[LAW] Supreme court rules

[LAW] Supreme court rules
The supreme court ruled that restricting wine sales to within a state by state law is in restraint of trade. This could easily apply to the singular and restrictive laws in CA regarding model and HPR products.
wine.com went BK as a direct result of these illegal laws.
Just Jerry
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/05-16-2005/10eb000ca3520e0c.html

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
by
How do you figure that? There are no laws restricting sales of motors to within the state. You do have to have a permit to manufactur, export or import motors, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a court that the mere requirement of a permit constitutes restraint of trade. A great many businesses and professions have permit or licensing requirements.
If you think you can win it, you're free to try. Let us know how it turns out.


snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Ray,
I didn't quite understand Jerry's point at first, but upon reviewing the actual case and ruling, it makes sense.
The ruling regards whether or not a state can create unfair competition by overly restrictive laws in that state (i.e., in this case it was laws pertaining to wine sales). The Constitution states that states may make their own laws regarding (for example) alcohol sales, but the Constitution also says that states may not restrict interstate competition. Since the laws restricting internet sales of wine gave an unfair advantage to local vineyards, the Supreme Court struck it down.
There isn't a perfect analogy here, because ANYONE selling the state of California must have CSFM seals (not just vendors from out of state). If California said that only outside vendors needed the CSFM seal (or conversely if only manufacturers in CA needed them), then one could argue that there was unfair restriction.
What this ruling does is allow the argument to be furthered that things such as the CSFM are overly restrictive (overall) in interstate commerce.
Now, you or I are never going to have the funds to fight this -- but I'll tell you who might. The auto manufacturers may well be able to use this to argue that the CA smog equipment restrictions are too onerous, and be able to get them removed as a result of this decision. If THAT happens, we have a clear precedent to remove the CSFM requirements (especially since the requirements are REALLY only a fee, there's no additional 'testing' that occurs).
David Erbas-White

The case is pretty different in that the wine issue was a BAN on state-to-state sales. The government, in general, does not consider a permit to be a restriction of trade (even though reasonable people would consider it a restriction).
I would like to see Jerry try this though, rather than just foist it upon NAR / TRA like everything else.
-- David
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

The CA emissions requirements were already tried and the overturning of them was shot down in the courts.
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

nitram578 wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, but that was before this landmark ruling (plus, did it go to the Supremes before?).
Given that this ruling sets new precedent, I would fully expect other similar cases (restraint of trade/unfair competition) types of cases to be (re-)filed.
David Erbas-White

  Quoted Text Here  
No, they sent it instead to the "PIPS"

  Quoted Text Here  
Yes there are.
This is why you are a moron. (one of many examples)
Only state approved MR and HPR motors may be sold.
There are other classes of rockets, but THOSE regs violate todays supreme court theory.
  Quoted Text Here  
Until you see the permit fee is several times the cost of even a large consumer order of product.
However the theory also applies to zero cost on the basis that certain sales are eliminated entirely on otherwise legal product.
Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
state
CA
motors
Hmm, I ask Jerry a question, David provided a well-reasoned answer, and what do I get from Jerry? The usual BS.
  Quoted Text Here  
That's really not the same as restricting sales to within the state, as you described the court case in your original post. Any CA manufacturer or dealer can sell to buyers outside the state.
  Quoted Text Here  
court
trade.
large
Sure, but since the rules apply to everyone, it's not quite the same as the case that the Supreme Court ruled on.
  Quoted Text Here  
certain
Maybe. Like I said, you're free to take your argument to court and see if the court agrees. Until someone challenges the current regs and gets them overturned in court, you're stuck with them.

  Quoted Text Here  
NOT every motor legal in those 49 states. ONLY motors legal in the originating state (a small fraction of the motor universe, even the certified universe) and then only if you have paid large additional fees ($9500 a year at most times in the last 2 decades)
Which amounts to a tax of between 30 and 300% of gross profits for a "large" dealer.
  Quoted Text Here  
Those rules applied to everyone wanting to buy wine from out of state in some 32 states. You are STILL confused.
  Quoted Text Here  
Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
state, as
  Quoted Text Here  
manufacturer
Let me see if I understand you correctly... you're saying that restricting sales to only legal motors is restraint of trade?? Gee, maybe drug dealers should sue too, since the state is restraining them from their trade.
  Quoted Text Here  
Current certified APCP manufacturers are AT, CTI, AMW, Ellis and Loki. Three of those are approved for sale in CA. Three out of five is not a "small fraction".
  Quoted Text Here  
I agree completely that the fees suck. It's basically extortion, and the government does it all the time.
  Quoted Text Here  
same as
  Quoted Text Here  
in
No, that was an outright ban. There's no ban involved here, just expensive permits. I've not heard of any case in which a court said that expensive permits constitute restraint of trade.

On 16 May 2005 21:19:37 -0700, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"
  Quoted Text Here  
Why is that notable? Did you expect anything less?

  Quoted Text Here  
Wipe your face :)

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Now that we know you can spell it, try using it where it would be appropriate. I wasn't even agreeing with him - although, I can't say that I don't. 8-)
BTW - you stole "Wipe your face" from me.

  Quoted Text Here  
Made you look.
NOW I am communicating on your level.
:)

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Sorry - I didn't have to look.
  Quoted Text Here  
Congratulations.

  Quoted Text Here  
I wonder if would be ok for a CSVA permit to ship and drink wine bottles into CA ?
Only wine with CSVA permits would be permitted to drink in Kali then ?

  Quoted Text Here  
How about PRC car emmissions rules?
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered -- Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
No, actually, it couldn't. The Supreme Court ruled that the restrictions were unconstitutional because they treated in-state and out-of-state wineries differently.
Scott Orr

  Quoted Text Here  
Same is true in CA. Re rockets (and fireworks).