Subdeacon Joe Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 Nice phrasing: ""Indeed, the Constitution is written to prevent societal amnesia of the defined limits it places on this government of and by the people," Pittman wrote. "That is where the judiciary must declare when its coequal branches overstep their Constitutional authority. Congress has done so here."" https://www.foxnews.com/us/federal-judge-rules-156-year-old-ban-at-home-distilling-unconstitutional "U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, in his ruling on Wednesday, sided with the Hobby Distillers Association's lawyers that the 156-year-old ban exceeded Congress's taxing power and violated the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Hobby Distillers Association is a group that advocates legalizing a person's production of spirits such as whiskey and bourbon for their personal consumption." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 I'm not quite clear on what "production of spirits for personal consumption" has to do with the commerce clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 Taxes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kloehr Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 Also illegal in 41 states (now maybe 40). While the Texas judge ruled on Federal law, not sure what this does to Texas prohibitions. Tennessee prohibits distillation for consumption. It is legal here to distill motor fuel for off-road use. I recall from a few years ago (when I was considering setting up a weed whacker to run on alcohol ), there is one state which allows limited quantities for personal use, family, and possibly as gifts. Just could not be sold. But like weed laws, any state not enforcing federal law does not change federal law. I note the order is stayed to allow time for a federal appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 44 minutes ago, Texas Joker said: Taxes and governmental control by tiny minds and huge egos. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.D. Daily Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 On 7/13/2024 at 5:46 AM, Alpo said: I'm not quite clear on what "production of spirits for personal consumption" has to do with the commerce clause. That is the premise of the TX AG plaintiff's case against the federal governments challenge to TX's statute allowing TX resident to possess suppressors made entirely in TX wo/getting permission & paying the $200 excise tax. Unless TX wants to settle the issue at hand, is commerce that is contained within a single state still within the federal government's power to regulate? I forget the year that the ruling was published but SCOTUS stated a defendant's federal conviction for I believe growing & harvesting Weed for use within a single state was constitutional because the activity may have involved items in interstate commerce. With the current 5-1-3 SCOTUS majority I'm not placing a bet on how the case will end up. With the current state of 2nd Amendment law the most likely path to success in getting the NFA suppressor text declared moot is by suing the ATF asserting that the text violates Heller because suppressors are "In Common Use" per 2016's SCOTUS opinion in Caetano v. MA which declared "arms" are in common use when there are 200,000 or more possessed by the people. There are millions of suppressors registered with the ATF. In the case of Caetano electronic stun guns were the arms in question. Per Daniel Webster's founding era lexicon arms are bearable items used for either offense or defense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.