Texas judge rules home distilling ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[Stags]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 024-07-11/

God bless Texas

[zach]

Good news!

Hope this a spark that lights a fire under congress to pass a reasonable law.

[Steve Broady]

It will be interesting to see where this goes. If it makes it to the Supreme Court it could be a game changer, but I don’t look for that to happen any time soon.

[Bolverk]

I just saw and came to post as well!

Exciting news!

[Stonecutter]

It will be interesting to see where this goes. If it makes it to the Supreme Court it could be a game changer, but I don’t look for that to happen any time soon.

Remains a pipe dream for most of the World. Would be a BIG TIME game changer for local guys like Larry and Mike.
Even the cheap little foreign stills would become expensive little foreign stills.

[6 Row Joe]

I wouldn't even mind if the still needed to be inspected for safety and a reasonable limit of production was allowed. Heck, 10 gallons per year would make me happy without getting to trouble.

[Yonder]

It’s about time! Glad the decision was in Texas. Think of the bureaucracy that can be dismantled in the states and at the federal level in these times of excessive government spending. Great savings!
Besides that the BS argument about “substantial revenue” falls flat. The taxes on a proof gallon amount to less than $14. A home distiller is not going to collapse a government that has spent nearly 5 trillion bucks so far this fiscal year. Thats about 9.5 million per minute.

[subbrew]

Given the Chevron ruling I would not be surprised to see the feds not appeal as they will lose and don't want the precedent. Feds still have the ability to regulate stills which are sold across state lines but this will get them out of your house. And if you make your own still, well now we are in the same legal realm as milling out a firearm receiver. We live in some interesting times.

[Thunderdick]

That is awesome! I love my state !

[subbrew]

I just read the ruling. If it stands it makes owning a still legal, and distilling, but unless you pay the federal excise tax a home distiller would still be guilty of tax evasion.

It also looks like it would invalidate the rule that you can't have a distillery and brewery/winery in the same building. This could be a boost for craft distillers that want to add a new line of distilled spirits.

[zach]

Given the Chevron ruling I would not be surprised to see the feds not appeal as they will lose and don't want the precedent.

If feds do not appeal the decision, then in 14 days, there is an injunction which removes the federal ban on home distilling ? Am I understanding this correctly?

States still have laws against home distillation. Would those state bans be unconstitutional under this ruling if it survives?

That's why it's up to congress to do their job and define what constitutes legal home distilling like they did for home brewing nation wide in 1978.

This could be a boom for those in the still making business, homebrew stores, and related industries.

[subbrew]

State laws would still apply. This ruling was that the feds don't have authority under present law to regulate home distilling. But they can still tax the product. Yes, if not appealed the federal ban on home distilling is no longer valid.

I would rather fight at the state level than get the feds involved. If this is not appealed and home distilling is legal then all I want feds to do is give an annual not taxed limit.

[kiwi Bruce]

www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/federal ... r-BB1pUnqM
We in the United States may soon have the same rights as home distillers in New Zealand.This would the end of the ATF's ( and any other LEO ) going after us, the average home distiller. This has happened because SCOTUS (US Supreme Court, for any of you non-US residents) shot down "Chevron Deference" at the end of June 2024. An A-Hole ruling the let the ABC agencies interpret the Law for themselves. Judge Pittman ruled the ban on home distilling was unconstitutional and violated the Commerce clause. He issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the US Government from enforcing the ban.
The Government has two weeks to appeal, then this could become a permanent ban in the whole USA.
This is a VERY BIG DEAL!!!

[kiwi Bruce]

State laws would still apply.

Sorry, but State Laws don't trump the Fed. We've been through this in Pennsylvania where PA law says Home Distilling is legal, but it didn't matter because the Fed (ATF) trumped our State Law. This is a ruling on the US Constitution, States can not overturn this!

[fiery creations]

www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/federal ... r-BB1pUnqM
We in the United States may soon have the same rights as home distillers in New Zealand.This would the end of the ATF's ( and any other LEO ) going after us, the average home distiller. This has happened because SCOTUS (US Supreme Court, for any of you non-US residents) shot down "Chevron Deference" at the end of June 2024. An A-Hole ruling the let the ABC agencies interpret the Law for themselves. Judge Pittman ruled the ban on home distilling was unconstitutional and violated the Commerce clause. He issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the US Government from enforcing the ban.
The Government has two weeks to appeal, then this could become a permanent ban a the whole USA.
This is a VERY BIG DEAL!!!

I’m surprised the chevron defense isn’t being talked about more. In my state suppressors are legal (state wise) to make and use without atf approval. If this really works out that seems like it would mean you could actually do it without worry, and would probably open up a ton of sales of commercial ones in state where they are all manufactured. And then… dare I say the NFA and GOPA being null and void as well.

Probably won’t happen. But fingers crossed.

[AlZilla]

Hopefully the injunction stands without 5 years of wrangling it's way to SCOTUS, while unconstitutional laws continue to be shoved down our throats.

There's still the issue of "possession of un-taxed spirits". Even states where hoe distillation would be legal absent the federal ban, probably still have laws about that. The one or two I read up on did, anyway. A lot of work remains.

[kiwi Bruce]

unless you pay the federal excise tax a home distiller would still be guilty of tax evasion.

not true...the argument was "the 156 year old ban exceeded Congress's taxing power and violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause."

[AlZilla]

State laws would still apply.

Sorry, but State Laws don't trump the Fed. We've been through this in Pennsylvania where PA law says Home Distilling is legal, but it didn't matter because the Fed (ATF) trumped our State Law. This is a ruling on the US Constitution, States can not overturn this!

States don't have to overturn it. They can still outlaw home distillation. There isn't like a 2A case. There is no Constitutional Right to distill spirituous liquor. Maybe there should have been ...

[kiwi Bruce]

State laws would still apply.

They can still outlaw home distillation.

The beauty of the Constitution is, State Law Makers CANNOT make laws that violate our Constitutional Rights. So no...no State Law outlawing home distilling...and I feel this ruling will survive the two week stay, and free us from the chains of the ATF.

[nsgibson]

This is great news, it’s almost feeling like a free country. Hopefully this stands long term

[subbrew]

unless you pay the federal excise tax a home distiller would still be guilty of tax evasion.

not true...the argument was "the 156 year old ban exceeded Congress's taxing power and violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause."

Read the ruling. The judge says that congress has the power to tax. But they can't use that power to say you can't distill. The excise tax is still legal, but they can't use the power given to tax to stop distilling, that was one step too far. Essentially, the rules said, since we have no way to collect the tax we are going to make home distilling illegal. The judge said no.

[subbrew]

State laws would still apply.

They can still outlaw home distillation.

The beauty of the Constitution is, State Law Makers CANNOT make laws that violate our Constitutional Rights. So no...no State Law outlawing home distilling...and I feel this ruling will survive the two week stay, and free us from the chains of the ATF.

The ruling said that the feds do not have the authority under the constitution to stop home distilling. It did not say you have a constitutional right to distill. Via the 10th amendment, powers not given to the fed are reserved for the states. States can still say no to home distilling.

[d9inger]

Much like Roe V. Wade, it pushes the decision back to the states.

[AlZilla]

State laws would still apply.

They can still outlaw home distillation.

The beauty of the Constitution is, State Law Makers CANNOT make laws that violate our Constitutional Rights. So no...no State Law outlawing home distilling...and I feel this ruling will survive the two week stay, and free us from the chains of the ATF.

You just have the wrong end of this, my friend. There is no Enumerated Right to Distill in America.

Free Speech
Keep and Bear Arms
No Quartering
Freedom of Religion
No Self Incrimination
Speedy Trial

A few Enumerated Rights off the top of my head. There are also Unenumerated Rights like Privacy, which isn't laid out but the courts say exist. That was the basis of Roe v. Wade (which got struck down).

The States may make no law abridging any of these freedoms (though they try).

Since you're apparently not raised in the US, it's understandable that you're not steeped in this stuff. But trust me on this - the States can indeed outlaw stillin'.

It might be possible that some legal eagle will find a way to make distilling an Unenumerated Right. Until then ... don't tell, don't sell still applies.

EDIT - Maybe this will help - the judge ruled that the way the feds outlawed home distillation is unconstitutional, not that banning distillation is unconstitutional.

[WithOrWithoutU2]

State laws would still apply.

They can still outlaw home distillation.

The beauty of the Constitution is, State Law Makers CANNOT make laws that violate our Constitutional Rights. So no...no State Law outlawing home distilling...and I feel this ruling will survive the two week stay, and free us from the chains of the ATF.

Sorry Kiwi, It doesn't work that way. The rule challenged at the Federal level was a ban due to taxes. The court found the Feds could not ban owning a still because under it's taxation powers as the ban did not generate any revenue. Lifting the ban does not give a "right", it just says the ban based on taxation was unconstitutional. The Fed could still ban it under other means if it wanted, but I can imagine that happening. The States can regulate things they deem unsafe or harmful that are not expressing protected by the constitution.

[fiery creations]

I understand what a lot of you are saying. But do any of your state laws come remotely close to the fed laws? Mine are very tame and it may as well be completely legal without the feds involved....

[1RiverRunner]

State laws would still apply.

Sorry, but State Laws don't trump the Fed. We've been through this in Pennsylvania where PA law says Home Distilling is legal, but it didn't matter because the Fed (ATF) trumped our State Law. This is a ruling on the US Constitution, States can not overturn this!

State can still have laws regulating distilling. Amendment Ten to the Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. It makes clear that any powers that are not specifically given to the federal government, nor withheld from the states, are reserved to those respective states, or to the people at large. The original text is written as such:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

All that to say, it might not change much for folks in states that explicitly prohibit distilling. It will make a big difference to about four states, and any other lobbied successfully in the future.

[Steve Broady]

This is just my own gut feeling. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. It seems to me that the real value here is not for what it explicitly allows, but for being a step in the right direction.

Getting a woman to sit and have a drink with you doesn’t guarantee that you’re getting lucky tonight, but it’s definitely a sign that things could be headed that way if you play your cards right.

[kiwi Bruce]

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

That's just the saying "And I'm not a Proctologist, I'm just an a## hole on TV."

But I'm going off topic...two weeks is not a long time to wait, and I'm not about to drag my still out and set it up on the my front porch. BUT, it could happen!

[Yummyrum]

……. and I'm not about to drag my still out and set it up on the my front porch. BUT, it could happen!

What I’m getting , reading between the lines , is that you could set your still up on your front porch , but if someone is watching how many drops of alcohol come out of it , they could still dob you in for Tax avoidance .

So only distill water on the front porch .