200gal limit

[bracconiere]

How many people are even coming close to brewing 200gallons for their own personal consumption in a year anyway? If you're doing 5 gallon batches thats brewing one nearly every week all year long

I'm up to 440 this year. got about 4-5 more batches to go before next year comes along.....

And yes i drink it all too!

(i'm kidding of course, i'm single. And would never consider brewing more than 100 gals. i actually measure my tap, and as soon as it read 100 gal's. i start drinking bud light)

 

[ba-brewer]

I've been brewing for 15+ years (all the alcohol makes my memory foggy)
Anyway, the law doesn't say you have to CONSUME all the booze you make in a year. (or maybe it does?) So I could have 1500 gallons of home brew stockpiled, waiting for the zombie apocalypse. Basically, the 100 gallon yearly limit isn't enforceable.

I believe there is a state that also puts a limit on how many gallons you can have on hand, I think it is something about 50 gallons. Not a problem for most people but I see people with 6 or more taps, guessing that could be an issue for their pipeline.

It might be hard to prove how much someone actually brews but a bit easier to prove how much someone has on hand.​

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I don't drink enough in a year to come close to the 200 gallon limit. I brew about 50 gallons a year max (approximately 10 5 gallon batches). Even at that rate I struggle to keep up with drinking what I brew.

 

[TwistedGray]

However, since the federal limit is 100 gallons per adult per household, up to 200 gallons at a max, it would seem to have to follow that federal limit anyway.

Well, the federal law also prohibits cannabis growing and consumption yet in many states it is legal to grow, consume, and make a profitable business venture from it. What protection do you have within your state when it goes against federal laws?

I've been brewing for 15+ years (all the alcohol makes my memory foggy)
Anyway, the law doesn't say you have to CONSUME all the booze you make in a year. (or maybe it does?) So I could have 1500 gallons of home brew stockpiled, waiting for the zombie apocalypse. Basically, the 100 gallon yearly limit isn't enforceable.

Do your caps or labels delineate when it was brewed? May caps all have the date; although, not the year in many cases. However, if I was planning to stock pile for the apocalypse I'd add the year for sure.

Ok, I am also a Lawyer. I practice Criminal Defense at the State and Federal Level. Here are the realities. the words "or" and "and" are taken literally. Or means either, and means both.

Reality, there is no AUSA or ASA that I know that would waste there time over the 200 gallon limit. in fact most would be more interested in drinking your beer. In Fact many of them would not admit it here, but many are home-brewers.

I believe the purpose of the Statute is prevent a professional brewer to claim he is a home-brewer and therefore exempt from the Taxes and regulations.

As stated above, proving the quantity would be difficult and expensive. The ATF agents I know would laugh at this debate.

Relax and brew my friend, if the ATF shows up at the house offer him/her some good beer.

in no way should this be considered legal advice.

I am going to go ahead and print this out and put a copy in my wallet, thanks.

 

[FleEsq]

I am going to go ahead and print this out and put a copy in my wallet, thanks.

If you do that I will need to charge you. Please forward me your billing address.

 

[Sailingeric]

100*128/16=800pints/year, 800/52=15.4pints a week, so roughly 2 pints a day.

 

[ba-brewer]

View attachment 598677

I forgot to factor in if you have kids.

 

[Bimmster]

I guess it's the same for Louisiana law ..... is distilling allowed?

 

[SanPancho]

Interesting. One could argue this either way dependent on your reading.

Another interesting note is that while apparently concerned about "following the rules", no mention by others that "freeze condensing" hasn't been mentioned as "distillation" in Federal interpretation of laws regulating the production of distilled products.

you sure about that? breweries arent allowed to do this, my understanding was that it exceeds our permitted "fermentation" license and becomes refining/distilling, a different license.

maybe thats also a CA issue, but i thought that was federal law

 

[Sailingeric]

Distilling is still a no no as far as I know but from what I have read is that if you do little here and there you are not worth going after but if you are running truck loads of 'shine that is a different story. I have a done a few gallons of not rum and it turned out decent but the cost was not worth it for me to do it more often like beer other than the challenge of doing it.

 

[BrewInspector]

you sure about that? breweries arent allowed to do this, my understanding was that it exceeds our permitted "fermentation" license and becomes refining/distilling, a different license.

maybe thats also a CA issue, but i thought that was federal law

I think we are in agreement so I don't understand the post except that you are a licensed fermenter and distillation is another process.

Distillation is not permitted including personal use. Freezing and separating the water is also considered distillation was what I was alluding to. Many think only of the typical still distillation as being distillation.

 

[BrewInspector]

Distilling is still a no no as far as I know but from what I have read is that if you do little here and there you are not worth going after but if you are running truck loads of 'shine that is a different story. I have a done a few gallons of rum and it turned out decent but the cost was not worth it for me to do it more often like beer other than the challenge of doing it.

Sure. It might not be worth pursuing by legal enforcement but then the same can be said about video/audio piracy. Generally not worth prosecuting the occasional pirating of a show or movie by an individual but we often here about someone accruing huge fines for downloading a few songs or movies for personal use.

You take your chances doing either.
Why take the additional risk by providing evidence online of that potentially illegal activity, no matter how minor it may seem to you at the time.

 

[ba-brewer]

Someone has as a quote at the bottom of their post something like "post what you want on HBT the feds only monitor facebook"

 

[Sailingeric]

Sure. It might not be worth pursuing by legal enforcement but then the same can be said about video/audio piracy. Generally not worth prosecuting the occasional pirating of a show or movie by an individual but we often here about someone accruing huge fines for downloading a few songs or movies for personal use.

You take your chances doing either.
Why take the additional risk by providing evidence online of that potentially illegal activity, no matter how minor it may seem to you at the time.

I figured since we have a distilling section it would be ok. I will change my original post to say Not Rum

 

[jack13]

Ok, I am also a Lawyer. I practice Criminal Defense at the State and Federal Level. Here are the realities. the words "or" and "and" are taken literally. Or means either, and means both.

So, if or is taken literally and means either, then "The aggregate amount of beer or wine with respect to any household shall not exceed..." would mean you can't make both beer and wine?

 

[MaxStout]

Beer or Wine is inclusive to the words aggregate of. Thus intends no more than 200 gallons of the combination.

As to what is meant to be included as beer or wine, you have to go back to the definitions. For example, there is usually an upper limit to alcohol content in the definition of beer, after which if exceed it therefore becomes defined as either a wine, or a spirit.

Where in the statutes for personal production of wine and beer does it state "aggregate of" in terms of both beverages? The beer statute does not use the term at all; the wine statute (subsection B) uses it only in reference to aggregate amount of wine. Production of one does not limit the other. Unless there is something else I'm missing in Title 27 that further defines this application of "aggregate" of the two beverages, then the language of the two separate statutes should allow for 200g/year for each.

 

[bahomebrew]

As I have maintained throughout the thread, I think the point is moot, other than a debate of legal terms, but I do love a good debate of legal terms. I think as others have stated, a 200gal limit is peanuts compared to what is professionally produced, so even 300 or 400 wouldn't raise the alarms.

I appreciate all the responses, and have enjoyed this thoroughly, though I haven't seen a post that really made me think that "or" and "and" are the same or that the total of both shouldn't be 400gal.

Thanks, @MaxStout for the Federal statute references. That seems very clearcut that beer and wine can both be produced in the amounts of 200gal per product for a total of 400gal. After reading that, it seems clear that the CA statute is just a poor wording of the Federal. Now to up my brewing by about 400%/year.

It's good to hear a few admit to going over, because realistically, if you aren't selling it, you should be able to produce as much as you want and dispense it however you choose. I've already paid tax on all the ingredients, the shop I got it at paid tax on all the ingredients, and the middle men and distributors paid tax on all the ingredients, so it seems like enough tax has been collected at this stage of the game.

 

[madscientist451]

I think the cops will make the assumption that whatever you have stockpiled will have been produced within the last 12 months and there's a good chance any court will consider this assumption to be reasonable.

I'm skeptical about the above assertion. In the US, you have to be proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the government. Citizens have a right to be free from unreasonable searches. The police can't even search your house unless they have ACTUAL proof or reasonable suspicion that laws are being violated.
Here's the text of the actual law in Pennsylvania:
Malt or brewed beverages may be produced by any person without a license if such malt or brewed beverages are produced not for sale and total production does not exceed two hundred gallons per calendar year. Malt or brewed beverages produced in accordance with this paragraph may be used at organized affairs, exhibitions, competitions, contests, tastings or judging provided it is not sold or offered for sale.
So "total production" is 200 gallons, it doesn't say I have to actually drink any of it. Any violations of the 200 gallon limit would be difficult to prove unless a witness ratted you out.
These days, the police in my area are overwhelmed by drug overdoses, gang bangers, domestic violence, along with the everyday murders rapes and general mayhem that always occurs....people brewing beer and not causing any trouble are not going to catch the attention of anyone.



I

 

[TwistedGray]

I'm skeptical about the above assertion. In the US, you have to be proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the government. Citizens have a right to be free from unreasonable searches. The police can't even search your house unless they have ACTUAL proof or reasonable suspicion that laws are being violated.
Here's the text of the actual law in Pennsylvania:
Malt or brewed beverages may be produced by any person without a license if such malt or brewed beverages are produced not for sale and total production does not exceed two hundred gallons per calendar year. Malt or brewed beverages produced in accordance with this paragraph may be used at organized affairs, exhibitions, competitions, contests, tastings or judging provided it is not sold or offered for sale.
So "total production" is 200 gallons, it doesn't say I have to actually drink any of it. Any violations of the 200 gallon limit would be difficult to prove unless a witness ratted you out.
I

Oh, I was just bragging to Bob. His beer choice is piss water, no offense Judge. I was just trying to sound bigger than I am ... yes, I lied; I probably brew maybeeeeeeeee 50 gallons a year for myself, friends, and family.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

This thread has lead me to an interesting find (well, interesting to me, I'm sure nobody else will think so). I've always wondered why the standard batch size in Australia is different to the US......

In Australia, there is no limit on production (hence why I can openly say I brew more than 200 gallons per year), which I already knew, but I found during some reading that the limit used to be 22 litres per week (a law bought in in 1972, when homebrewing first became legal in Australia). I can't find when that limit ended, but the standard batch size in Australia is 23L (not the standard US 5 gallons, which is presumably to fit corny kegs). This batch size is listed for nearly all kits, and fermenting vessels are sold to accommodate this batch size. Of course, 23L into the fermenter would give a final volume of about 22L - which I assume is to give the maximum permissible under the old law!

 

[jack13]

In Australia, there is no limit on production

That cannot be true. If it were, Australia would have devolved into chaos by now.

 

[Biglou56]

Hey gang,

This is my first post here, so hopefully I'm in the right sub-forum. I have been researching a freeze condensation product but it led me to some interesting legalese about homebrewing in general. I knew about the 200gal limit, but the way the CA law reads, it says "the aggregate amount of beer or wine is 200gal". Now if it said beer and wine, I would think that 200gal is the absolute amount, but it says beer or wine which makes me think I can brew 400gal total, neither wine or beer exceeding 200gal. It never occurred to me to research this and only seeing the legalese made me ponder, so I'm wondering how y'all read it and operate.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/homebrewing-rights/statutes/california/

The specific language is in section 23356.2, a couple paragraphs down.

Who is counting? Are you selling it? Is the All seeing eye counting each gallon? Enjoy and proprigate!!!

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Where in the statutes for personal production of wine and beer does it state "aggregate of" in terms of both beverages? The beer statute does not use the term at all; the wine statute (subsection B) uses it only in reference to aggregate amount of wine. Production of one does not limit the other. Unless there is something else I'm missing in Title 27 that further defines this application of "aggregate" of the two beverages, then the language of the two separate statutes should allow for 200g/year for each.

I'm simply commenting on the way the OP quoted the CA statute. "the aggregate amount of beer or wine is 200gal".

Also, do bear in mind that while you are citing the CFR, or Federal Law, the OP is referencing a state law. State laws can be more restrictive than federal laws, and local municipalities can have more restrictive laws than state law.

 

[whovous]

The federal standard, as set forth in the CFR, is crystal clear. The limit is 200 gallons of beer AND 200 gallons of wine. The state statute could be construed as ambiguous, if you are willing to accept that OR does not mean OR when used in conjunction with AGGREGATE. I think OR just means OR, but I can respect the contrary argument.

However, when a criminal law is ambiguous, the ambiguity is construed in favor of the defendant and not in favor of the state. You can't be found guilty of violating a law which has no clear meaning.

Further, it seems fairly clear that the state statute was intended to track the Fed limits from the CFR. The CFR language is clear and not disputable. If one must construe the ambiguity of the state statute, it only makes sense to interpret the state statute in the same way as the federal statute which it tracks. The state COULD set a lower limit than that set forth in the CFR if it wanted to. All they need to do is to amend it so that only one reading is possible.

Again, I am not licensed in California, and my advice is worth every penny you've paid for it.

 

[bahomebrew]

you sure about that? breweries arent allowed to do this, my understanding was that it exceeds our permitted "fermentation" license and becomes refining/distilling, a different license.

maybe thats also a CA issue, but i thought that was federal law

Everything I've read has stated that it is not legal, but I think it was a thread on this site where someone had reached out to BATF and received a green light on freeze condensing, though it seemed that the word condensing vs. distillation was key in receiving that feedback. Probably just an agent who was unfamiliar with the process. Seems to me that separation occurs whether you evaporate the alcohol and condense it separately, or freeze the water and pour off what's left.

I should clarify my original post, I was just curious about the nature of apple jack and researching for knowledge's sake, I have no intention of trying this at home.

 

[DorianHyde92]

I'm fairly certain the limitation is put in place so that commercial breweries don't loose too much business,because every beer you brew is (potentially) one you won't buy,and that hurts the feds,because they rely on all that tax revenue to (not) pay off the nation's deficit

 

[Kampenken]

Back in the late 90s I was brewing extracts as was my brother. We both at the time we're living alone and were pushing 20 batches (5gal) in a year. In Dec he called me to tell me he was brewing batch #21. I made siren noises, "you're gonna get busted brother!". Neither of us today brew at that level, more like 12/yr. Older and wiser, don't need no trouble with the Feds!