Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

44019Re: Changes to 26 USC for Legalization

Expand Messages
  • jsducote
    Jul 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Agreed. I'm not sure how this hurts the cause. If anything, it should allow hobbyists to ensure there is an established hobbyist threshold, making clear the distinction between the professionals.

      So far, like a lot of people, I've been watching the discussion from the sidelines without much to contribute. I live in Texas, which is a curious blend of gun-totin' libertarian & blind-religious fervor. It's hard to know how our congresspersons would react. On the one hand, we appeal to their "keep your laws out of my house" side. On the other, they tend to believe a lot of nonsense that, once believed cannot be disproved, including that the hobby is dangerous, can make you go blind, etc. Texas is also a golden rule state: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules. That does not bode well for anyone who might remotely be characterized as taking revenue away from Budweiser. Even if we don't actually threaten them, they only have to _think_ we do to shut us down.

      --- In new_distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Brewhaus / Hot Sauce Depot" <rick.morris@...> wrote:
      > In trying to legalize hobby distilling we are not trying to gain approval as DSPs. That is licensing for commercial operations.
      >> I found this listed under Cornell University Law (dated June 2013), and this might hurt our cause to make hobby distilling legal.
      >> (3) Secretary may establish minimum capacity and level of activity requirements
      >> The Secretary may by regulations prescribe for each type of operation minimum capacity and level of activity requirements for qualifying premises as a distilled spirits plant.
    • Show all 37 messages in this topic