hoppymonkey
Well-Known Member
anybody heard any updates on this?
Alabama Homebrewer Arrested
- Thread starter Rudeboy
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
ekranzusch
Well-Known Member
They probably thought the conical and kettle were the still 
Hermit
fuddle
Does too much home brew lead to poor taste and inappropriate responses? You decide.
Last edited by a moderator:
RogerMcAllen
Well-Known Member
Is that what those rifle scopes are for?
DocBrown
Well-Known Member
Kade, the individual in question, sent the following to one of the Alabama homebrewers mailing lists via e-mail earlier this week:
One of his associates said that if anyone would like to contribute to Kade's legal defense, you may PayPal him at [email protected]. All excess funds will be donated towards legalizing homebrewing in Alabama.
One of his associates said that if anyone would like to contribute to Kade's legal defense, you may PayPal him at [email protected]. All excess funds will be donated towards legalizing homebrewing in Alabama.
batonrougegu
Active Member
I read all 13 pages now and don't you think that if there was a still it would have been in the picture?(with the scopes of course)
If you really really think about it,a water distiller is almost like a modern day coffee pot,without a filter pretty much the same concept.
If you really really think about it,a water distiller is almost like a modern day coffee pot,without a filter pretty much the same concept.
the yeast did it! I just provided the munchies...
It's an odd law. How many other things are illegal only when you make it yourself?
Laughing_Gnome_Invisible
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 12,262
- Reaction score
- 733
It's a country of liberty......Or a country of laws.....It all depends on which point the poloitician is trying to make.
With all due respect...
F**(&*() that.
"The firearm found at an illegal site, even though legal, always adds to the alleged crime"?????????? Are you kidding me????????? I don't see any bodies in the fridge. So why don't you educate me as to exactly how the possession of firearms (a constitutional RIGHT) makes his crimes any worse????
The fact that the sherriff added the scopes/firearms in only shows what a POS he is trying to make a war veteran who fought for your freedom look like a mexican drug runner.
Absolutely disgusting.
batonrougegu
Active Member
I willing to bet the 8 gallons was probably aging beer,I would love to know what was "really" in the jar?
"The firearm found at an illegal site, even though legal, always adds to the alleged crime"?????????? Are you kidding me????????? I don't see any bodies in the fridge. So why don't you educate me as to exactly how the possession of firearms (a constitutional RIGHT) makes his crimes any worse????
The fact that the sherriff added the scopes/firearms in only shows what a POS he is trying to make a war veteran who fought for your freedom look like a mexican drug runner.
QUOTE]
I don't think the poster was saying the firearm made it worse but it adds fuel to the fire.
Going back to the Federal law part of all Fed Law supercedes state laws, this is false. Look at the 2nd Amendment: yup dosen't apply in NY or California to name a few. Seems our constitution has become more of a guideline :/ If I were him I would make it known to the jury that it is legal in all other 48 states and has caused zero problems etc and fight to not get the felony.
As for the homebrewing bust it is STUPID. A felony to make a beer? Are you kidding me, and look at that sheriffs face, looking like he has a jar of heroin. Hideous excuse of an American and even though I live in New Mexico I feel very compeled to let that Sheriff know how I feel about him.
JebCkr
Well-Known Member
Hmm, this is the county above where my parents live. Being Alabama, this doesn't surprise me in the least. Law enforcement here is notorious for being incompetent and looking for any excuse to fine someone.
I'm not the best at math, but I think there's a total of 50 states...
Sorry I'm off topic and not adding anything useful. Just really wanted to subscribe really.
Jud
Well-Known Member
I have mixed feelings about this. Thankfully I live in Georgia where I can brew beer. Do I agree the distilling laws, no I think they are out dated. I think that if the government could come up with a way to control and taxing it then it would be legal. Like taking a government required course on distilling, test, and purchasing a home distillers license at an affordable price. We had to take a driver's course and test, then purchase a license. Why not do the same for distilling? And just think of the extra jobs it would create. But until distilling is legal, I will stay clear of it. Besides I hear the food and view out the bars sucks!
Hermit
fuddle
Part of the reason for the home ban on distillation is monetary. Part of it is to control alcohol consumption. That is why some states have 'state stores'. The state could make more money if more was sold but they want to keep it from being an impulse purchase, something you just pick up because you see it at the store. It is probably a good thing for some people, but a PITA for the rest. I went to a home brew club meeting yesterday and probably drank less than 16 oz total and half of that was for a BJCP class.
Laughing_Gnome_Invisible
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 12,262
- Reaction score
- 733
cimirie
Well-Known Member
"The firearm found at an illegal site, even though legal, always adds to the alleged crime"?????????? Are you kidding me????????? I don't see any bodies in the fridge. So why don't you educate me as to exactly how the possession of firearms (a constitutional RIGHT) makes his crimes any worse????
The fact that the sherriff added the scopes/firearms in only shows what a POS he is trying to make a war veteran who fought for your freedom look like a mexican drug runner.
QUOTE]
I don't think the poster was saying the firearm made it worse but it adds fuel to the fire.
Going back to the Federal law part of all Fed Law supercedes state laws, this is false. Look at the 2nd Amendment: yup dosen't apply in NY or California to name a few. Seems our constitution has become more of a guideline :/ If I were him I would make it known to the jury that it is legal in all other 48 states and has caused zero problems etc and fight to not get the felony.
As for the homebrewing bust it is STUPID. A felony to make a beer? Are you kidding me, and look at that sheriffs face, looking like he has a jar of heroin. Hideous excuse of an American and even though I live in New Mexico I feel very compeled to let that Sheriff know how I feel about him.
The US Supreme Court has ruled and upheld that no municipality or state can ban the purchase or possession of firearms. In fact, they have overturned lower court rulings that stated as much. There are no enforceable laws in California or New York that ban ownership od guns.
We in NYC have issues of access to our 2nd Amendment rights, but the state is an entirely different matter. Many people forget that the vast majority of NY is extremely rural; nothing at all like the City.
California may have statewide issues with guns, but NY does not. Not even close.
daedelus902
Member
When local authorities make an arrest that is a bit in the grey area of the law they tend to "stretch" what is in the arrest warrant. For instance, the Sherrif isn't holding up 5 gallons of whisky. If there were five gallons of whisky you can bet your mortgage they would have it in the picture for the hearing and trial. They are likely claiming the beer fermenting in the 5-gallon carboy is "whisky" which is a common CYA for law inforcement who are trying to make charges "stick" when they know something isn't quite right with the arrest. In Alabama as well as most other states "mash" can be fermented without incident and is well within the law. Also, the "whisky" he's holding up looks more like sterilized water to me. I have a mason jar with steril water exactly like that prepared for beer yeast when needed, (at all times). So, my guess is this is one guy who just pissed off the wrong bully cop. It will most likely get thrown out.
Does anyone see a still in the picture? Nope.
Does anyone see a still in the picture? Nope.
daedelus902
Member
Federal Law superceded all State Alcohol Control laws after Prohibition. The "Law" prohibiting brewing in Alabama is "illegal". Imagine that.
remilard
Well-Known Member
I suspect you have this wrong. The Federal Government has no open container laws, for example, so are you suggesting that those are all illegal? If so, why do the courts disagree?
Some of you may have not read the whole thread. In bold is a little tidbit that is illegal in all states. It's a real sore spot in Alabama and the biggest problem with brewing legalization there. I reiterate my other post in this thread--this guy did a big disservice to homebrewers in Alabama.
CaptainCoconut
Well-Known Member
How on earth do you interpret it that way? Please explain exactly why you claim this.
Scooby_Brew
Well-Known Member
I thank God I don't live in this backward, moronic, idiotic, inbred State of Talibama. Every time I read this thread I swear I hear banjos in the background playing the theme from "Deliverance".
daedelus902
Member
I am not a consitutional attorney, (however, I am a criminal attorney), and I can tell you this arrest will likely be challenged and overthrown or simply thrown out. From a State only perspective I think I understand your position, but because State Law is not read en excludum to Federal law I think this case could easily roll back AL law. No, I don't think I am not misreading Federal law.
First, State Law is superceded by Federal Law where no State Law "pre"-exists, however the Feds have made it clear in matters of substance control that Federal Law will be enforced. For instance, certain substance legalalization Laws in CA have repeatedly been challenged and struck down in the 9th Circuit. Also, the changing nature of brewing laws in Alabama after prohibition nullify precedent, in other words, Federal ABC Laws concerning the brewing limits of "mash" are easily argueable.
Last, that AL authorities have repeatedly tried to show ipso with regard to brewing and distilling. A strong statistic can be shown otherwise and easily demonstrate the heavy handed nature of AL brewing law even prior to an appeal. A conviction can easily be overturned but also be used to strike down AL brewing prohibition. This Sherrif and AG are initiating a legal deadfall and thus the drama surrounding this case. It will not end well for them unless they do alot of threatening, (which they seem to be doing even now).
First, State Law is superceded by Federal Law where no State Law "pre"-exists, however the Feds have made it clear in matters of substance control that Federal Law will be enforced. For instance, certain substance legalalization Laws in CA have repeatedly been challenged and struck down in the 9th Circuit. Also, the changing nature of brewing laws in Alabama after prohibition nullify precedent, in other words, Federal ABC Laws concerning the brewing limits of "mash" are easily argueable.
Last, that AL authorities have repeatedly tried to show ipso with regard to brewing and distilling. A strong statistic can be shown otherwise and easily demonstrate the heavy handed nature of AL brewing law even prior to an appeal. A conviction can easily be overturned but also be used to strike down AL brewing prohibition. This Sherrif and AG are initiating a legal deadfall and thus the drama surrounding this case. It will not end well for them unless they do alot of threatening, (which they seem to be doing even now).
daedelus902
Member
Unfortunately the law has become a political maneuvering game rather than the precedent logic the public is led to believe. This sounds like a closed door case if there every was one.
cedar_lake
Well-Known Member
Well, the federal law states:
"United States Code Title 27, Part 25, Subpart L, Section 25.205 and Section 25.206
Beer For Personal or Family Use
§ 25.205 Production.
(a) Any adult may produce beer, without payment of tax, for personal or family use and not for sale. An adult is any individual who is 18 years of age or older. If the locality in which the household is located requires a greater minimum age for the sale of beer to individuals, the adult shall be that age before commencing the production of beer. This exemption does not authorize the production of beer for use contrary to State or local law.
Emphasis mine. It appears that broad authority to regulate (and prohibit) production was left up to the individual states.
v2comp
Well-Known Member
one of us down here has asked the ABC for clarification on one of the sections in the law that, depending on the actual charge could make part of his case for him.
basically, the way the law reads currently is that it is unlawful to have equipment for the manufacture of alcohol in your posession without a license.
but another conflict with this law has surfaced and is challenging the whole thing. basically, new breweries and brewpub startups today cant technically purchase brewing equipment and have it in their posession prior to having their license, but you cant get your license without having all of your equipment in place and are ready to brew, because of the inspection process before they can issue the license. we are waiting on clarification from the ABC, because technically if you buy all your brewing equipment and the ABC see's it, they could confiscate it. they havent done it yet thankfully, because most of the ABC officers I have met are regular guys that are just trying to do their jobs, they know that these breweries are opening a business and give them a break. local sherrifs, police officers and state troopers dont deal with this kind of thing much unless they are enforcing a warrant for something else and incidentially find equipment or ingredients laying around in the open. it will be interesting how the ABC addresses this contradiction.
basically, the way the law reads currently is that it is unlawful to have equipment for the manufacture of alcohol in your posession without a license.
but another conflict with this law has surfaced and is challenging the whole thing. basically, new breweries and brewpub startups today cant technically purchase brewing equipment and have it in their posession prior to having their license, but you cant get your license without having all of your equipment in place and are ready to brew, because of the inspection process before they can issue the license. we are waiting on clarification from the ABC, because technically if you buy all your brewing equipment and the ABC see's it, they could confiscate it. they havent done it yet thankfully, because most of the ABC officers I have met are regular guys that are just trying to do their jobs, they know that these breweries are opening a business and give them a break. local sherrifs, police officers and state troopers dont deal with this kind of thing much unless they are enforcing a warrant for something else and incidentially find equipment or ingredients laying around in the open. it will be interesting how the ABC addresses this contradiction.
v2comp
Well-Known Member
yeah, he would.........the majority of people voting in his dry county think he is saving them from the devil.
daedelus902
Member
Scooby, you appear to have very strong sterotypical opinions about our Southern culture. Being from Michigan I can tell you that you have no claim on education, wisdom, or forward thinking, (to be sure). I've met Union Marathon workers from Detroit that barely graduated from elementary school who could neither read nor write, (a girlfriend's father and mother from my undergad).
Having lived all my life in NC I have never met anyone who was illiterate here in this State. I can assure you your MI level of intellect does not approach this country boy's intellect here in NC. Maybe you should cease and desist your improper stereotype while you're ahead?
Having lived all my life in NC I have never met anyone who was illiterate here in this State. I can assure you your MI level of intellect does not approach this country boy's intellect here in NC. Maybe you should cease and desist your improper stereotype while you're ahead?
daedelus902
Member
v2comp,
If he does, he, (and they), are waaaaay off, however, we don't know the motives yet do we? As a Christian man and a homebrewer I can tell you he does not represent our ancient and historical world view. Most brewing of liquors, beer and spirits were perfected by monks and tribes in Western Europe for centuries. I take great honor in following the tradition of brewing beer. Martin Luther and John Huss, (and most German Christians), took great pleasure in drinking beer as part of a long healthy culture of preserving barley over the winter in liquid form. So before this becomes a misdirected bashing, let the truth be known.
If he does, he, (and they), are waaaaay off, however, we don't know the motives yet do we? As a Christian man and a homebrewer I can tell you he does not represent our ancient and historical world view. Most brewing of liquors, beer and spirits were perfected by monks and tribes in Western Europe for centuries. I take great honor in following the tradition of brewing beer. Martin Luther and John Huss, (and most German Christians), took great pleasure in drinking beer as part of a long healthy culture of preserving barley over the winter in liquid form. So before this becomes a misdirected bashing, let the truth be known.
Laughing_Gnome_Invisible
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 12,262
- Reaction score
- 733
Edcculus
Well-Known Member
This is wrong. Federal law allows for home brewed beer to be produced and consumed sans tax to the Federal Government, as would normally happen in any business producing alcohol. They left the legality of brewing in the home up to the individual states. The Federal law is very important since it opened the door for states to legalize brewing.
Justibone
Well-Known Member
According to ATF, stills of less than 1 gallon capacity, or stills producing ethanol for non-consumption purposes are not illegal. For instance, if I had a still for purifying alcohol decoctions for the purpose of making perfumes, they would not be interested in collecting taxes from it. (I don't have a still.)
Having the equipment to produce an illicit substance, or a licit substance illicitly, as it were, provokes a requirement on the part of the possessor to provide a credible explanation for said equipment. For instance, if I had two cases of cold medicine, a few liters of acids and bases, and a propane grill, along with cookpots and other various items... they would pretty much assume I was cooking meth. The burden of proof would be on me to explain the items (especially the cold medicine). If I could not, then I would be contemplating an extended stay at the old "Graybar Hotel", courtesy of Federal agents.
Anyways, who has two thumbs and is not a laywer? This guy.
If in doubt, don't ferment!
With all due respect to your criminal law background, don't you think that the AHA has studied this issue enough, with very learned legal experts, that if you were right, they would know it and not waste millions of dollars supporting legalization campaigns in the states where homebrewing is/was illegal?
I don't think there's ever been any debate about states' rights to prohibit homebrewing, the statute reads clearer than virtually any other law in this respect.
"This exemption does not authorize the production of beer for use contrary to State or local law."
Pretty damn clear that the Feds are letting the states go ahead and keep their own restrictions in place as well.
Jimmy Carter signed the law that let states go ahead and legalize homebrewing. There's no "that what the law appears to say" - that's what the law says, and how it's always been interpreted.
"This exemption does not authorize the production of beer for use contrary to State or local law."
Pretty damn clear that the Feds are letting the states go ahead and keep their own restrictions in place as well.
Jimmy Carter signed the law that let states go ahead and legalize homebrewing. There's no "that what the law appears to say" - that's what the law says, and how it's always been interpreted.
WSURaider41
Well-Known Member
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/statutes/kentucky
OK So I'm in Kentucky... this is what the Homebrewers Association states that the law is in Kentucky. Does this simply mean I can not have friends over to drink homebrew but I can brew and drink it myself?
OK So I'm in Kentucky... this is what the Homebrewers Association states that the law is in Kentucky. Does this simply mean I can not have friends over to drink homebrew but I can brew and drink it myself?
