It doesn’t seem like this bill would torpedo the homebrewers’ efforts on a bill. I would think with this bill passed, it would make it easier to get the homebrewers’ bill passed. I haven’t seen the homebrewers proposed legislation, but does it have a chance of passing without a provision for a server’s license? I would think that type of provision is going to end up in the bill regardless of what happened with 290.
Any action in this area can have a ripple effect - good or bad. It will be up to the homebrewers to clarify and distinguish the homebrew club and competition events from all other commercially-related activities involving fermented beverages. Let’s face it, any movement away from the Puritannical mindset that pervades alcohol regulation should be better than living in stasis with the uncertainty that most present laws provide. Move the mountain by a foot or a yard - at least there will have been movement. Then keep the momentum going and follow up to assure homebrewers that they can enjoy the fruits of their hobby without fear of archaic retribution or technical violations.
Good on ya NB!
I don’t personally think 290 will torpedo a homebrewers’ bill of rights, in fact I can see where it might have a positive effect inasmuch as you’re getting the ball rolling and letting the legislators “chew on things in smaller bites”. It would be good if you could help the homebrewers avoid the licensing requirement for the small contests/ club events. I’m sure NB would benefit from that legislation as well.
Thanks for clarifying your position, good luck to all homebrewers in WI. I’d think with the tradition of brewing in the state, that making a case for modern sensible homebrewing laws would be a simple matter.
These are my concerns with this bill in its present form:
An amendment was added to 290, without the input from other shop owners, which would require all brew shops that offer samples to have an operational license and licensed bartender on hand at all times samples are offered. An operational license may only be required for a Class A or B retail establishment selling alcohol or a manufacturing outlet. A homebrew store is neither. So, a bartenders license requires a retail license, but a retail license to sell alcohol basically disallows homebrew, unless other statutes are changed. Since a homebrew store does not sell alcohol, it, by statute, cannot be required to have a permit. More has to be changed than what 290 does. If I am required to get a retail license and none is available, it costs an additional $10000.
They also agreed to striking home made wine and beer from the list of homemade alcohol exempt from tax, leaving only cider remaining:
139.04 Exclusions. No tax is levied by ss. 139.02 and 139.03 in respect to:
(1) Making of wine, cider or fermented malt beverages at home solely for consumption therein and use thereof in such home by the family and guests without compensation.
WILL BECOME:
Section 2. 139.04 (1) of the statutes is amended to read:
139.04 (1) Making of cider at home solely
for consumption therein and use thereof in such home by the family and guests
without compensation, or manufacturing wine or fermented malt beverages in
compliance with the limitations specified in s. 125.06 (3), (3g), or (3r).
The word manufacturing is what trips this up. Why take out the mention of making wine or fermented malt beverages at home & replace it with manufacturing wine or fermented beverages?
man·u·fac·ture (mny-fkchr)
v. man·u·fac·tured, man·u·fac·tur·ing, man·u·fac·tures
v.tr.
1.
a. To make or process (a raw material) into a finished product,
especially by means of a large-scale industrial operation.
By doing this, it leaves our Department of Revenue to say we can be taxed on beer or wine made at home, but not cider, and that a manufacturing facility would not have to pay a tax… Making beer at home is certainly not manufacturing.
I am told this will be voted on this coming Tuesday with these changes. If it passes, it may or may not cause hardship. Why give it the chance to do so? I’d rather things stayed the way they are.
Why would homebrew shops want to screw with our exemptions?? It is high time for NB’s attorney and the homebrewers to get together in the same room to hash out the differences in the language between our two proposals to ensure it’s a win-win. I don’t think either side has need to try to hurt the other. We all need to work together on this.
Its not homebrew shops wanting something, but there are sometimes unintended consequences. We’re possibly arguing about things that won’t ever come about. I personally don’t think WI would try to tax homebrew, although I could see them requiring the bartenders license at a homebrew comp. The bartenders license just gives the impression that the legislators are being responsible as far as turning people loose to serve liquor willy nilly. I think they should be educated on what a sample is for. Why would you need to be knowledgable about when a person is inebriated, when you give them a 2oz sample of beer? It makes no sense to require this license. I suppose if it means the difference between passing the bill and not, its worth it. But it shouldn’t have to be a deal breaker.
I concur that if this bill is intended to allow ‘sampling’ then the issue of needing a licensed bartender is overreaching. That amendment needs to be discussed with the sponsor to point out the deficiency in the logic for needing a licensed bartender.
I’d say that a definition of what constitutes ‘sampling’ might be in order, excepting that I don’t like the idea that putting a numeric limit on sample size or number.
I want to apologize to Gary Glass, I understand that you did not know what was happening as it happens quickly some times in government and you are watching the whole country for the AHA and my comments were out of line.
I am sorry.
Hey guys/gals, I’m glad to see we’re hashing this out, and giving it the proper constructive discussion it deserves.
On Friday, I sent an email to Rep. Kooyenga expressing some of our concerns about the operators license warranting a class A or B liquor licenses for homebrew shops. I also brought up the concern about this having a ripple affect on homebrewers themselves in regards to serving their beer.
He replied to me stating that they will look into any and all adverse affects this amendment to AB 290 may cause, and expressed very clearly that taking the amendment OFF the bill was an option on the table. The amendment was added as a component to help the bill pass, not punish shops or homebrewers in any way. I’ll keep you all posted as to what they determine.
I do think, that without having any restrictions to sample sizes and/or frequency in a shop means there needs to be some kind of guarantee that sampling will not get out of hand, and, patrons do not become intoxicated. So, I could see an amendment replacing this one that regulates amount and frequency of sampling, which seems reasonable to me.
I will also add that most liquor liability polices will not cover a claim unless the businesses employees have acquired the proper serving licenses for a particular state/county. This is something that will need to be explored further.
Two questions I like to get feedback on:
1. If further amendments would allow shops to obtain operators licenses without having to obtain class A or B liquor licenses, would this make the current amendment more palatable? I know this still leaves open questions to how licensing may affect homebrewers, but I’d like to get opinions.
2. If the current amendment is striked, and they propose a sample size limit, and limits to frequency of sampling, would this be acceptable to shop owners?
Please pass this along to the WIHBA listserve/google group (I still need to be added!)
cheers
The word manufacture is currently used in the language excempting homebrew from licensing requirements (125.06(3), so there is no reason to worry that using the word in the tax exemption will create problems for homebrewers. Also, it says manufacture according to 125.06(3) (3g) (3r). 125.06(3) is the definition of homebrewing.
Second, it adds licensing and tax exemptions for homebrew shops specifically with 125.06(3g) and (3r).
What he said above - the problem with reading any statute that references other statutes is that you need to read those other statutes! :o
Good news, the bill was passed by a voice vote through the Assembly yesterday.
Also, the amendment requiring shops to obtain an operators license was fixed/adjusted to reflect the fact that shops DO NOT need to obtain an additional liquor license of any kind to qualify for the operators license.
In essence, this means shops will only have to obtain the simple “bartenders” or operators license for employees whom will serve or oversee giving out samples at said shop.
For more information: 2011 Assembly Bill 290
The bill now goes to the Senate. It may require a hearing prior to going to the Senate floor, or it may go straight to the floor for a vote. Since it passed on a voice vote through the Assembly, and no one has registered opposition, it may go straight to vote.
cheers
Great, glad to see things look like they will be improving.
on a side note, are homebrew competitions legal or not in Wisconsin? They did have a competition at the state fair this year didn’t they? I’m confused.
cheers–
–Michael
This is like watching Schoolhouse Rock while drinking a beer.
It depends who you ask. On the one hand, the statutes are silent about it, and many communities have agreed to “look the other way”. On the other hand, representatives from the State of Wisconsin have told homebrewers that in their conservative interpretation of the statutes, it seems illegal to serve homebrew anywhere outside of your own home. Personally, I think they’re full of crap. It’s totally wide open to interpretation. This is one of the biggest reasons we’re basically forced into drafting up new statutes – just so we can do what we’ve always been doing and what makes logical sense to any other human being on Earth besides the State.
That’s great news Jake! The amendment clarifying that no Class A or B license is required to get the operators license for a homebrew shop is a major improvement to this legislation.
I also think that the bi-partisan support for AB 290 really bodes well for the bill that the Wisconsin Homebrewers Alliance has been working on. This may be a model to use in other states: start with a small business bill, that will be hard for legislators to oppose out of hand in the current political climate, use that to educate legislators about the homebrewing, then follow with a homebrewers rights bill.
Hopefully AB 290 will receive similar support in the Senate.
Cheers!
Gary
The homebrew legislation made it on MSNBC last night!
Maddow was interviewing Rep. Cory Mason, a Democrat, and he was talking about how Wis Republicans were working on everything except jobs and he mentioned something about homebrewing and I think serving beer in brewshops. Not the greatest inference but you made it to TV!
Looks like it was sent to the Senate committee; let’s hope it doesn’t stall out there… :
You should have pitched it as a jobs bill since homebrewing and all that goes with it is a source of jobs in small businesses.
That was one of the things we kept pointing out when we were working on getting our law passed here.