Your thoughts on Alpine's decision?

Nobody is ever found to be innocent. Not guilty sometimes. Not everyone considers the collectible bottle thing to be a ruse (like ebay and law enforcement). Changing the hypothetical facts changes the discussion (selling to minors).

 

I know, I'm just saying I wouldn't try convincing them I'm right and it's not illegal.

If following my rule of doing anything I really wanna do as long as its not hurting or affecting anyone else negatively is rationalizing then sure...I won't argue with you.

 

love alpne brew's.. he will brew it again just blowin off some steam

 

the collectible bottle argument wouldn't work for an unlicensed retail establishment; even a licensed one selling " collectible bottles " to a minor would be actionable. i am certain the same arguments would apply to ebay. though i agree that it hasn't demonstrably been.

if a bottle is sold over ebay to a minor and that minor goes on to do something stupid, you'll see prosecutions. but it's not likely.

 

If this whole thing called any law enforcement's interests then yes, they would consider it a ruse too. eBay has to know its a ruse since they take down listings all the time.

 

You think proving intent (state of mind) is easier than it is in a court of law, much less when it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any good lawyer also knows that due process requires notice to persons of what is prohibited. Hence, why you need laws specifically saying "no texting and driving" vs. just prosecuting persons under a general reckless driving statute.

Plus, it sounds like you're using an out of court statement to provide the truth of the matter asserted (hearsay). . . sure, there's like 39 exceptions to the hearsay rule, but nonetheless. . . its more complicated than you believe IMHO.

 

Which only gives them a nice bunker to hide behind should an action against them arise in the future.

 

That's exactly what I said. That also applies to BA and RB though since its not hard to trade beer as a minor either.

 

there was a class act on here last year (mike3865) that was called out as a bad trader/thief. he went on to reveal he was a minor. he also admitted he had been trolling under the names darknesslvr and markolovesducks.

there are minors already using the site. trading is a risky proposition. i just don't want to see misunderstanding perpetuated here like, " o, it's not illegal " when it gives the impression that a violation is free from prosecution.

 

Even under a party to a crime theory, how would you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that BA or RB had both the actus and mens rea to get alcohol to a minor? Much less any proximate cause issues in a potential civil suit? It should get laughed out of court like the reservation lawsuit v. BMC et al.

Ain't no dram shop act liability in Nevada anyways. Personal responsibility rules. Well, it used to.

 

Yea, I remember him and I'm with you brother. I say if you wanna rationalize that it shouldn't be illegal because XYZ go right ahead. Just know that the fact is it's illegal and you could be prosecuted for it however remote the possibility.

That goes for trading and buying/selling beer on eBay.

 

You 'could' be prosecuted for anything, regardless of the facts or law.

That goes for breathing, speaking, or even not using ebay.

Any layperson (or even attorney to a lesser degree) saying conclusively what is factually legal/illegal before there has even been a single prosecution for the alleged act is speculative at best. Even the US Supreme Court frequently splits 5-4 on what the law says. . . these things aren't as black/white as many are stating/oversimplifying (even including myself).

I gotta run guys, Marquette @ Cincy in 10 minutes, I think its been a good and thought provoking discussion on all ends, regardless of your position or viewpoint.

 

IIRC:

• 21st Amendment gives the rights to alcohol control to the states. (There is no federal control of alcohol aside from taxes I think)
• eBay policy requires a disclaimer that essentially dissolves them from all liability, "Both the buyers and sellers ensure that the sale complies with all applicable laws and shipping regulations"
• The following two points are if they were selling beer as beer and not as a collectible:
• Therefore, it is the buyer's responsibility to provide proof of age (21 or over) and permit and pay applicable tax to the state (and keep track of quantity) if required, and the seller's responsibility to provide proof of permit.
• Prohibited Direct Shipments in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah (IMHO, this should be prohibited whether it's a collectible or not, as it's still the shipment of a filled alcoholic bottle)

The holes I see is that eBay does not restrict bidders from the prohibited states from bidding on alcohol auctions, nor does it require proof of age, documentation of permit, etc. But they may not have to considering they are just providing the service for the listing... no different than Craigslist.

What would essentially have to happen is an audit on the eBay seller's to provide proof that all the guidelines were met for every transaction, or an undercover investigation by each State to determine if those guidelines are being met, to put pressure on eBay to change their policy.

But my point is, there's no such thing as a federal law going into affect in regards to eBay, the only way it's going to change is if one state prosecutes eBay for negligence in not recording proof for these types of transactions, or for them to force eBay to exclude their state from being able to bid on such auctions (somehow)?

They would also have to prove intent to consume the alcohol which I see troubling. The seller doesn't really care if the beer is consumed or not, as far as the seller is concerned, it is just a collectible bottle and the buyer would be the one that law enforcement would have to prove that they had the intent to consume.

Applicable laws for intrastate shipping:
(most require permit & tax, some prohibited in general)
http://wineinstitute.shipcompliant.com/WhoShipsWhere.aspx

TLDR; So if everyone was honest, it's probably illegal. But incredibly hard to prove, given the disclaimer and no liability by eBay.

At minimum, eBay should ban all auctions of filled bottles. If the value isn't the liquid, than it shouldn't be a problem, right?

AIMHO as I'm not a lawyer, and don't know much about it.

 

agreed. and we as a country haven't progressed far enough past our puritannical past where i would assume gray areas of alcohol sales would fall under the " permissible " banner.

 

Unfortunately, it's not that simple: with almost any collectible the value is largely in the item's condition, with the highest value going to pristine, unopened examples. Pulling a cork or popping a crown is the same as taking an action figure out of its box or dog-earing a comic book, so anyone who is ACTUALLY interested in a bottle as a collectible would have good reason to protest a rule against filled bottles.

 

while ya'll were beating a dead horse here, i headed up to alpine and got some chez monieux bottles that i will be selling for approximately 666.66 each on ebay, keep an eye out!

 

Hit the nail on the head! Cheers!

 

Wow. Good point. Like, if I wanted to go into every Target I find and buy all the Metallica cds and throw them into a huge televised bonfire... They got paid.

 

I wonder how many of those ebay listings will cite his blog response and then triple the asking price, with the justification that they will never be bottled again...

 

Well, yes. They would have every right to be pissed at you for being such a jerk to them in public, but it would be beyond foolish for them to stop selling their cds just because someone might misuse them. If they were to react to the situation, they would be well-served to go after you personally rather than punish all their other fans (and themselves, financially) by making it impossible to buy their music for at-home listening.

Same situation for the beer; if Pat wants to punish eBayers, he should contact the site and the authorities to have them shut down illegal behavior; he should not threaten to stop bottling the beer entirely, since to do so would punish the vast majority of responsible consumers more than it would the handful of profiteers (they would just sell someone else's beer instead, repeating their bad behavior ad infinitum).