Alabama...**sigh**

[Homercidal]

You cannot posses equipment used to make alcoholic beverages.

I don't think that's the case. Common household utensils are the only things required to make beer. Distillation equipment is supposed to be illegal, but you can always buy stills from people online in those states, nonetheless. Just don't get caught using them.

 

[david_42]

Someone forgot to "wet my beak".

 

[TyTanium]

I don't think that's the case. Common household utensils are the only things required to make beer. Distillation equipment is supposed to be illegal, but you can always buy stills from people online in those states, nonetheless. Just don't get caught using them.

"In all counties of the state it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to have in his or its possession any still or apparatus to be used for the manufacture of any alcoholic beverage of any kind or any alcoholic beverage of any kind illegally manufactured or transported within the state or imported into the state from any other place without authority of the alcoholic control board of the state, and any person, firm or corporation violating this provision or who transports any illegally manufactured alcoholic beverages or who manufactures illegally any alcoholic beverages shall, upon conviction, be punished as provided by law." §28-1-1

The phrase "to be used" implies some sort of intent to me. But it's somewhat ambiguous, to be sure.

 

[Homercidal]

"In all counties of the state it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to have in his or its possession any still or apparatus to be used for the manufacture of any alcoholic beverage of any kind or any alcoholic beverage of any kind illegally manufactured or transported within the state or imported into the state from any other place without authority of the alcoholic control board of the state, and any person, firm or corporation violating this provision or who transports any illegally manufactured alcoholic beverages or who manufactures illegally any alcoholic beverages shall, upon conviction, be punished as provided by law." §28-1-1

The phrase "to be used" implies some sort of intent to me. But it's somewhat ambiguous, to be sure.

That statement is unenforceable as we all know that every piece of equipment used in beermaking for household use is commonly found in the home anyway. So they would be able to prosecute anyone with a large pot, bucket and empty bottles. That would be pretty much most people in the state.

Laws that are overly broad can and are struck down.

 

[Pie_Man]

Laws that are overly broad can and are struck down.

In this case, we can only hope. I bet the books were confiscated so the ABC can build their case that the equipment is intended to make beer. It's just so ridiculous.

 

[CGVT]

Without getting too political, I say that this is what the voters wanted there. Maybe someday enough people will vote to elect people who want to eliminate the anti-homebrewing law. until then, Homebrewing is illegal. However, the problem is that the ABC was not arresting people for homebrewing. Apparently they were confiscating equipment being sold for use in homebrewing, which in itself is not illegal as far as I know.

I would be interested in hearing what the ABC has to say about this. At this time they have not responded to requested to discuss the matter. I wonder if they are in meetings to figure out how to save face. I think they may have realized that they have made an error.

I think there is some truth to this statement. I wonder if pro-homebrewers pushed ABC to this to make it more visible. ABC was on board with the homebrew legalization bill that made it through the House but didn't get to vote in the Senate last year.

That being said, and without getting too politcal , being pro-home brewing is a dangerous stance for a politician to take in this state. It is going to be a very tough battle to get home brewing legalized

 

[TyTanium]

That statement is unenforceable as we all know that every piece of equipment used in beermaking for household use is commonly found in the home anyway. So they would be able to prosecute anyone with a large pot, bucket and empty bottles. That would be pretty much most people in the state.

Again, the phrase "to be used" implies some sort of intent to me, so the large-potted homemaker would be just fine. But we all know how easy proving "intent to brew" is. So I agree with you, it is ambiguous and difficult to enforce.

...being pro-home brewing is a dangerous stance for a politician to take in this state.

Haha, can you imagine losing an election over this? Of all the issues out there by which to vote someone out of office, stance on homebrewing has got to be pretty low on my list.

 

[MalFet]

Again, the phrase "to be used" implies some sort of intent to me, so the large-potted homemaker would be just fine. But we all know how easy proving "intent to brew" is. So I agree with you, it is ambiguous and difficult to enforce.

Not that difficult to enforce, apparently (cf. post #1 in this thread)

 

[TyTanium]

Not that difficult to enforce, apparently (cf. post #1 in this thread)

Touché.nestar: Perhaps more difficult to enforce fairly and consistently. IDK, I'm not a lawyer (too much writing).

 

[CGVT]

Haha, can you imagine losing an election over this? Of all the issues out there by which to vote someone out of office, stance on homebrewing has got to be pretty low on my list.

Sadly, in Alabama you could absolutely lose an election over this.

 

[shelly_belly]

This was an easy one for the ABC:

ALABAMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
CHAPTER 20-X-6.01 Licensed Premises.

(1) Any ABC Board licensee and/or any person applying initially for an ABC Board license, by virtue of holding such license or making such application does agree, invite, consent, and authorize agents of the ABC Board, as well as other commissioned law enforcement officers having proper jurisdiction, at any time, to enter and search the premises, observe the operation, and otherwise enforce state laws, and rules and regulations of the ABC Board in or about said premises, without a warrant, including not only the licensed premises but any building owned or occupied by the licensee in connection therewith, adjoining, or adjacent thereto, whether or not connected or used by the licensee as a private dwelling.

 

[rhamilton]

Poor Alabama.

 

[danielbt]

This was an easy one for the ABC:

ALABAMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
CHAPTER 20-X-6.01 Licensed Premises.

(1) Any ABC Board licensee and/or any person applying initially for an ABC Board license, by virtue of holding such license or making such application does agree, invite, consent, and authorize agents of the ABC Board, as well as other commissioned law enforcement officers having proper jurisdiction, at any time, to enter and search the premises, observe the operation, and otherwise enforce state laws, and rules and regulations of the ABC Board in or about said premises, without a warrant, including not only the licensed premises but any building owned or occupied by the licensee in connection therewith, adjoining, or adjacent thereto, whether or not connected or used by the licensee as a private dwelling.

Yep. The reason that this place got busted in that they applied for a liquor license and ABC came in and saw homebrewing gear. ABC has no authority over standard HBS shops.

Alabama, fix your crap.

 

[Whattawort]

Sometimes I REALLY hate this state. I wish Alabama Homebrewer's Association would let Free the Hops help them in their constitution amendment initiative. FTH has approached them several times offering to spear-head or assist in the endeavor, but the AHA wants to take the action on their own. FTH has been so successful and they have lobbyists, so I'm not sure why AHA isn't letting them in on it. I used to live next to a HPD officer and I asked him what his opinion was on the matter. He said it's an antiquated law, but he's obligated to enforce it....unless his back was turned. So from that day forward I was known to make very large batches of barley tea.

 

[Beer_Eugenics]

Wow, this is absurd. What a sad day for liberty.

This is not meant to be a political statement, but this is what Alabamans are up against: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVqnUf8NH6g

Wow, these ignorant people spewing propaganda are in charge. Yes Alabama the other states where homebrew is legal are on the verge of collapse and most likely will be the cause for the zombie apocalypse.

 

[thughes]

Sad. You can brew in the kitchen of the White House but not anywhere in the state of Alabama. AHA member here too and doing all I can to get those laws in your state fixed.

 

[Whattawort]

Wow, these ignorant people spewing propaganda are in charge. Yes Alabama the other states where homebrew is legal are on the verge of collapse and most likely will be the cause for the zombie apocalypse.

Well, if zombies can fill themselves up on stupid, they'll never have to leave Montgomery.

 

[Homercidal]

Again, the phrase "to be used" implies some sort of intent to me, so the large-potted homemaker would be just fine. But we all know how easy proving "intent to brew" is. So I agree with you, it is ambiguous and difficult to enforce.

Yeah, I can see how that might work for them. I think that if they sold stuff advertised, or labels as specifically for homebrewing, then they might be easy targets. Much different than simply stocking pots and tubing. If you come out and say "this item is to be used in homebrewing", then you are probably asking for it.

Oh well. Good luck to them.

Just realized I'm sitting here listening to Hayseed Dixie sing about drinking likker and smoking pot. How appropriate.

Work is done, see y'all later!

 

[DocBrown]

Sometimes I REALLY hate this state. I wish Alabama Homebrewer's Association would let Free the Hops help them in their constitution amendment initiative. FTH has approached them several times offering to spear-head or assist in the endeavor, but the AHA wants to take the action on their own. FTH has been so successful and they have lobbyists, so I'm not sure why AHA isn't letting them in on it.

Whattawort: That's actually incorrect. Several years back, the homebrewers approached FTH about pushing the homebrew bill (not a constitutional amendment, just a change to the code of Alabama). At the time, FTH made it clear that they would support any endeavor, but it wouldn't be their highest priority until the ABV, bottle size, and brewpub bills were passed. So it was mutually decided that Right To Brew would push the bill themselves. At the end of the most recent legislative session, FTH made a friendly offer to take over the process. This meant finding a new sponsor, rewriting the bill, and essentially starting from scratch. After some discussion, the RTB people decided that it didn't make sense to start from scratch and could likely set the entire process back by 2-3 years.

To clarify, FTH is 100% supportive of the RTB effort. They've thrown what resources they can behind the bill, and they've used their mailing lists to call on members to email the legislators. The support FTH has provided in the past will continue. The only thing RTB said no to was to completely give up the process, the relationships RTB members had established with their legislators and bill sponsors, and the progress that had already been made to start the process over. FTH stated that they agreed with the decision from RTB, and some of the FTH leaders noted that their success has been with bills with direct commercial interests, and there's no certainty that they would have made any more progress pushing the homebrew bill than RTB has.

Also, the bill was on the verge of passage last year. It made it through the house, and it had the votes in the senate. The problem was that it ran out of time before the session ended. The governor is good friends with the bill sponsor (and in Alabama it takes a simple majority vote in both houses to override a veto). The exact same bill is being submitted this year, and there is a very good chance it will finally pass. FTH may take up an effort in future years to improve the bill after we can ensure that homebrewers can't be convicted of a felony in this state.

 

[Whattawort]

Whattawort: That's actually incorrect. Several years back, the homebrewers approached FTH about pushing the homebrew bill (not a constitutional amendment, just a change to the code of Alabama). At the time, FTH made it clear that they would support any endeavor, but it wouldn't be their highest priority until the ABV, bottle size, and brewpub bills were passed. So it was mutually decided that Right To Brew would push the bill themselves. At the end of the most recent legislative session, FTH made a friendly offer to take over the process. This meant finding a new sponsor, rewriting the bill, and essentially starting from scratch. After some discussion, the RTB people decided that it didn't make sense to start from scratch and could likely set the entire process back by 2-3 years.

To clarify, FTH is 100% supportive of the RTB effort. They've thrown what resources they can behind the bill, and they've used their mailing lists to call on members to email the legislators. The support FTH has provided in the past will continue. The only thing RTB said no to was to completely give up the process, the relationships RTB members had established with their legislators and bill sponsors, and the progress that had already been made to start the process over. FTH stated that they agreed with the decision from RTB, and some of the FTH leaders noted that their success has been with bills with direct commercial interests, and there's no certainty that they would have made any more progress pushing the homebrew bill than RTB has.

Also, the bill was on the verge of passage last year. It made it through the house, and it had the votes in the senate. The problem was that it ran out of time before the session ended. The governor is good friends with the bill sponsor (and it Alabama it takes a simple majority vote in both houses to override a veto). The exact same bill is being submitted this year, and there is a very good chance it will finally pass. FTH may take up an effort in future years to improve the bill after we can ensure that homebrewers can't be convicted of a felony in this state.

AHH. Thanks for the correction/info. I'm looking forward to all of this coming to fruition.

 

[MVKTR2]

"We were compliant prior to their entering the store," Torres said.
"We're completely at the mercy of the ABC board at this point," Torres said.


Attempts to reach ABC Board representatives by e-mail and phone were not returned Thursday evening.

^Most important 2 lines in the story. Nothing, is better than government! :rockin:

 

[Echoloc8]

Was in Alabrew this afternoon, and Kim echoed the point about ABC jurisdiction. His wife was bummed out about commenters on the AL.com story about the raid who kept asking questions like "so why is Alabrew OK?" Thanks for the extra visibility, guys.

Can't wait for the laws to change, and I really hope this year's resubmit of the bill does it. What an unmitigated PITA. I moved here from Richmond, VA in 2003, and evidently even the possession of all my up-til-then-legal brew equipment and books was illegal. Ugh!

-Rich

 

[Tantalus]

I think this is one of those circumstances where the as-yet unused non-harm principle of lawmaking should apply.

 

[Caucasian]

Homebrewings illegal and yet the sale of 40oz colt 45 is ok.

 

[CGVT]

Actually a 40 is illegal in the state.

It wasn't too long ago that you couldn't buy a high gravity beer in Alabama and up until last August you couldn't get a bomber in the state. Free the Hops pushed through legislation to change both those laws (bottles can be 22.5 oz now, anything larger is illegal)

They were able to change those laws because the could sell the economic impact of passing the new laws.

Home brewing is a different story. It is hard to sell on an economic basis and many of the people, and in turn their elected representatives, are against any alcohol based on their religious beliefs. That is why it is not a wise move politically to back this bill

Please don't turn this into a political/religious debate. Whether it is right or wrong in our eyes doesn't really matter. It is just the way it is here(right now).

The homebrew bill was close to passing last year until it ran out of time(was stalled) in the Senate. They are going to submit the same bill in the House and the Senate this year at the same time. Hopefully it will get through.

 

[Pie_Man]

Again, the phrase "to be used" implies some sort of intent to me, so the large-potted homemaker would be just fine. But we all know how easy proving "intent to brew" is. So I agree with you, it is ambiguous and difficult to enforce.

I believe this is why the books were also confiscated, so that the ABC can attempt to prove the intended use of the equipment.

Although confiscating books sounds quite fascist.

 

[dgez]

I don't understand?!? Brewing equipment does NOT make beer/alcohol...yeast does. Brewing equipment just makes sweet, sexy, glorious wort. This should be an open and shut case.

 

[ghack]

Waiting for the big court case...Alabama v. Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Don't laugh, far stranger things have been brought to court.

 

[TyTanium]

I don't understand?!? Brewing equipment does NOT make beer/alcohol...yeast does. Brewing equipment just makes sweet, sexy, glorious wort. This should be an open and shut case.

See: Constructive law

 

[Blackfoot26]

I don't see ABC raiding the local Publix for their bread yeast, pots, pans, strainers, grain, or turkey basters.