Re: Changes to 26 USC for Legalization
- 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 email@example.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.
- John et al.,
Sorry guys but I never got permission from the moderator to post this spreadsheet. You will have to get it the from the Brewhaus forum, Legalization, Tracking File for Legislators.
The latest update is today. Since this post we have added Texas, Kentucky and Illinois. We need someone to contact Senator Robert C. Casey, Senator of Pennsylvania. He just said he was pushing to lower the tax rate on small breweries in Pittsburgh and across the country. See my post on the Brewhaus forum; Legalization, Goal #2.
I may be contacted personnaly at allibugger@.... We are starting to roll - let's keep the ball moving. Thanks. Alli
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tgfoitwoods" <zymurgybob@...> wrote:
> I sure wouldn't object.
> Zymurgy Bob, a simple potstiller Making Fine Spirits
> --- In email@example.com, "jsducote" wrote:
> > Alli,
> > Would you object to posting (or uploading to the files area) your
> spreadsheet of who has been contacted and what their response has been
> (favorable/unfavorable/unresponsive)? I think it might be helpful in
> establishing a sort of domino effect if the supportive congresspersons
> are used to help influence others.
> > Would anyone object if it were posted/updated monthly? Or are
> quarterly updates more appropriate?
> > -john
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "allibugger" allibugger@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Well folks we are making progress. Congressional representatives
> have been contacted in California, Florida, Massachusetts, North
> Carolina Texas and Virginia. Now is a great time to check your
> congressmans/womens websites - they may be doing townhalls in your
> neighborhood while they are out for the August break. Go to the
> attached link for copies of the proposed legislation, a great power
> point presentation and information on how to contact your congressional
> folks. Thanks for your help. Email or post questions.
> > > Alli
> > > http://www.brewhaus.com/Legalize-Hobby-Distilling.aspx
> > >