Transporting liquor across state lines.

[Enoch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

Sounds like a clear violation of the commerce clause to me.

[ethangsmith]

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]

Sounds like a clear violation of the commerce clause to me.

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

[ILLfarmboy]

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]

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;

[big snip]

Amendment XXI:

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 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.

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]

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]

Ah, yes the exception. how could I have forgotten?

[ILLfarmboy]

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]

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]

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

. 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.

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]

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

. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It appears that it is seldom enforced unless you are pulled for another reason, etc..

[Enoch]

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]

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]

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.