(PD) - A decade ago, shipping wine across state lines was still an unsettled issue, but the phrase “reciprocal trade” was a kind of well-understood tactic that solved problems.

 It meant that if the state a winery was in and the state it wanted to ship to both had laws that permitted interstate shipping of wine, then wine could be shipped between them without restriction.

 But the unsettled nature of the state-to-state regulations had so many legal issues swirling around them that no one was really happy. California wineries, being located in a reciprocal trade state, liked the ability to ship to 35 other states. But there were 15 other areas (including the District of Columbia) where California wineries could not ship.

 Moreover, what about the ability of retailers to ship to consumers in other states? Or my ability to ship wine to my brother for his birthday party?

 Through all this, wholesale companies opposed any form of direct shipping of wine since (as trivial to their businesses as it was) it was still was seen as a loss of revenue.

 Under the old rules, the regulatory water was muddy and didn’t answer many of the questions that the federal government has never wanted to answer. (i.e., it never established a solution to the bad wording of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution that ended Prohibition, which appears to violate the same document’s Commerce Clause.)