Slashdot Mirror
W. Virginia Bans Direct Tesla Sales, With Urging of Car-Dealer Senate President
Ars Technica reports that another state has buckled to the auto dealership lobby, though with an interesting twist:
West Virginia became at least the fifth state to ban the direct-sales approach practiced by Tesla Motors following Friday's signature by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin. ... The bill was championed by West Virginia's Senate president, who is an auto dealer in his home state and Kentucky. ... The legislation says a vehicle maker may not “act in the capacity of a new motor vehicle dealer” or “operate a dealership, including, but not limited to, displaying a motor vehicle intended to facilitate the sale of new motor vehicles other than through franchised dealers, unless the display is part of an automobile trade show that more than two automobile manufacturers participate in.” ... The Palo Alto, California-based electric-vehicle company operates so-called "galleries" in Texas, Arizona, and Maryland because the company's sales practices are barred there, too. Customers can see Tesla cars in these galleries, but they may not order vehicles, discuss prices or take test drives."
Clearly "what the people want" isn't working here. So why don't they simply sell the cars direct there anyway and disregard the law? Although I could not find a poll for Virginia, a Texas poll showed 85% of people in favor of allowing direct-to-consumer sales of cars. It would seem near-impossible to get a unanimous verdict to convict, as is required in Virginia.
If Congress were to pass some 'Free Sale of Vehicles and American Free Enterprise Act', which explicitly overrode laws like this, it would take about 10 seconds for the supreme court to decide that a law governing business within West Virginia is subordinate to federal authority because intrastate commerce has an affect on interstate commerce (that's basically Gonzales v. Raich, so they could cut and paste); but congress hasn't done so.
The Interstate Commerce Clause doesn't require the feds to regulate any and all matters of interstate commerce, it just gives them the authority to, if they so choose. Without any contradictory federal legislation there is no conflict, and no case; but if there were I'd be shocked to see a commerce clause argument fail.
That way people can at least drive the car.
There are specialized car rental agencies that deal with Ferraris and other high-end cars.
The purpose of government is to privatize gains and socialize losses. Whenever they think they can get away with it anyway.
In this case, they did. The folklore schools teach about rulers as moral betters is starting to wear quite thin. Dynamic systems undergo state changes rapidly. Be aware.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
In my opinion the more Christian someone calls themselves the less like Christ they act.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
So, basically, they are FORCING people to buy the Teslas in another state, thus screwing themselves out of several thousand dollars worth of sales taxes per car?
Wrong. You pay sales tax based on your residence, not the location of your purchase, for things like cars. Try going out-of-state and buying a car and verify it for yourself: the dealership collects sales tax based on your residence, and remits it to that state.
States don't bother enforcing this for things like groceries and other small things, because it's impractical. But for cars, they certainly do.
It's a reference to the "religious freedom" legislation those two states passed recently that allow for discrimination based on religious beliefs that prompted several tech companies including Apple to curtail their business there, which was covered on Slashdot here and here. Essentially if a resident of those states has a personal prejudice against some group and can find a relevant passage in their religious book of choice (generally not too hard, given how open to interpretation the texts are), then they can quite legally tell them to take a hike. It doesn't mean that they're not going to face a backlash from the rest of society or the media, of course, as several people/groups have already found out.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
You obviously have seen the movie 50 Shades of Grey...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
In a state where coal is king, you ban the direct sale of electric cars.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
What does it mean when a politician does something bad (by the standards of the reporter) and no party is mentioned?
That right! Earl Tomblin (D).
See that "Preview" button?
Not just Fox News.
Read recently that Harry Reid, when Romney was running for President, said that Romney had paid no income taxes for the last ten years.
The media ran with it. Without checking. Turns out that it was false, and that Reid knew it was false when he said it.
When he was asked whether that sort of thing was justified in politics, his response was "Romney lost, didn't he? Of course it's justified"....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Who is the unnamed West Virginia Senate President and auto dealer in West Virginia and Kentucky?
That's right! Bill Cole (R).
Of course when Harry Reid said that Mitt Romney was refusing to release his tax information.
When he finally did release his tax information we learned that his effective tax rate was less than 15%.
Mitt Romney has a lower effective tax rate than I do, and possibly lower than yours despite making much more money.
Personally I see that an outrage but corporate bootlickers like yourself just can't stop felating the wealthy. Why? Because you are a pawn, a rube employed by the wealthy to paper over the injustices they perpetrate and benefit from.
The bill was championed by senate president Bill Cole (R).. duchebaggery is generally bipartisan.
once more into the breach