When I was a young man, roaming around the woods and hills of northeast Iowa, two old guys had a still tucked away somewhere in the woods near Highlandville. I know that moonshining is something generally associated with the South, but nobody seems to have told these two old fellows, and from them you could buy a Mason jar of what they called "corn squeezings" for $10. It wasn't bad, although if you had any left after a night's revelry, you could always use it to strip paint and blast stumps.
Now, selling homemade hooch is one thing, I admit. But honestly, this is a free country; one should be able to set up a small still and make your own booze for personal use. And now, a case with that as a possible result, is headed to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to legalize home whiskey distilleries in the United States by a conservative-leaning think tank in Ohio.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that the federal ban against home whiskey distilleries is unconstitutional. However, the 6th Circuit upheld the federal ban.
The federal government said the law is constitutional because it was enacted to prevent tax evasion and that it would be easier for a distiller working out of their home to conceal the business and therefore avoid paying taxes.
That last bit seems a bit of a trite argument; it's certainly possible now for a person to do this, just as it would be if home use were legalized, as it is now for wine and beer. And, if anyone can point out to us in the Constitution where the government is authorized to regulate booze, I'd love to see it.
As evidence of the ambiguity of all this, we might note that two different courts of appeals issued conflicting rulings in this matter, which is why the case is going to the Supreme Court.
On Monday, the Buckeye Institute filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to decide between the two conflicting appeals-court rulings.
“Two courts of appeals considered the same provisions, against the same constitutional challenge, on materially identical facts, within 11 days of each other, and issued opposite judgments,” Buckeye’s Monday petition to the Supreme Court states.
That seems a pretty clear-cut argument for the escalation.
Read More: New: A Beer a Day Keeps the Blues Away, but Moderation Is Key
Moonshine Notches a Win, As Appeals Court Rules 158-Year Ban on Home Distilling Unconstitutional
As of this writing, though, the Supreme Court hasn't indicated whether or not it will hear the case.
The liberty-lover in me is inclined to side with the plaintiffs in this matter. Constitutional issues aside, I don't think it's the government's place to rule over what I do or don't do on my own property, including producing a product that is perfectly legal when produced for commercial sale. Were I to buy some copper line and a boiler and set up a still in my workshop, so that I may indulge in a dram of home-brewed now and then, that's nobody's business but mine. And if anyone thinks that people aren't doing this already, especially here in rural Alaska, just because it's illegal, well, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member