News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Alcohol sales laws

Started by hbelkins, August 15, 2017, 03:46:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Takumi

Quote from: 1995hoo
At least as of 2013, there were ten Virginia counties in which liquor sales (but not beer and wine sales) were prohibited: Bland, Buchanan, Charlotte, Craig, Floyd, Grayson, Highland, Lee, Patrick, and Russell.
Aside from Charlotte, all in remote parts of the state. No surprise there (or for Charlotte, for that matter).
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.


jeffandnicole

NJ's laws are fairly restrictive, although many non-restrictive laws got grandfathered in before the more restrictive laws occurred.

NJ also operates on home rule.

The main state laws that everyone needs to abide by are that liquor can only be sold between 9am and 10pm.  And that for a carry-out retailer, any one owner is restricted to two licenses. 

Many people misinterpret that.  NJ does permit alcohol to be sold in a grocery store, alongside every other normal grocery product.  However, the owner of the company is only permitted two licenses.  Many instead 'rent' their name out.  There are a few dozen Shoprite Liquors right next to a Shoprite Grocery store, but nearly every one is owned by a different entity.  It makes it look like a chain of liquor stores, and they'll even be ads with pricing good at numerous stores, but in reality it's really individual stores using the Shoprite name.

Home Rule also makes a huge difference.  Some towns may say a store selling liquor must make it the primary seller of the store...which means grocery stores can't sell alcohol. 

Going back to the hours - while liquor can only be sold between 9am and 10pm, beer and wine can be sold up to 24 hours a day.  Home rule allows each town to set the hours when sales are permitted.  Most stores selling alcohol will only be open 9 - 10pm.  Sunday hours can be more restrictive, but they don't need to be.  Generally, holidays don't matter either, but again, that's up to the individual towns.  (And those hours can be restrictive as well as more loose - many towns many allow a bar to remain open until 5am New Years Day, for example, even though very few take advantage of that).

A long time ago, licenses were sold that permitted both a bar/restaurant and takeout.  While new licenses don't have that option, those older licenses are permitted to be sold from one owner to another.  Thus, you can walk into a bar up until they close and purchase beer or wine, no matter what hour it is, as long as they permit it.

Newer rules mandate that a town can only have 1 take-out license for every 7,500 people.  Older rules weren't restricted as such, so especially in older towns and cities you can find quite a number of retailers selling alcohol.  Same is true with bars and restaurants (the ratio is 1 license for every 3,000 people).  While prevalent in older cities, it's most notable at shore resorts.  Many shore towns have very few year-round residents, and thus would barely qualify for more than 1 or 2 licenses.  However, most shore towns issued their licenses a long time ago, and thus can have way more than what they would be permitted to sell today.

Another way towns can get another license is whenever a hotel is built, as long as it has 100 rooms, the town can issue a license.  The hotel has first dibs on it; if they don't want it then the town can sell to whomever they wish, following proper procedures (usually an open bid with a minimum bid amount).


cpzilliacus

#27
Maryland alcohol laws are similarly convoluted and often ridiculous.

One  county (my home county, Montgomery) has a countrywide system of ABC stores (only places where hard stuff may be purchased, rather similar to Virginia's statewide ABC), and all retail outlets must make their wholesale purchases (including beer and wine) from the county monopoly. This assures lousy service and limited selection.

In general, statewide, chain stores (and chain restaurants) may have one beer and wine license per county, including the larger chains like Giant, and Safeway and 7-11.  Yes, one 7-11, one Sheetz and one Wawa in each  county can sell beer and wine.  In counties other than Montgomery, private liquor stores are allowed, but as with the restriction on beer and wine licenses, one license per owner, so there are no chain liquor stores.

There has been  corruption involving licenses to sell alcohol.  Just recently a member of the Board of License Commissioners (which  regulates alcohol sales in each county) was arrested on corruption charges by federal agents in Prince George's County.   In Baltimore, there have been more than a few corruption cases involving alcohol - enforcement agents (who check that bars and retail outlets obey the law, not discourage underage drinking) had to get approval of one or more of the city state senate delegation before being hired - these are jobs on the municipal payroll of Baltimore City, not the state.

Ultimately, authority to enact and change alcohol laws is vested in the General Assembly, but as a practical matter, there are many provisions of that law that only apply to one or a few counties, also crazy (or as our English  friends might  say, "crackers").
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 08:18:55 PM
At least as of 2013, there were ten Virginia counties in which liquor sales (but not beer and wine sales) were prohibited: Bland, Buchanan, Charlotte, Craig, Floyd, Grayson, Highland, Lee, Patrick, and Russell.

Highland is certainly remote.  I suppose thirsty  people have to drive across the border to West Virginia or east on twisty U.S. 250 to Staunton for a bottle.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 08:18:55 PM
The ABC used to run surveillance operations at some liquor stores in DC where they'd observe Virginians loading their cars with more liquor than was allowed; they'd then radio ahead and someone on the other side of the Potomac would bust people.

Montgomery County, Maryland has a Virginia-style ABC store system and used to run  similar operations near D.C. liquor stores near the border with Montgomery County. Were I going to make a large purchase of alcohol today to take advantage of lower D.C. alcohol prices, I would head for the Costco located off of New York Avenue, N.E. (U.S. 50), which does a massive business selling refreshment (I have seen people purchasing 5 or 6 full Costco shopping carts loaded with nothing but alcoholic drinks).

In the northeast  corner of Maryland, where private liquor store owners have a lot of political clout, Pennsylvania agents used to stake out stores in Cecil County for people with Pennsylvania registration making purchases, then stop them north of the border.  That stopped when the elected Cecil County sheriff had his deputies arrest several Pennsylvania agents (and supposedly had their cars towed and impounded) on questionable legal grounds (the State's Attorney later dropped the charges).
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

briantroutman

Quote from: SP Cook on August 16, 2017, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:46:25 PM
And Pennsylvania's beer sales laws are positively messed up.

When prohibition was repealed, the governor said he wanted to make alcohol purchases "as complex and difficult as possible".

That was what Gifford Pinchot said nearly 80 years ago, but I hardly think it characterizes current attitudes toward alcohol consumption in the state–either legislatively or culturally. To the contrary, the state has vested interest in keeping all types of alcohol sales as robust as possible.

Pennsylvania's alcohol-retailing landscape has changed dramatically in just a few years. When I came of legal age a decade ago, beer and malt beverages could be purchased only in cases from warehouse-like beverage distributors or in six-packs from taverns that had a license to sell carry-out beer. Wine and liquor was sold exclusively through state-owned stores–which usually had rather limited hours and were never open on Sundays.

The first wave of liberalization came with changes to the state stores: Hours were extended (including Sundays), and newer, nicer Premium Collection stores began popping up in better shopping centers–replacing small, shabby "hole in the wall"  locations.

The most dramatic shift resulted from legislation that allowed grocery stores to sell six- and twelve-packs of beer as part of an in-store café. The catch is that all alcohol sales must take place within the café area on separate registers. Wegmans already had significant café operations in most locations, and downmarket competitors like Giant and Weis quickly began adding token dining areas to so they could start selling beer. Even Sheetz has been adding in-store dining areas to select locations to qualify for beer sales. Later legislation allowed wine sales in these grocery store cafés.

The upshot is that now in Pennsylvania, like a number of other states, you can make a grocery shopping trip and pick up beer and a bottle of wine at the same time. There's the minor inconvenience of needing to go to a second register to pay for your alcoholic beverages, but compared to the situation of just a few years ago, it's very little inconvenience indeed.

Liquor remains the exclusive domain of state stores, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Attempts to privatize the state store system are perennial; none have succeeded. Former Governor Thornburgh described the situation fairly well: "...the principal roadblock to reform has traditionally been an odd coalition of state store employee unions, fundamentalist anti-alcohol groups and organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving... It would take some courageous leadership to stare down this combination, something I do not see in the Commonwealth today."

vdeane

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.
I would think those situations would be illegal regardless because the Constitution supersedes all federal and state law (or, at least, that's what I was taught in school).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

hbelkins

Indiana: I was very surprised to see liquor (although a very limited selection) for sale on the shelves of Walmart. I'm used to seeing it on drugstore shelves in Kentucky, where the area can be closed off during times when liquor sales aren't allowed, but not just out in the open with potato chips and other snacks on one side, and milk and eggs on the other.

West Virginia: I'm old enough to remember when WV allowed the sale of "3.2 beer" to those 18 and older. A hometown neighbor from my childhood, originally from the Louisa area (Lawrence County), moved back home and I reconnected with him when I got to college and we figured out whom each other was after we met through mutual friends. He was a couple of years older than me, and he talked about how lots of people between 18 and 21 crossed the river to Fort Gay, WV, to buy beer legally.

DC/Virginia: The DC authorities should have told the Virginia undercover officers running sting operations on their turf to go pound sand.

Kentucky/Mississippi: It's my understanding that in dry Mississippi counties, it's illegal not only to sell alcohol, but to possess it for personal use. That's not the case in Kentucky. You can't sell alcohol in a dry county legally, but you can certain buy alcohol in wet counties or cities and bring it back home. Kentucky has a PABLOT (possession of alcoholic beverages in local option territory) law but it's meant to cover large quantities, such as a bootlegger filling up their vehicle with cases of cheap beer and pints or half-pints of cheap whiskey or vodka, and bringing it back to sell illegally.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

bandit957

I remember about 20 years ago, the state of New York made a big stink about online alcohol sellers shipping alcohol into dry towns - even though buyers intended it only for personal use.
Might as well face it, pooing is cool

epzik8

Maryland's are pretty strict. They limit them to liquor stores per se and some 7-Elevens.
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/epzik8.gif

1995hoo

Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2017, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.
I would think those situations would be illegal regardless because the Constitution supersedes all federal and state law (or, at least, that's what I was taught in school).

But you're contradicting what you said before when I said the Supreme Court found the Twenty-First Amendment's use of the phrase "in violation of the laws thereof" was not intended to supersede other parts of the Constitution. In other words, the case about wine shipping involved a state discriminating against out-of-state wineries because the state's law let in-state wineries ship to customers in that state but didn't let out-of-state wineries do the same. You said you thought the point of amendments was to change the things that came before such that the Dormant Commerce Clause would not supersede state law. Why, then, would it be any different as to the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment? That is, obviously the Twenty-First Amendment changed one part of the Constitution, no question–it repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. But if you think it also overturned either the Commerce Clause or the line of case law interpreting the Commerce Clause, then why would you not think it also either overturned or limited the First Amendment? What would make you pick and choose one part and not another?

The wine-shipping case is actually a pretty good example of your point about the Constitution trumping state laws because the Supreme Court said the state law regarding alcohol importation has to be a valid exercise of state power. Constitutional law forbade states from discriminating against interstate commerce, so a state law restricting alcohol importation by discriminating against out-of-state wineries was an invalid exercise of state power. (Of course, the state could quite validly prohibit ALL wineries from shipping to customers in that state and it would probably be a valid action, if an unexpected result!)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

jeffandnicole

NJ has a really peculiar law when it comes to dry towns.  Currently there's still a few dozen dry towns within the state.  However, wineries and breweries are still permitted to open within those dry towns.  So now towns that were dry, such as Pitman, managed to have 2 breweries where people can go have drinks and buy beer.  Another peculiarity of the law is that those same breweries aren't allowed to sell food, because the restaurant association got upset (roll eyes). So those places allow patrons to order and bring it food from other eateries (ie: Pizzerias), or have food trucks outside on occasion.

With these breweries, it truly does help to change the thought process in dry towns.  Previously, there's the opinion that the sky will fall if a town would allow alcohol to be sold (never mind many neighboring towns tend to have liquor stores and restaurants so close to the town line that someone from the town doesn't need to go far to get alcohol anyway).  But now in towns like Pitman, they had a vote last year to allow alcohol sales and the vote overwhelmingly passed.  They aren't rushing to sell any licenses though, which in itself can take some time to determine what and how they want to proceed with the sale of alcohol.

SP Cook

A couple of things I find odd traveling around.

- There are states, including New Jersey IIRC, where there are only so many bars per jurisdiction.  Kind of like a taxi medaliion, people will hold on to their permit until the new chain comes in and sell it for big $$.  Around here, if you fill out the paperwork and qualify, you can start a bar, it is none of the government's business how many there might be. 

- In Ohio (never have seen it elsewhere) I have seen c-stores that sell "diluted liquor".  Comes in a standard "fifth" bottle, with a big yellow label that reads something like "Jack Daniels whiskey, made in Tennessee at 70 proof, diluted by Acme Co. to 15% (cannot recall exactly) alcohol content in Stumptown, Ohio".  Apparently the dilution gets it down to the wine level of alcohol legality, as liquor stores in the Buckeye state are hard to find in the less populated areas.

- In Texas they have to label these citrus-y pre mixed coctails "flavored beer", because all a beer retailer can sell is "beer".

- NC does not allow anyone over 12 but under 21 IN the liquor store.  Apparently 12 is old enough to leave in the car or tell to take a walk around the block while mommy picks up her "medicine".

Opinions.

- I have no real opinion on state vs. private liquor reatiling (although if you are going to do a state system, I like NC's where the state is the wholesaler and the county or city is the retailer.  While prices are consistant, the cities and counties will compete on service and you do not get DMV level attitudes.

- However, I do very much like SEPERATE liquor stores.  First, it is a job creator.  But it is just a lifestyle thing.  Around here most of the liquor stores are the pharmacies.  And liquor retailing attracts bums.  Bums in the parking lots asking for $$, and clearly intoxicated, clearly alcoholic, clearly "homeless" people in line at the cash register counting out change to buy one bottle of bottom shelf crud.  I would rather buy my liquor in one store and my deodorant in another, all things considered.

- We had a bill last legislature to force stores to put an orange label reading "ALCOHOLIC DRINK" on things like Not Your Father's Root Beer and the Lime-A-Ritas.   I am a 99% libertarian, but I don't know that this is not a good idea.  Not that long ago you knew just by looking what was beer and what was a soft drink. 

kalvado

Quote from: SP Cook on August 17, 2017, 10:04:30 AM
A couple of things I find odd traveling around.

- There are states, including New Jersey IIRC, where there are only so many bars per jurisdiction.  Kind of like a taxi medaliion, people will hold on to their permit until the new chain comes in and sell it for big $$.  Around here, if you fill out the paperwork and qualify, you can start a bar, it is none of the government's business how many there might be. 

Looks like MT has some extreme licensing: finite number of licenses, and some counties have as few as 2 or 3 on-premise ones. Licenses are sold for as much as $1M or as little as $200.. .
https://public.tableau.com/profile/ddemay1981#!/vizhome/IncontrolofliquorinMontana/Dashboard1

jeffandnicole

Quote from: SP Cook on August 17, 2017, 10:04:30 AM
- There are states, including New Jersey IIRC, where there are only so many bars per jurisdiction.  Kind of like a taxi medaliion, people will hold on to their permit until the new chain comes in and sell it for big $$.

Correct...although it does depend on the jurisdiction.  Some areas fetch more money than others.  In some, the liquor license is restricted to certain areas or districts within the town. 

NJ also only has licenses to sell everything.  There's no Beer/Wine only license or limited licenses...although there are 'seasonal licenses' for the shore area in some towns, although I'm not overall familiar with how they work.  I think there's specific dates that those bars can be open.

hbelkins

Kentucky has some odd laws pertaining to alcohol sales and distribution.

There's a three-tiered system that's supposed to be in place -- producer, distributor and retailer. This basically prohibits brewers of craft beers from providing their product directly to retail outlets. Most of the distributors are affiliated with the major brewers (Budweiser, Coors, Miller, etc.) and it's hard for the small breweries to get their products placed in stores when the distributors are more interested in providing large quantities of the mass-produced beer. It's a stupid law that establishes an artificial middleman.

There was a recent well-publicized case here recently involving a state representative who owns a number of liquor stores in different communities. He was transporting excess inventory from one of his stores to another. He was arrested and charged with illegal transportation. Apparently Kentucky law allows only distributors to transport for resale across county lines, not licensed retailers. The charge was eventually thrown out and the law was ruled unconstitutional. It's silly not to allow a business owner to move inventory from one store to anohter.

I personally prefer Kentucky's way of letting private businesses sell alcohol (although the licensing process is subject to political influence) vs. state-owned stores. Better to let the private sector make a profit than the government.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

GaryV

We were in line at the checkout in a large grocery store (HQ here in MI, you can probably figure it out).  A dad and his son, about 8 or 10 years old, were emptying their cart in front of us.  The clerk couldn't let them buy their beer, because the son lifted the case onto the belt.  Against the law to "sell" to minors.

kalvado

Quote from: GaryV on August 17, 2017, 06:28:06 PM
We were in line at the checkout in a large grocery store (HQ here in MI, you can probably figure it out).  A dad and his son, about 8 or 10 years old, were emptying their cart in front of us.  The clerk couldn't let them buy their beer, because the son lifted the case onto the belt.  Against the law to "sell" to minors.
Perfectly believable.

Situation from, I believe, Maine.
Like any other state, Maine provide a laundry list of IDs for buying alcohol. State driver license, permit, or non-driver ID, military ID, passport, etc etc..
All worked well, until some folks from DC dared to buy some beer. They present their DC issued license as age verification... And clerk points out that it is not a state issued document. Neither that license is military ID, passport, or any other document from the list.... And the sale is refused.
As a result, there was a letter from AG saying that purpose of the law is to verify age, not discriminate against residents of DC, so documents from DC, PR etc. are equivalent to state issued ones..

1995hoo

I've heard about that sort of thing with DC licenses happening elsewhere too. Pretty pathetic.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

vdeane

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2017, 07:33:33 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2017, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.
I would think those situations would be illegal regardless because the Constitution supersedes all federal and state law (or, at least, that's what I was taught in school).

But you're contradicting what you said before when I said the Supreme Court found the Twenty-First Amendment's use of the phrase "in violation of the laws thereof" was not intended to supersede other parts of the Constitution. In other words, the case about wine shipping involved a state discriminating against out-of-state wineries because the state's law let in-state wineries ship to customers in that state but didn't let out-of-state wineries do the same. You said you thought the point of amendments was to change the things that came before such that the Dormant Commerce Clause would not supersede state law. Why, then, would it be any different as to the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment? That is, obviously the Twenty-First Amendment changed one part of the Constitution, no question–it repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. But if you think it also overturned either the Commerce Clause or the line of case law interpreting the Commerce Clause, then why would you not think it also either overturned or limited the First Amendment? What would make you pick and choose one part and not another?

The wine-shipping case is actually a pretty good example of your point about the Constitution trumping state laws because the Supreme Court said the state law regarding alcohol importation has to be a valid exercise of state power. Constitutional law forbade states from discriminating against interstate commerce, so a state law restricting alcohol importation by discriminating against out-of-state wineries was an invalid exercise of state power. (Of course, the state could quite validly prohibit ALL wineries from shipping to customers in that state and it would probably be a valid action, if an unexpected result!)
But, by specifically saying that the states had the power to regulate alcohol, doesn't that mean Congress delegated their authority away?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

michravera

Quote from: txstateends on August 15, 2017, 06:10:56 PM
I wish I had $1 for every time I've had to explain TX liquor laws to people (used to work in hospitality, funny how drunks only asked me for something to buy *after* it was unavailable for the night!)...

A city/town/place or a county precinct has to have enough signatures on a petition, which is presented to the appropriate officials.  Those officials will verify the signatures on the petition--and that there are enough--before calling for an election.  Registered voters of the area can vote on the proposition on the election day, and if a majority says yes, the proposition passes.  A proposition can be for:  any combination of beer/wine/liquor sales and/or liquor by the drink at bars/restaurants. 

If an area approves liquor by the drink without having lawful store sales of beer/wine/liquor in the same area, the bar/restaurant has to issue "memberships" to those who want to have drinkies.  They have to check for those with memberships or risk getting stung by the TABC (the state regulatory agency).  Some areas stipulate how long a restaurant or bar can serve.  One of the Dallas suburbs, Frisco, can't serve after midnight; while neighboring Plano can serve till 2am.  Citizens of Frisco have tried at least twice to vote to change their cutoff time till 2am, but enough have voted no both times, so it's still midnight there.  Big metro areas with large amounts of bars/restaurants can do singular memberships called unicards (sorry, I've never known the process on those since I never had one) which dramatically simplifies things for the establishment and the customer.  If an area does allow store sales, then bars/restaurants don't have to fool with memberships.

Most areas that are 'wet' have sales of beer/wine.  Election propositions can be all-in-one for sales of beer/wine/liquor, or separated into multiple propositions (beer, wine, beer/wine, liquor), which might be the case in areas where those that want the election think that sales of beer and/or wine have a better chance of passing than a proposition for liquor sales.  Once an election has passed, the city/precinct has to prepare itself for receiving applications to sell whatever product was approved, as well as any possible zoning they may want (no sales within x feet of a school/church, for example).  Those that want to sell beer/wine can sell it within the confines of an existing grocery or convenience store (if they meet any zoning regulations that were passed), but liquor has to be in a separate area/store (not mixed in with existing store space/stock).  Liquor sales at stores are not allowed on Sundays (one of TX' last 'blue laws'), but can be served on Sundays at bars/restaurants.  If a liquor store has beer/wine/liquor all in one store building, that store won't be able to open on Sundays, even with the presence of beer/wine, which can be sold on Sunday.  Some liquor stores have split storefronts so they can still have one side open for beer/wine sales. 

IIRR, there are exceptions about selling wine for those who operate a winery (a growing industry in TX... pardon the pun) in a local 'dry' area.

While the state regulates sales/activity about booze, it doesn't have it's own stores (like NC, for example).  Most stores that sell booze close between 10:30p and midnight.  Nothing is legally available in TX after 2am (the latest bars/restaurants can serve)... if you want something later, go to Shreveport, they can serve till 6am (because they have casinos).  Some bars open during the week as early as 7am, seemingly to get the shift-worker crowd (or the day-drinkers!!).

Years ago, you had to drive quite a ways to find a 'wet' town/area, now it's almost the opposite!  So many places that have had religious/old-coot influence, have seen what kind of tax revenue they can possibly make, so out go the old ways in those areas.  My dad used to joke back in the day that every lake in TX has at least one 'wet' town on or near it!  Walmart is trying to challenge the state's liquor licensing process (I've forgotten the intricacies of that, but it's restrictive), and I've heard they want to challenge the no-liquor-sales-on-Sunday thing also.

ETA::::: sorry, kids, forgot something--
For those who would like to enjoy a strip club, and drinkies, there are 2 choices in TX.  Either, the strip club will be able to serve you drinks (they have their liquor license), and you don't get to see 'everything'; or, you get to see 'everything' but have to bring your own booze with you (they don't have a liquor license) but usually the place will have setups/ice/mixers/etc to get you started with what you brought.

In California, no sales of alcoholic beverages are allowed between 2AM and 6AM any morning.
There are basically 4 combinations of license beer-wine or any and for sealed for take out or open for on site consumption. When an entity applies for a license, an upgrade, or a change of ownership, it must post a notice of its application where people can see it for a period of time.
Establishments that serve alcoholic beverages for on site consumption and which stay open after 2AM (like casinos) are often very strict about picking up all of the vessels well in advance of the 2AM deadline. Some of those with a 2AM closing time appear a bit more lenient.



Brandon

Quote from: GaryV on August 17, 2017, 06:28:06 PM
We were in line at the checkout in a large grocery store (HQ here in MI, you can probably figure it out).  A dad and his son, about 8 or 10 years old, were emptying their cart in front of us.  The clerk couldn't let them buy their beer, because the son lifted the case onto the belt.  Against the law to "sell" to minors.

Sounds like the clerk was being a twit.  I hope they asked for the manager.  Also, in that state, you can sell if you're 18, but not buy.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

1995hoo

Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2017, 07:33:33 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2017, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 15, 2017, 09:49:14 PM
Think of it this way: Applying the logic in your post, a state could say, for example, that only Catholics could import wine into the state, and that would be OK because any other importation would be "in violation" of the state's laws. (Set aside the point that even during Prohibition, wine was permitted for sacramental purposes because that was deemed not to be a "beverage purpose.") But surely that would raise First Amendment issues, right? Or if they said whites can bring in twice as much liquor as blacks–that would be an equal-protection issue (Fourteenth Amendment). The fundamental point is that the state law has to be a VALID state law. Since the Constitution already prohibited the states from discriminating against interstate commerce (or from favoring one religion over another, in the First Amendment example), and the Twenty-First Amendment doesn't say they can discriminate, the Supreme Court concluded that they can't. The religion and race examples I threw out help show why that's surely correct.
I would think those situations would be illegal regardless because the Constitution supersedes all federal and state law (or, at least, that's what I was taught in school).

But you're contradicting what you said before when I said the Supreme Court found the Twenty-First Amendment's use of the phrase "in violation of the laws thereof" was not intended to supersede other parts of the Constitution. In other words, the case about wine shipping involved a state discriminating against out-of-state wineries because the state's law let in-state wineries ship to customers in that state but didn't let out-of-state wineries do the same. You said you thought the point of amendments was to change the things that came before such that the Dormant Commerce Clause would not supersede state law. Why, then, would it be any different as to the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment? That is, obviously the Twenty-First Amendment changed one part of the Constitution, no question–it repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. But if you think it also overturned either the Commerce Clause or the line of case law interpreting the Commerce Clause, then why would you not think it also either overturned or limited the First Amendment? What would make you pick and choose one part and not another?

The wine-shipping case is actually a pretty good example of your point about the Constitution trumping state laws because the Supreme Court said the state law regarding alcohol importation has to be a valid exercise of state power. Constitutional law forbade states from discriminating against interstate commerce, so a state law restricting alcohol importation by discriminating against out-of-state wineries was an invalid exercise of state power. (Of course, the state could quite validly prohibit ALL wineries from shipping to customers in that state and it would probably be a valid action, if an unexpected result!)
But, by specifically saying that the states had the power to regulate alcohol, doesn't that mean Congress delegated their authority away?

No.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

vdeane

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 07:31:24 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
But, by specifically saying that the states had the power to regulate alcohol, doesn't that mean Congress delegated their authority away?
No.
Then what is the entire point of section 2 of the amendment?  States and local governments already have the authority to ban certain things - many places ban styrofoam takeout containers, or require people to be 21 to buy cigarettes, for example.  Why then is this section here, if Congress wasn't delegating its authority to regulate interstate commerce?  The federal government has no authority over intrastate commerce, so no need for that section as far as I can tell.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

roadman

#48
Quote from: SP Cook on August 17, 2017, 10:04:30 AM
- There are states, including New Jersey IIRC, where there are only so many bars per jurisdiction.  Kind of like a taxi medaliion, people will hold on to their permit until the new chain comes in and sell it for big $$.

Not sure about other cities and towns in Massachusetts, but Boston has very strict regulations about the use of liquor licenses once issued.  If a license holder doesn't have a business that is currently open (regardless of the reason), the city's Licensing Board will summon then to a hearing and can demand they sell the license (which go for upwards of $300K on the secondary market) to another pending applicant.  At first this sounds reasonable, except that businesses that are rebuilding because of fire, flood, or other damage are routinely summoned to explain why they aren't open to the public and have been threatened (yes, there's no more appropriate word for this tactic) with being forced to sell their license if they don't reopen within a given time frame - which is usually unrealistically short, given the work involved (and the inevitable delays dealing with insurance reimbursement) to restore after incurring major damage.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

1995hoo

Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2017, 12:59:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2017, 07:31:24 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
But, by specifically saying that the states had the power to regulate alcohol, doesn't that mean Congress delegated their authority away?
No.
Then what is the entire point of section 2 of the amendment?  States and local governments already have the authority to ban certain things - many places ban styrofoam takeout containers, or require people to be 21 to buy cigarettes, for example.  Why then is this section here, if Congress wasn't delegating its authority to regulate interstate commerce?  The federal government has no authority over intrastate commerce, so no need for that section as far as I can tell.

The point is that the state can regulate importation of alcohol in ways that do not otherwise conflict with the US Constitution. It doesn't say that because it doesn't have to–it's axiomatic.

You're not seriously arguing that a state could enact a law saying "only Catholics" or "only Protestants" can import alcohol into the state, or "only whites can import liquor; blacks can only import beer," are you? Because if you believe the Twenty-First Amendment gave states 100% control, then that's what you have to conclude.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.