View Full Version : H.R. 3249, legalizing home distillation
It's probably going nowhere (it was referred to the Ways and Means Committee
on Nov 7 2001, and will indubitably sit there ignored), but for general interest,
House Resolution 3249
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow distilled spirits to be
produced in dwelling houses, other connected structures, and certain other
was introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, on 7 Nov 2001.
Full text at <A target="_blank" HREF=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3249:>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3249:</A>
This is very interesting. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine just from reading the proposed bill what it would do, because it is one of those "delete this paragraph, change this to that" things, modifying an existing law. Still, it is worth following. I have written to Rep. Stupak asking him for more information. If you are interested in doing the same, his address is firstname.lastname@example.org
FYI, Bart Stupak represents Michigan's first congressional district, which is the Upper Peninsula.
Also, I note that the description of the bill just talks about permitting distillation in certain kinds of premises. Its intention could be simply to permit small scale commercial distilling by people who have vineyards or (more likely in the UP) orchards. It says nothing about a tax waiver, which was a key part of making home brewing and winemaking legal, i.e., no tax on production for personal consumption up to a certain annual limit.
Still, very interesting. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://cowdery.home.netcom.com>--Chuck Cowdery</A>
You mean its illegal?! Damn and I thought this was a free country!
Have Shotglass. Will Travel.
>This is very interesting. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine just from reading
> the proposed bill what it would do, because it is one of those "delete this
> paragraph, change this to that" things, modifying an existing law.
After a little light surfing, I found the relevant law online.
Rep. Stupak's resolution amends (by striking) parts of the following two bits of
which, according to my reading, basically cuts out the following:
No distilled spirits plant for the production of distilled spirits shall be located in any dwelling house, in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house, or on board any vessel or boat, or on premises where beer or wine is made or produced, or liquors of any description are retailed, or on premises where any other business is carried on (except when authorized under subsection (b)).
So my reading is that you'll still need a permit and you'll still have to pay taxes,
but you can now run a distillery in your house, your backyard, your
brewpub, your winery, your shoe store, etc.
>So my reading is that you'll still need a permit and you'll still have to pay taxes,
>but you can now run a distillery in your house, your backyard, your
>brewpub, your winery, your shoe store, etc.
I ran across something interesting... a distillery/pub in Idaho!
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bardenay.com>http://www.bardenay.com</A>
From the webiste:
During colonial times and following the revolution, rum was
commonly produced in public houses which served it. These
establishments were referred to as ‘ordinaries’ and only
‘ordinaries’ could serve spirits by the drink.
When we applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
for our permit to operate, we managed to convince them that we
could separate our operations enough to insure that this revenue
to the United States treasury could be protected. The result is that
Bardenay is the first distillery ever permitted by the BATF that would
have been considered an ordinary.
So it seems that the BATF can be convinced to bend the rules that
HR 3249 seeks to eliminate.
(I'm still in favor of HR 3249, and in favor of more lenient distillation laws).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.