Whats Legal Limit?

[CryptoStorm]

There is a fee to gain my friendship. In trade for your friendship I will supply you with wine...

 

[Ron0126]

Constitutional Studies 101 - States are permitted to pass more restrictive laws but they may not Undo or lessen a Federal Law. (Cannot unbind those restrictions)

How does that square with the legalization of weed in various states or the speed limit laws in Texas/Montana or ICE being thrown out of state offices or sanctuary cities in Chicago/Boston/LA/SanFran? There appears to be quite a few instances where states aren't complying with federal law these days.

 

[CryptoStorm]

The Feds still enforce federal law in those states

 

[Ron0126]

The Feds still enforce federal law in those states

But they don't.
Makes the federal law somewhat toothless.

 

[CryptoStorm]

There shouldn't be federal laws regarding such things anyway. It's a state issue

 

[Ron0126]

There shouldn't be federal laws regarding such things anyway. It's a state issue

There are a lot of things we could say that about ...

 

[Scooter68]

How does that square with the legalization of weed in various states or the speed limit laws in Texas/Montana or ICE being thrown out of state offices or sanctuary cities in Chicago/Boston/LA/SanFran? There appears to be quite a few instances where states aren't complying with federal law these days.

If push comes to shove on that I imagine the Supreme Court could rule that the states laws are null and void. But I digress - I don't want to pull out my soapbox on that, not here.

 

[iridium]

As far as legalizing marijuana the federal government still makes it illegal. However the previous administration made it a point to not expend resources prosecuting marijuana laws where the stars had legalized it. So it was still a federal crime but not enforced. Much like the police officer who doesn't give you a ticket even though he caught you speeding

 

[iridium]

As far as the other laws I bet if careful research were done you would see that the federal government has given the states the authority to set the speed limits for their portion of the interstate highways. I haven't looked into the ICE issue carefully to answer that one.

 

[jgmann67]

As far as the other laws I bet if careful research were done you would see that the federal government has given the states the authority to set the speed limits for their portion of the interstate highways. I haven't looked into the ICE issue carefully to answer that one.

Without researching it, I'd imagine that the point of the 200 gallon threshold is to establish some rational threshold between 'personal use' and a presumption that the person is engaged in commerce (and needing to be federally regulated).

As far as the interstate highway issue, that's not how we get speed limits - it's kind of the opposite. States have the authority to set speed limits. The Feds get the state's to change their limit by presenting them a choice - "change it to what we'd prefer or lose a % of federal highway dollars." Beck when the Feds were pushing "55 saves lives (and gas)," I think Montana actually told the Feds, "that's okay, keep your $$$, it's not that much anyway."

Ahhhh, federalism - the cooperative relationship that allows state and federal governments to function (though the above example sounds more like extortion than cooperation to me). There are times when the Feds completely own the regulation of a particular thing, other times when the states do, and still others when the two regulators co-exist.

That brings us to the differing allowances between the state and federal governments for the home winemaker... if you buy the "threshold for commerce" argument, and the notion that the Feds aren't really regulating what you do for personal consumption, that's left to the states (all that health, welfare and safety nonsense we hear with some routine). Provided, you can read the laws in a way that you're not violating either, you're good. So if the state prohibits home winemaking altogether, they can (because 0 gallons is less than 200).

Finally, the marijuana thing - the Feds classify it as a schedule 1 substance - no accepted medical use and highly addictive - on their schedule of controlled substances. The only way to change that is to: a) amend the federal law to specifically deschedule pot; or, b) the president and DHS can, by a particular regulatory process, deschedule it. Neither of those things have happened. So, it's still illegal...

The fact that any administration takes the position that they don't like the law and choose to ignore it rather than follow the constitutionally established processes to change it... we'll, that's crap (and this comment has nothing to do with how I feel about marijuana at all). It breeds contempt for the law and creates some bizarre by products (like the fact that the proceeds of marijuana commerce can't go through federally regulated banking institutions - so there are these huge warehouses out there loaded with money inside and heavily armed guards on the outside - crazy).

 

[Rocky]

Sorry but State law cannot trump Federal Law. If there is a Federal Law all states must abide by that, they can create their own law where a lesser amount of alcohol can be produced but they cannot go over what Federal law states.

That is what I meant to impart, Julie, i.e. that even though the Feds say you can produce 200 gallons, the States may have a lower limit. If I recall correctly, Alabama had more restrictive laws on the production of wine. They may have changed that.

 

[Rocky]

Constitutional Studies 101 - States are permitted to pass more restrictive laws but they may not Undo or lessen a Federal Law. (Cannot unbind those restrictions)

I think this supports my contention. States can limit to less than 200 gallons but not set a higher amount.

 

[jgmann67]

Every time I think about government regulation, it reminds me of the CS Lewis quote:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

 

[drainsurgeon]

So, based on Federal law, I could have 5,000 bottles of wine in my cellar, as long as I didn't make over 200 (1,000 bottles) gallons in one calendar year. Is that correct? No possession limit?

Man, I need to ramp up!

 

[Scooter68]

But can you PROVE you didn't make them in one year.










That is except in Alabama. Don't let their revenuoors near your cellar.

 

[BernardSmith]

I imagine that a court would have to prove that you broke the law. You are - technically - not required to prove your innocence. You are presumed innocent. Isn't that what we still say? In other words there would have to be some basis for anyone to assume that you fermented more than 200 gallons in 12 months. For example, if you have two 500 gallon fermenters which are currently filled and are standing in your garage and the SG of the liquids in those conicals is currently at 1.025 and is falling... Good bad or indifferent, that would suggest a prima facie case against you. Of course if you could show that you and four of your buddies were making this batch...

 

[Scooter68]

I imagine that a court would have to prove that you broke the law. You are - technically - not required to prove your innocence. You are presumed innocent. Isn't that what we still say? In other words there would have to be some basis for anyone to assume that you fermented more than 200 gallons in 12 months. For example, if you have two 500 gallon fermenters which are currently filled and are standing in your garage and the SG of the liquids in those conicals is currently at 1.025 and is falling... Good bad or indifferent, that would suggest a prima facie case against you. Of course if you could show that you and four of your buddies were making this batch...

Well now.... We all know that presumption of innocence only applies in some courts with some judges.....

(This being a wine making board - I won't bring up my traffic court experience with a judge. Even the officer was shaking his head over the judges comments. But I digress...)


Yeah, I think those 500 gallon fermenters better have a commercial license posted nearby. The bean counter gonna say "The limit is 200 gallons per household."

Gets to be real fun doesn't it.

 

[dcbrown73]

Federal law limits it to 100 gallons per person a year. If you have someone living with you then you can go 200 gallons a year but that would be the limit.

This can actually be state regulated. In Connecticut the value is 50 gallons per year an individual can produce, not 100 gallons. If you have a partner, you can produce 100 gallons.

 

[hounddawg]

AINT NOTHING BUT A THANG, I have mutable personalities that alone should allow me a couple thousand gallons, not to mention I try my best to consume all evidence .
after all I leant from you warped members.
Dawg

 

[Johnd]

AINT NOTHING BUT A THANG, I have mutable personalities that alone should allow me a couple thousand gallons, not to mention I try my best to consume all evidence .
after all I leant from you warped members.
Dawg

Been almost two months since the Dawg last barked, glad to see you back!