This is part two of an ongoing series related to direct-to-consumer wine shipping. If you are in the least interested in wine, especially wine that you read about but can't find in your local wine shop, this information should be interesting -- or at least important -- to you. You can read part one, which dealt with the three-tier system, here.

If you are a wine lover from Massachusetts, than you are an unfortunate soul. Despite the Supreme Court ruling that deemed discriminatory interstate wine shipping laws unconstitutional, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has made it nearly impossible for you and me to receive shipments from an out-of-state winery. It has done so through legislation that, while superficially appealing to Granholm v. Heald, has made shipping from most out-of-state wineries worth ordering from either illegal or prohibitive.

In the wake of Granholm Massachusetts passed a wine shipping law that allowed the direct shipment of wine from out-of-state wineries that produced less than 30,000 gallons of wine. On the surface, the law appeals to those wineries for which direct shipping is most beneficial -- small producers for whom distributor representation is nearly impossible – while maintaining some level of “protection” for the state’s wholesalers, who generally handle the large producers. 30,000 gallons is just over the amount of wine produced annually by Westport Rivers, the largest Massachusetts wine producer, but most California artisanal winemakers produce over this amount of wine. So right off the bat, Massachusetts has limited direct shipping to a small subset of tiny out-of-state wineries.

Another stipulation made by the Commonwealth laws is the consumer aggregate volume limit, which restricts annual direct wine shipments to any individual to 240 liters (about 26 cases). Again, the law is seemingly just: 26 cases of wine is a reasonable amount of wine for almost everyone save rabid collectors. But the law also forces wineries to keep track of the amount of wine that individual customers purchase every year, the cost of which is unduly prohibitive to the small wineries Massachusetts laws appear to superficially protect.

Furthermore, Mass alcohol transport laws are so restrictive that UPS and FedEx will not ship alcohol into the state to an individual; the shipment must be made separately to a drop-off point within the state (i.e. a liquor store) by another carrier (i.e. DHL) and then delivered via intrastate means. Again, transport of alcohol is allowed under certain conditions, but the conditions are so disruptive to the major shipping services that the law serves no purpose but near-complete restriction.

Many other states impose similar laws, but because of this suite of prohibitive laws wineries such as Smith-Madrone refuse to ship here.

There is currently a case pending in the MA federal court, Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, that is arguing that these laws are unconstitutional. The defendant is Eddie J. Jenkins, the chairman of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC). keep an eye out on this case; it could mean that I can finally get my bottle of Smith-Madrone Riesling.