Category: Politics

I Have Seen the Promise Land

Bitter and I went to the Wegman’s Supermarket in Warrington, which is now selling beer for takeout.  Selection is decent by Pennsylvania standards.  I managed to pick up some Victory Golden Money, and Newcastle Brown Ale. You won’t find any real boutique brews, but certainly better than your average takeout fare.

Wegman’s has a typical supermarket food court, and it would seem they got a license to sell alcohol for on premise consumption, which allows them to sell take out beer.  No doubt this will infuriate the MBDAPA.  Wegmans gets around the Sheetz case by allowing you to actually drink your beer in their cafeteria.  This Friday Bitter taked to our State Representative, who didn’t see much of a constituency for getting rid of our ridiculous beer laws.

Here’s hoping that Wegmans might make a chink in the armor of the MBDAPA, and we’ll be able to look forward to more beer in supermarkets in Pennsylvania.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Beer Sellers Try to Make Buying Beer Harder
  2. Beer Police
  3. We’re the Byzantium of Beer

Victory in Commonwealth Court

The NRA has prevailed in the appeal of Philadelphia’s firearms regulations in Commonwealth Court.   The decision can be found here.  NRA tried to restore standing to challenge the other ordinances, including “Lost and Stolen,” but Commonwealth Court failed to reverse the lower court’s decision.  There is language in this decision that suggest that the “Lost and Stolen” ordinance would also be found in violation of preemption once we have a case that doesn’t have standing or ripeness problems:

Councilpersons, Darrell L. Clarke and Donna Reed Miller, filed an action seeking to have the court declare that seven gun ordinances passed by City Council and signed by then-Mayor John Street could take immediate effect and that Section 6120 was unconstitutional and did not apply to those ordinances because the ordinances did not regulate the “carrying or transporting” of firearms. The City argued that the General Assembly’s inclusion of the qualifying phrase “when carried or transported,” in Section 6120 indicated their intention to limit preemption of local firearms regulation accordingly, and would allow local regulation of any uses of firearms which does not involve carrying or transporting them. The City further argued that because our Supreme Court in Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152 (1996), did not address the qualifying phrase “when carried or transported,” it was not controlling. However, in rejecting the City’s arguments, we concluded that:

Given Schneck and Ortiz, we cannot agree with this construction of the Firearms Act. The ordinances struck down in those cases were not qualitatively different in that respect from those at issue here. While Petitioners point out that the qualifying phrase ‘when carried or transported’ was not specifically discussed in Ortiz, in light of its broad and unqualified language, we cannot distinguish Ortiz on this basis.

Clarke, 957 A.2d at 364.

Similarly here, the fact that the Court in Ortiz did not discuss the statutory language relied upon by the City does not provide a legitimate basis for us to ignore its holding. Unfortunately, with respect to the matter before us, while we may agree with the City that preemption of 18 Pa. C.S. § 6120(a) appears to be limited to the lawful use of firearms by its very terms, we believe, however, that the crystal clear holding of our Supreme Court in Ortiz, that, “the General Assembly has [through enactment of § 6120(a)] denied all municipalities the power to regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or [transportation] of firearms,”9 precludes our acceptance of the City’s argument and the trial court’s thoughtful analysis on this point. As the Supreme Court stated in Ortiz:

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia . . . where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia . . . and the General Assembly, not city council[ ], is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.

545 Pa. at 287, 681 A.2d at 156.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court permanently enjoining the City from enforcing the provisions of the Assault Weapons Ordinance and the Straw Purchaser Ordinance.

I think this ruling sets us up very nicely for a future court battle on all these Lost and Stolen ordinances, provided the Supreme Court is unwilling to revisit Ortiz, which I suspect it won’t.  The City of Philadelphia is losing on virtually all their arguments.  These ordinances were never about Lost and Stolen guns, or Assault Weapons, but were merely a means for the City to regain the ability to violate the Pennsylvania Constitution at will, so it could ban guns.  It’s looking increasingly unlikely that ploy wil work.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Philly Loses in Commonwealth Court
  2. Make it Hurt
  3. They Did It: Philadelphia Passes Gun Bills

Words I Wish I Didn’t Have to Read

Over at Jennifer’s:

Unless you’ve been glued to US sNews, you’ve heard about the recent sham of an election in Iran and resulting protests and unrest. And since our president hasn’t gotten permission to get his balls out of the jar, we have to turn to France.

Sometimes the truth is painful.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Anyone Ever Had a Crown Lengthening?
  2. Out Here in the Wilderness
  3. Truer Words Were Never Uttered

Ask a Legislator – The Beer Edition

Completely by chance, a state lawmaker here in Pennsylvania had a tele-townhall tonight. We got a call and I opted to listen in even though I was on the cell with Sebastian as he was driving home. I asked Sebastian if he had suggestions for me for our representative. There’s not much going on at the state level in regards to guns, so I suggested possibly something about reform of the beer/wine/liquor sales given today’s news.

In getting the queue, they only ask for the general nature of your question. I gave an overview and said I would simply like to ask if there is any real chance of legislative relief of any kind. I pointed out that if you’ve ever tried to buy just enough beer for a small cookout or perhaps a bottle of wine, it’s a real pain under the system. When the staffer chuckles and agrees, you know that’s generally a good sign.

Of course, as Sebastian says, “Everyone hates it, but no one is willing to get angry enough to do anything about it.” I figured with the Supreme Court case as cover, there was a door open to get the conversation started about a legislative remedy.

Unfortunately, there were too many questions and mine didn’t make it to the rep during the course of the call. However, he did pledge that anyone with a policy question will get a personal phone call back from him this week.

Given that, what proposals should I lay out as reasonable reforms to make. I know I’d ideally like a completely free market system on sales, but I realize that when dealing with a massive monopoly force (the beer distributors) and a government patronage service (the state liquor stores), it won’t be a realistic solution. So, what kind of system would you suggest for Pennsylvania’s sales of beer and wine, and possibly of liquor? I’m particularly interested in hearing from other Pennsylvania residents. What kind of compromise reform would you be happy with as a starting point?

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Buying a Beer in Pennsylvania
  2. The .223 of Beer
  3. LCB Privitization Bill

We’re the Byzantium of Beer

Hat tip to Capitol Ideas for pointing out a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling today that is a window into our state’s ridiculous liquor control laws.  Beer in Pennsylvania is restricted to retail sale only by distributors, which means if you want something less than a case, which is usually the case for me, you need to find an establishment with take out, were you can buy up to two six packs.  The type of licensee that’s allowed to sell beer for take out are typically licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on-premises.

It’s not uncommon in the Keystone State for stores to be set up, which technically serve some food.  The local one near me makes rather lousy cheesesteaks, for instance, which you can, if you want, eat in the two or three booths they have (state law says you have to be able to seat up to 30).  But the store is basically a take out beer store.  The food is just a way to comply with the licensing requirements.

Apparently Sheetz, which is the “rest of Pennsylvania” version of Wawa, applied for what is essentially a restaurant liquor license, to sell beer in one of its stores for take out.  But in the Sheetz scheme, you couldn’t consume it there, you had to take it out of the store.  The evil villains in this whole sorry story, the The Malt Beverages Distributors Association of Pennsylvania, who jealously guard their state sanctioned monopoly, intervened in the case after the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board agreed to allow the transfer of the license.

Note I said transfer.  You see, Pennsylvania fixes the number of licenses available, so if you want one, you have to “transfer” a liquor license from an establishment that’s going under, or has lost or surrendered it’s license to sell alcohol.  They won’t issue you a new one.

But moving back to the original topic, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed, if you’re seeking a license to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption, then you better allow the beer to be consumed on-premises.  As Capitol Ideas said:

We have said it before, and we will say it again, this ruling strikes us as massively counterintuitive. Because, instead of allowing people to buy take-away beer, the high court is effectively requiring people to buy their suds at the gas station, guzzle it there, and then get back behind the wheel and (in some cases) drive on interstate highways. But we’re not legal scholars or anything.

I think as a matter of law, the court made the right decision.  The problem is that the law is wrong.  You can’t blame the courts because the legislature passes things that are counterintuitive and stupid.  As a Pennsylvanian, I’m tired of being forced to buy beer by the case, or have to find a bar or restaurant with take out, and more often than not very poor selection.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. LCB Reforms
  2. Add John Rafferty to the List
  3. Buying a Beer in Pennsylvania

Year Zero

More than a few totalitarian regimes have adopted systems of dating that essentially start counting their reign from year 0, and work their way up.   Well, it seems that Pennsylvania State Representative Jewell Williams would line up to go along with such a scheme:

Perhaps B.O. & A.O. are not far off? Yesterday, Rep. Jewell Williams (D-Philadelphia) began a presentation on the House floor by stating it was ‘2009, in the year of Obama’.  The Republican side was stunned to say the least. House Minority Rep. Sam Smith (R-Jefferson) attempted to correct the record – stating that the proper designation was Anno Domini 2009 – in the year or our Lord.

To which Williams responded “And the difference is?”  I kid, I kid, but you kind of have to wonder.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More People Who Want Us to Lose
  2. More Quotes From Philly Politicians
  3. Do You Yahoo?