it back, that's a felony?

Ridiculous.

jburlowski
12-27-2011, 09:03
So I can buy a bottle in another country and bring it back on an airplane, and that's all fine and dandy, but if I drive to Kentucky for a bottle and bring it back, that's a felony?

Ridiculous.

If it's illegal to drive it in, I suspect it's also illegal to fly it in.

Enforcement is the key.

jeanraulmitchell
12-27-2011, 10:13
I flew 10 bottles from TN to CA last night. I'm very happy and I'm free. Oral sex is illegal in some states and so is dancing in public but I doubt very many people are arrested for it.

ILLfarmboy
12-27-2011, 10:39
It appears that it is seldom enforced unless you are pulled for another reason, etc..

I'm always amazed at the number of drug busts that happen because of minor trafic violations or busted tail lights.

I don't travel with a lot of booze in my vehicle, or any contraband, but if I did I'd make damn sure all my lights worked, never do the slow and go, wear my seat belt (which I never do) and so forth...

Even when doing something perfectly legal like transporting firearms, I subscribe to the out of fight out of mind theory. Why give some cop who might not be to friendly to wards my Constitutional right an excuse to give my the first, second, and third degree? Besides, anything like a case of booze, a laptop or a firearm is a target for theives. If it is on the seat in plain sight always thow a coat or something over it.

Enoch
12-27-2011, 10:40
My next door neighbor flies to Mexico about a dozen times a year and brings back the most amazing tequila. He did say he is limited to 3 liters per trip and customs will confiscate it if it is more than 3 liters. So I get one, his father-in-law gets one and he keeps one each time. But I get it at about 30 cents on the dollar compared to SC prices.

Stu
12-27-2011, 11:15
It's strictly economics and religion. The state wants the money, and the Baptist preachers want to tell enryone they're going to hell for drinking, smoking, fornicating (other than to have children), dancing, or daring to enjoy life in any other way. Sister Bertha Betterthanyou had her "sensitivities" disturbed when she had to pass a liquor store 6 blocks from her house on her way to church. These same political-religious values are why I live in a dry county.

sailor22
12-27-2011, 11:33
Last spring while driving to Bardstown for the Sampler I was given a loooonnng look from a Tennessee trooper, who had a dog in the back seat, as he passed me on the interstate. A few miles further on there was a similar trooper and a "drug enforcement" (said so on the side don'tca know) van that had pulled a truck over and had two occupants in cuffs bent over the police car hood while the dog was sniffing in the cab.
Thinking about that turn of events as I drove I recalled the more than 4 cases of Bourbon in the back under the toneau and it occurred to me I was probably lucky I didn't fit whatever sort of profile he was looking for. I didn't have a clue about what the Tn. laws might have been. I do now.... thanks....I think. They may not have cared about the whiskey, but if they did I'm sure it would have changed my day. Scary thought.

Also there was a thread on here a year or so ago about there being a law in NC that it makes it illegal for any one person to own more than 1 gallon of whiskey at one time. Makes any collector in violation -- also scary.

Here's hoping that enforcement of these blue laws continue to be low priority.

Enoch
12-27-2011, 11:56
Actual NC law:

18B‑301. Possession and consumption of fortified wine and spirituous liquor.
(a) Possession at Home. It shall be lawful, without an ABC permit, for any person at least 21 years old to possess for lawful purposes any amount of fortified wine and spirituous liquor at his home or a temporary residence, such as a hotel room.
(b) Possession on Other Property. It shall be lawful, without an ABC permit, for a person to possess for his personal use and the use of his guests not more than eight liters of fortified wine or spirituous liquor, or eight liters of the two combined...

I haven't had time to look into other states.

My home insurance does have limits on reimbursement.

LarryG
12-27-2011, 15:46
Also there was a thread on here a year or so ago about there being a law in NC that it makes it illegal for any one person to own more than 1 gallon of whiskey at one time.We have a similar law here in Alabama. I'd have to verify the quantities but IIRC no household can be in possession of more than a gallon of wine, a gallon of distilled spirits, or one case of beer at any given time. I also don't recall whether those limits apply individually or collectively. I'll try to remember to check tomorrow, when I'm back at my computer instead of on my smartphone.

MarkEdwards
12-27-2011, 16:17
A few miles further on there was a similar trooper and a "drug enforcement" (said so on the side don'tca know) van

A slight tangent - years ago, I saw a truck in Dallas marked as "Courtesy Patrol. Enforcement Division."

I wonder what the penalty is for being discourteous in traffic.

ThomasH
12-27-2011, 17:25
My thought on the subject is that it is tax revenue related. Every state is constantly crying defecit and wants the tax money for themselves. I do, however think they are thinking more in terms of large quantities being brought in and resold and deriving them of the revenue. I have bought bottles in many other states, brought them home to my own control state. I have transported them by plane and motor vehicle, from within the US as well as numerous overseas destinations in addition to having several friends do the same. Only twice have I had to pay duty and have never, ever had a problem. I believe in the out of sight, out of mind concept1

Thomas Harper

jcg9779
12-27-2011, 17:46
Out of curiosity I have been doing a little research on whether it is illegal to buy liquor in one state and take it to another state. (ie. when I buy alcohol in Ga and bring it back to SC.) So far I have confirmed that in SC, NC, VA, PA, NH, MA, and TN it is illegal to purchase any amount in another state and bring it into these states by any means even for personal use. (ie. TN: misdeamenor if under 3 gallons; felony if over 3). Not sure of other states. It appears that it is seldom enforced unless you are pulled for another reason, etc. I got interested when I was returning from GA with about 3 cases and got pulled for speeding in North Augusta, SC. The state trouper asked about the whiskey as it was on the seat next to me. I explained that I was a collector and he seemed satisfied. But I would have been hard pressed to say I bought it in SC when some of it had old GA tax stamps on it. (MORAL: Don't speed with liquor!)

Just curious what your thoughts on this are.

This just proves that you should leave it in Georgia, Enoch! :)

ILLfarmboy
12-27-2011, 20:52
It's strictly economics and religion. The state wants the money, and the Baptist preachers want to tell enryone they're going to hell for drinking, smoking, fornicating (other than to have children), dancing, or daring to enjoy life in any other way. Sister Bertha Betterthanyou had her "sensitivities" disturbed when she had to pass a liquor store 6 blocks from her house on her way to church. These same political-religious values are why I live in a dry county.

Yes, and its my guess, though I might be guesing wrong, the the holier-than-thou types are the tools and money grubbing state bureaucrats and politicians are the puppet masters.

Pretty much the only good thing you can say about Democratic Chicago's effect on down-state ILL. with regard to our laws is they can be a buffer against what might be too many religious zealots in our state Assembly. I can go into a grocery store and buy anything including 190 proof Everclear. Although, some nannystaters up in Chicago have restricted the sale of Everclear in some places, In the city limits I think.

The trade off is of course high fuel taxes, high everything taxes, and not even a snowball's chance in hell of ever having a CCW law.

Enoch
12-28-2011, 04:40
This just proves that you should leave it in Georgia, Enoch! :)
My mother-in-law lives near Georgia so when we visit it gives me an excuse to get away for awhile. :lol:

Halifax
12-28-2011, 05:55
Enoch... One thing is for certain. You won't have to worry about our laws next time you're up in Raleigh. In my best Carolina tongue... "We don't got nothing here!" LOL... Our ABC stores suck.

bluesbassdad
01-02-2012, 00:00
I do not think political opinions/agendas should be posted on SB. It opens up too much potential for contention and bad feelings. My wife is a Democratic political consultant who currently works for a former national chairman of the DNC. She also worked in Kentucky two years ago helping a Democratic governor change some archaic laws. (The reason I got interested in bourbon.) I refrain but it is so tempting to post a rebuttal which could start a chain reaction. MHO.

You are reading in your own interpretation of what I actually posted.

I used a current topic to illustrate that the rule making process determines the actual provisions of most legislation. I did not comment on the wisdom of those rules in regard to the current topic.

I challenge you to find an expression of my views on any specific piece of legislation in my post. If you do, then I will issue a formal apology for injecting politics into this thread. If you fail, then it is you who should consider rendering an apology.

MJL
01-02-2012, 04:44
After I defended my thesis, in July 2010, I "needed" to see something of America so we went, the very next day, on a road trip that took us from Florida out west to Arizona, north into Utah, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming and then on back east by way of Kentucky. I started buying booze somewhere outside New Orleans. By the time we made it to North Carolina I had, oh, a "few" bottles in the car along with a few guns that I had found on bargain as well as the defensive cannons that I had brought with me. I ran into an ABC store in Statesville, NC a few minutes before closing, grabbed a cart and loaded it up with booze we can't easily find in SoFla. On check out the clerk informed me that I was buying enough booze to violate state transportation laws in NC and that I had to put some back. OK, then, so I put a bottle back. As I left my wife noticed the clerk on the phone, looking out the window at our Florida plates on the car. We drove home the next day totally paranoid, with visions of Cool Hand Luke playing in our minds if we got caught. I think these are laws that exist to impose governmental power upon the populace and not to actually protect. To that end they are surplus, unneeded law enforcement powers that should be withdrawn back to the people. I resent being classed with a bootlegger when I bought my booze in a store, paid my taxes on it and followed all laws regarding its purchase.

Enoch
01-02-2012, 05:11
You are reading in your own interpretation of what I actually posted.

I used a current topic to illustrate that the rule making process determines the actual provisions of most legislation. I did not comment on the wisdom of those rules in regard to the current topic.

I challenge you to find an expression of my views on any specific piece of legislation in my post. If you do, then I will issue a formal apology for injecting politics into this thread. If you fail, then it is you who should consider rendering an apology.

I don't recall asking anyone for an apology.

I do think your statement:




It turns out that in regard to the health care bill Speaker Pelosi got it wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To). Until a few thousand more pages of rules are issued, we still won't know everything it does. To get a general idea of this process go here (http://www.ropesgray.com/files/upload/RegulationsPursuanttothePPACA.pdf).

The phrase "play by the rules" takes on a wholly new meaning, doesn't it?'


has the "feel" of a sarcastic jab against Pelosi and the PPACA. If it is in no way an expression of your views on the PPACA, then I apologize.

I do stand by my belief that we should refrain from political and/or religious rhetoric. And I say this as an ordained Baptist minister/Democratic activist who loves a good argument on either of these subjects.

fishnbowljoe
01-02-2012, 06:37
Just a reminder folks, this is a regular thread in the bourbon forums. It is not a PRC discussion. I repeat, THIS IS NOT PRC. Let's stay on topic. Any more posts in a PRC vein, and this thread will be deleted. Joe

Old Lamplighter
01-02-2012, 07:06
Personally, I've never thought about the transport question/problem. I guess that is partly because I have never found more than a couple of bottles to transport back into TN from surrounding states. The closest states to home are MS & AL - both control board states that unfortunately - for their respective residents & myself - don't seem to ever have much that cannot be found in TN. I suppose the naive side of me has just dismissed the old laws as archaic from another day & time. They are still on the books though and deserve some thought/attention for those who might be in violation. If they are still on the books, there is always someone who would be eager to press the button...especially in 'Boss Hogg' counties in this part of the country...lol.

That being said, the THP is usually quite busy on the interstates but it seems they are much more focused on the meth & weed trade. However, I don't have any knowledge along those lines for a fact...just as a passerby observer and occasional local news watcher.

Hershmeister
01-03-2012, 07:02
With the absence of tax stamps how would anyone know where you procured the liquor anyway?

p_elliott
01-03-2012, 07:31
With the absence of tax stamps how would anyone know where you procured the liquor anyway?


Here in Iowa they have a bottle refund sticker on them that says: IA $.05 ( it actually says 5cent but there is no cent sign on a computer keyboard.)

c2walker
01-03-2012, 10:38
Here in Iowa they have a bottle refund sticker on them that says: IA $.05 ( it actually says 5cent but there is no cent sign on a computer keyboard.)

I beg to differ: :Clever: ;)

ILLfarmboy
01-03-2012, 14:37
With the absence of tax stamps how would anyone know where you procured the liquor anyway?

I would assume you would have to prove you bought it in-state by showing a receipt. Guilty until proven innocent?

BFerguson
01-03-2012, 14:49
Here in Iowa they have a bottle refund sticker on them that says: IA $.05 ( it actually says 5cent but there is no cent sign on a computer keyboard.)

I loved that refund back in college! I'd buy pop in IL on the cheap on breaks, haul it back, then take the cans to the machine at Hy-Vee and get my "deposit" back.

Ah, simpler times........

B

deathevocation
01-27-2012, 04:49
Always been bemused by these laws in the USA. Land of the free.