Alcohol to the US

[trooper]

This isn't looking good...

The UPS website seems to indicate THEY will only accept "Liquor" shipments from "Licensed distributor to licensed distributor" and only on an "airport to airport" basis..

I suspect FEDEX will prove to be the same....

Having read that I am quite certain that cove has it right... it is a result of tax/excise laws rather than any prohibitionist style ideology or common sense failure.

Given the (reasonable) uniformity of laws here it is easy to forget that the US is in many ways a federation of somewhat independent State entities.... with laws ideally reflecting what the residents of THAT State want... without reference to "next doors" take on the same matter...

Certainly interesting!

Looks like "hand carry and meet up" is the only real option for the rum!

 

[serfty]

... EDIT: BUGGER!!!! Alcohol cannot be sent through the post.....

...
I was comparing the two rules......1. you can not mail alcohol...2.you can own automatic weapons. ...

A correctly packaged bottle of alcohol is not dangerous to transport by mail. ...

... My original post was merely saying that in a country were owing guns is protected by law and gun culture is massive it does seem strange that they are very restrictive in the movement of alcohol. ...

Running plonk across borders is a very serious offence.
We used a UPS type of carrier who called it wire and it arrived safely but I would not recommend it.They made it look like a typo thru their office.

So in a country that allows people to own automatic weapons they ban sending alcohol through the post.:shock:

The US never fails to confuse me. ...

I think it is a State Taxes argument in the USA.Each State in America wants to clip the taxes ticket so if you mail a perfectly packed bottle that has alcohol in it you are almost guilty of treason and seen as a modern day Al Capone if that bottle goes across a State boundary.

...
Having read that I am quite certain that cove has it right... it is a result of tax/excise laws rather than any prohibitionist style ideology or common sense failure.

Given the (reasonable) uniformity of laws here it is easy to forget that the US is in many ways a federation of somewhat independent State entities.... with laws ideally reflecting what the residents of THAT State want... without reference to "next doors" take on the same matter. ...

Yup, ya gotta watch out for them revenooers ...

 

[Dee Thom]

Yup, ya gotta watch out for them revenooers ...

How did our P.M. become involved in this Post ?

Cheers Dee

 

[Scozzie]

This isn't looking good...

The UPS website seems to indicate THEY will only accept "Liquor" shipments from "Licensed distributor to licensed distributor" and only on an "airport to airport" basis..

I suspect FEDEX will prove to be the same....

Having read that I am quite certain that cove has it right... it is a result of tax/excise laws rather than any prohibitionist style ideology or common sense failure.

Given the (reasonable) uniformity of laws here it is easy to forget that the US is in many ways a federation of somewhat independent State entities.... with laws ideally reflecting what the residents of THAT State want... without reference to "next doors" take on the same matter...

Certainly interesting!

Looks like "hand carry and meet up" is the only real option for the rum!

Thanks to all who contributed here especially trooper who has done a fair bit of research into the subject but I think I will put it on the back burner for a little longer for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, my friend, the intended recipient of this fine bottle has his place of business in Delano and doesnt travel to the city very often and secondly, my daughter who is intending to have a gap year next year has said she would like to visit Delano again and meet up with all the friends she made whislt living there so if it eventuates she can be the bearer of gifts.

 

[trooper]

That'll work!

Still... I plan to depart Oz 28 or 29 August... arriving in MSP a few weeks later (it's the last competition of a 3 match trip)...

Call on me if you need to...:mrgreen:

 

[medhead]

Would you be happy to ban guns that aren’t for the express purpose of a particular sport then?

AK-47s and what not shouldn’t be things anyone needs for sport or otherwise. I’d be happy for someone to own one, just not be able to buy ammo for it, as realistically, what sport would you engage in with one? And don’t say killing people, that’s not a sport. Drug warfare isn’t either.

Bottom line, the argument was that a bottle of alcohol packaged properly in a box with foam and what not isn’t allowed.

Having experience at shooting a few different military firearms and having been exceedingly poor at it. No I wouldn't agree to banning them. It takes skill to fire and hit something. Based on my experience of joy at having (once) hit a target at 300m from the standing supported position I can see that some people might like to challenge themselves.

I think chris rock was right tax bullets to be like $3000 each.

As for the shipment of spirits or lack thereof. I dare say it is a prohibition and taxation related thing. Remember the USA fought a war to determine the relationship between states and the federal government. I thing the states strongly defend whatever rights they still have.

I think Serfty got it right. Beware the revenooers

 

[trooper]

OK... I'll bite....

NO.. I would not support any law preventing law abiding citzens from legally owning and lawfully using such things. For exactly the same reason that I would not support any other artificial constructs in the name of "public safety" that do nothing but cause hassles for the law abiding. (And I suppose let Politicians falsely claim to be "Doing Something!")

Whether or not there was a "sport" they were used for... (Although it wouldn't be hard to make that happen... there are Machine gun target competitions conducted in a few US States... I'm sure the rulebooks are available)

Good (lateral) thought on the ammo.... ammo restrictions are however unworkable in reality... the AK-47 for instance uses the 7.62 x 39 round.. but so do some very fine bolt action rifles by Remington and other companies.... Given the cost of commercial ammo here anyway all the shooters I know reload their own... and that 7.62 x 39 round can use the same primer, powder and projectile as a number of other popular calibres...

BTW....I obey the law. I store, transport and use my guns IAW the ACT Dangerous Weapons Act and it's various regulations.... as a result I am baffled as to why some folks think my gun ownership should be restricted ... and what benefit there is to society in doing so, as I can't see it. (I don't even cheat on my tax... I served for 14 years as an officer in the Navy.. saw Active service in the Gulf in 91... I'm polite and courteous and kind to animals, I do volunteer work and offer to help out other AFF'ers:mrgreen:.. what do I have to do to be left to lawfully follow my interests?)

..and note please that AK-47's and other "Assault Rifles" do NOT feature in gang wars... (or in crime generally in any great numbers - 1.8% of gun crimes IIRC?.. not surprising given their value!)

Illegally obtained SEMI-auto look-alikes may well do so - but to suggest the heavily restricted Class III firearms are regular "gang" weapons is not only wrong.. but looks like "painting with a broad brush" to create the impression that there are far more of them in circulation than is actually the case.... not real honest eh? But effective if you want to try to take them away from law abiding owners...

Don't ask me how to solve the problem of the unlawful use of illegally obtained guns here or in the USA... I don't know. I can tell you however that restricting my lawful ownership (or that of the millions of similar gun owners) won't do it....

Wow.. to think this started with RUM! Oh well.. I'm off for a JD....

Which reminds me... "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" Is that the coolest name ever for a government department or what? :mrgreen::mrgreen:

 

[medhead]

OK... I'll bite....

Good (lateral) thought on the ammo.... ammo restrictions are however unworkable in reality...

Yeah, it is a comedy routine. (i can't claim credit) Facts don't really come into it. Very funny should be on you tube. A few punch lines. "make bullets $3000 that way if someone gets shot you KNOW they did something. Cause no one is going to throw money like that away on an innocent bystander". And "I'm going to shoot you, once I see the bank about a loan".

Of course if it was to happen I'm sure we could tax the hell out of reloaders.

BTW I didn't suggest a ban.

 

[medhead]

Trooper,

I was not saying anything about gun ownership, I was commenting on the absurd rules that the US enforce, not being able to send someone a gift of alcohol in the mail but you can buy a gun everywhere.

ejb

Yep I think we got that the first 3 time you mentioned it Did you miss the posts that attributed the situation to taxation and historical reasons like prohibition, or some combination thereof? So not random absurdity just taxation.