Hmmm... (unimportant) legal question

[woozy]

The answer came live and direct TABC. It's legal.

Agents aren't lawyers... His giving you the go ahead and he's telling you they don't consider it illegal. He might even be telling you the courts have interpretted it as legal (in which case I guess it would be legal, but wouldn't they have written an ammendment?). But by the statute and subsection as written and still in the books? Not legal.

If an overzealous police officer were to try to charge Zuljin with having illegal homebrew mead (and he lived in Texas), could Zuljin use the email he received from the TABC in court to prove that he was acting in good faith and within what was thought to be the confines of the law?

I think so. I would hope so. The overzealous police officer would need an ******* judge otherwise, which I suppose could happen. But, yeah, a letter from an official TABC claiming it's legal really ought to exonerate anyone, shouldn't it? It'd be good enough for me. But then I'd just brew it anyway without it.

For this to actually become an issue I think you need someone with an agenda coming down hard as they did in Wisconsin.

And that could happen as the law is currently stated. The Wisconsin state fair, like Zuljin and the Bluebonnet competition, was "legal" in the sense that it was interpreted and percieved as legal via a liberal definition of "personal use". But as soon as a person with the letter of the law in hand challenged it it no longer was. Similarly mead may be "legal" by a universally perceived liberal use of the term "other fruit" but if someone with the letter of the law in hand tried to push it, it might not be.

 

[Zuljin]

It's straight from the horse's mouth, which is better than any other horse parts offered, that home made mead is legal in Texas. It doesn't matter that an agent is not a lawyer or a rock or a porpoise. What does that even mean, agents aren't lawyers? I agree. Fleas aren't foot stools either. It's irrelephant. TABC is in the business of knowing the laws of their agency and they say it's legal. It's legal. No wiggle room. No if, ands or butts. It's legal.

 

[motobrewer]

It's straight from the horse's mouth, which is better than any other horse parts offered, that home made mead is legal in Texas. It doesn't matter that an agent is not a lawyer or a rock or a porpoise. What does that even mean, agents aren't lawyers? I agree. Fleas aren't foot stools either. It's irrelephant. TABC is in the business of knowing the laws of their agency and they say it's legal. It's legal. No wiggle room. No if, ands or butts. It's legal.

Well, that's the answer I expected. I bet if you asked the Wisconsin abc if homebrew comps were legal two years ago they would have said "hell yeah".

Because they were absolutely, totally, without a doubt legal......until they weren't. Otherwise I wouldn't of had to write all those letters

 

[mattd2]

Well, that's the answer I expected. I bet if you asked the Wisconsin abc if homebrew comps were legal two years ago they would have said "hell yeah".

Because they were absolutely, totally, without a doubt legal......until they weren't. Otherwise I wouldn't of had to write all those letters

I agree with this, the email Zuljin got seems like he took all of 3 secoinds to answer the question - "yes, *copy/paste*" now back to some important work.
I would say that If you took that to court in the case you ever did come across the power-tripping cop that wanted to nail you for anything, it would show that you did do your due diligance to find out if it was legal and you would be let off. I would also imagine the judge could be caught scratching his head as to if it really was meant to be lega or not just as we are

On another note, I just noticed this - it seems like homebrewing is only legal in Texas if you are male!

 

[Zuljin]

What? This is... What? How long do you want a yes or no answer to take? Its a clear cut and dry deal. Do you have a belly button? How long will it take you to figure it out?

 

[mattd2]

What? This is... What? How long do you want a yes or no answer to take? Its a clear cut and dry deal. Do you have a belly button? How long will it take you to figure it out?

huh?
Ignorance of the law (in this case assuming it is legal just because everyone else is doing it) is not a legal defence. The law says what it says:

Subchapter B. Section 109.21 (b): Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section.

Where in there does it say "and also wine made from honey as we defined wine was earlier in this legislation". It doesn't. Clear cut and dry.
It is saying that in that section which is dealing with homebrewing that only wine made with those ingredients can be made.

Do you agree that that is how the law is written?

Really there are 2 agruments going on here:
1) What does the legislation say (is it technically legal?) - woozy
2) Would you ever get busted for it (is it practically legal?) - Zuljin

As for my belly button, even if I truly believed I did not have a belly button, I would still be wrong if I told you I didn't.

 

[woozy]

When the law says "Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section" then no agent, cop, lawyer, God, or talking dog is going to be able to tell me it's not without a reference to a legal precedence, amendment or court ruling the specifically addresses that statement of the law.

Until that law is taken off the books or later law is introduced rescinding it, that law is there.

----
Much as I'd like to joke about the "he" language, it's well established that the old-fashioned and sexist indefinite "he" of ages past is not gender specific.

What is interesting is if you are married only the head of household may make beer. I have no idea if a couple can flip a coin to determine which it'll be, but apparently for a couple they can't *both* brew; only one or the other.

 

[Zuljin]

Still legal.

 

[mattd2]

When the law says "Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section" then no agent, cop, lawyer, God, or talking dog is going to be able to tell me it's not without a reference to a legal precedence, amendment or court ruling the specifically addresses that statement of the law.

Until that law is taken off the books or later law is introduced rescinding it, that law is there.

----
Much as I'd like to joke about the "he" language, it's well established that the old-fashioned and sexist indefinite "he" of ages past is not gender specific.

What is interesting is if you are married only the head of household may make beer. I have no idea if a couple can flip a coin to determine which it'll be, but apparently for a couple they can't *both* brew; only one or the other.

I think you said it before that it will take someone to actually kick up a big stink for some reason or another to actually get anyone to bother to change the law (as they did in WI.). And I guess it is the same with the "he"s, but as you say it is well estiablish that it means the person we were talking about before (not gender specific), and there is so much of it to change that it is not worth it.

 

[woozy]

I don't know that it'll take a "stink". They could change it tomorrow. But meanwhile no-one is busting anyone and agents are telling folks it is legal. And changing laws is difficult so we presume someone will have to *care* first. But someone *could* raise a stink and fink on his neighbor and drag the neighbor kicking and screaming. Or, morelikely, some politician will want to squeeze revenue out of the Bluebonnet competition. And then it can get pretty sticky because *honey is not a fruit nor a dandelion and only wine made from fruits or dandelions are covered in the subsection.*

 

[mattd2]

I don't know that it'll take a "stink". They could change it tomorrow. But meanwhile no-one is busting anyone and agents are telling folks it is legal. And changing laws is difficult so we presume someone will have to *care* first. But someone *could* raise a stink and fink on his neighbor and drag the neighbor kicking and screaming. Or, morelikely, some politician will want to squeeze revenue out of the Bluebonnet competition. And then it can get pretty sticky because *honey is not a fruit nor a dandelion and only wine made from fruits or dandelions are covered in the subsection.*

Just had a thought - can you legally make mead of of dandelion honey in Texas of corse now I am just taking the piss

 

[hunter_le five]

It's straight from the horse's mouth, which is better than any other horse parts offered, that home made mead is legal in Texas. It doesn't matter that an agent is not a lawyer or a rock or a porpoise. What does that even mean, agents aren't lawyers? I agree. Fleas aren't foot stools either. It's irrelephant. TABC is in the business of knowing the laws of their agency and they say it's legal. It's legal. No wiggle room. No if, ands or butts. It's legal.

No offense, but this post demonstrates a poor understanding if how the law works. TABC is a regulatory/law enforcement agency (executive branch). They are not in the business of making laws (legislative) or interpreting them (judicial). There is plenty of precedent for such agencies misinterpreting laws, suddenly reversing positions, or being contradicted by the courts (just ask the BATFE or the IRS).

Just because a TABC officer says something has nothing to do with how a judge would rule on the issue. TABC agents are not lawyers, and that absolutely is relevant. TABC does not have the final say so in anything.

I deal with TABC for my work, and believe me, you can ask two different agents the same question, and get two completely different answers.

All the TABC's response really means is that they will not prosecute you because they think it is legal.

Im not making a judgement either way as to the legality of mead, just wanting to point out that an email from an agent doesnt really settle the issue. In the end it's all a moot point, because there's no way they will waste resources prosecuting a home brewer for making mead for personal use on a small scale, even if it were blatantly illegal.

 

[motobrewer]

But! Zul said "ka-boom"!

 

[motobrewer]

I actually had a related situation a few months ago. I got into it with a cop (who isn't all that new to the force) on what I thought was a trivial piece of traffic law. I even printed out the statute. Gave me a ticket anyway. Went to court, da just rolled his eyes and agreed with me. Hopefully the cop knows the law now.

 

[mattd2]

But! Zul said "ka-boom"!

Maybe that was the state troopers knocking down his front door to get to his homebrewed mead

 

[woozy]

Just had a thought - can you legally make mead of of dandelion honey in Texas of corse now I am just taking the piss

Oh, hold on..... * pause * ..... ah, there you go. Enjoy.

Hey! You said you were taking the piss.

(Which is an expression some of us Amurikins know from Brit-coms but none of us ever use and we all think sounds strange.)

 

[Zuljin]

No offense, hunter, but your post demonstrates a poor understanding of how the world works.

We aren't going to get a supreme court ruling via email on this matter. TABC is our interface on this matter. They are in the business of knowing the laws.

Okay, so different agents may, might, maybe give different answers. All that means is some of them will be wrong. And guess what, different judges may, and do, give different answers to questions as well. You've set up short neck dog to chase his bobbed tail.

And my mead is still legal.

 

[JonM]

Looks to me like enabling legislation. The first sentence of sec. (b) says that some administrative agency can make rules about whatever is the subject of this statute. It wouldn't surprise me if the ABC Department or whatever made rules saying that boilermakers, bourbon barrel stouts, etc. are okay.

 

[hunter_le five]

No offense, hunter, but your post demonstrates a poor understanding of how the world works.

We aren't going to get a supreme court ruling via email on this matter. TABC is our interface on this matter. They are in the business of knowing the laws.

Okay, so different agents may, might, maybe give different answers. All that means is some of them will be wrong. And guess what, different judges may, and do, give different answers to questions as well. You've set up short neck dog to chase his bobbed tail.

And my mead is still legal.

Fair enough.

And I agree with you, from a practical, real-world standpoint, mead is for all intents-and-purposes legal. Nobody will ever prosecute you for it, and the TABC currently operates under the assumption that it is legal. All I'm saying is from a strictly legalistic, semantic, hypothetical court-case scenario standpoint, it is not so cut-and-dry, based on the literal wording of the law. But that's all moot unless someone decides to be a dick about it.

Anyway, enjoy your mead. Cheers.

 

[woozy]

Looks to me like enabling legislation. The first sentence of sec. (b) says that some administrative agency can make rules about whatever is the subject of this statute. It wouldn't surprise me if the ABC Department or whatever made rules saying that boilermakers, bourbon barrel stouts, etc. are okay.

Good point.

But the sentence (The commission may prohibit the use of any ingredient it finds detrimental to health or susceptible of use to evade this code) says it can prohibit items; not allow items.

In other words you can make bourbon or moonshine and claim it is some form of wine. ["But my grandma *always* put crack cocaine into her wine!"] Then it goes on to say only natural wine and natural beer are allowed by the statute. Unfortunately it goes on to define that natural wine is made from fruit *bzzz-hmm-bzzz* eh, what's that? *bbzzb-mmmrm-kzzzb* oh right... from fruit or dandelions... and raisins *what* yes, I know raisins are fruit but I just want to be clear. So from dandelions, grapes, raisins, and other fruit am I leaving out anything? ... no, that seems to be it.

So it's looking like it's maybe unintentional that mead was omitted. But it *was* omitted.

 

[motobrewer]

No offense, hunter, but your post demonstrates a poor understanding of how the world works.

We aren't going to get a supreme court ruling via email on this matter. TABC is our interface on this matter. They are in the business of knowing the laws.

Then why did I have to go to court to settle my traffic ticket?
The police officer must not have know how the world works

It's "legal", just as long as the big commercial mead lobby doesn't push some senator to shut down mead comps. Er.........

 

[Zuljin]

Because a traffic ticket is a summons to appear. It means a cop thinks you may have committed a traffic violation and is inviting you to court to talk about it, get it sorted out. A traffic ticket doesn't mean you did anything illegal. It says right on it, "not an admission of guilt". Your analogy is not comparative.

 

[motobrewer]

Because a traffic ticket is a summons to appear. It means a cop thinks you may have committed a traffic violation and is inviting you to court to talk about it, get it sorted out. A traffic ticket doesn't mean you did anything illegal. It says right on it, "not an admission of guilt". Your analogy is not comparative.

Wait what? Are you saying the TABC is judge, jury, and executioner?

You've been watching too many movies.

 

[Zuljin]

Yall the ones puttin me to death over some mead. It's still legal, by the way.

 

[woozy]

No offense, hunter, but your post demonstrates a poor understanding of how the world works. ...
Okay, so different agents may, might, maybe give different answers. All that means is some of them will be wrong.

which makes your statement from the TABC rather useless, doesn't it?

Here is why I think home-brewing mead in Texas is illegal *and* what you can provide to convince me otherwise.

1. Legal/illegal means what is stated in the law. (It doesn't mean what cops say is legal, what people think is legal, etc.) Refutation: A coherent and legitimate argument from a reliable source that there is another usage of meaning that includes some form of tacit consent or common law. An argument that the BlueBonnett competition, thousands of Texas home-brewers and the TABC consider it legal is not enough.

2. The law states: Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section. Refutation: demonstrating that all of us including your TABC agent quoting this were mistaken and this *isn't* the Texas law. Finding some subsequent law that addresses and modifies this. Finding a citation of a court ruling that interpreted this in some way to include mead.

3. Mead is not made from fermenting dandelion of fruits juice. Refutation: showing that I am mistaken and that mead is always made from fermenting fruit juice or from fermenting dandelions. OR (and this is a BIG bone I'm tossing you) demonstrating that Texas considers honey to be juice from "other fruit". *NOT* refutation: Demonstrating the wine in general is not made from fermenting juice but juice fortified with sugar.

4. Modus nolens: A) only p are q B) r is not p ERGO C) r is not q. So mead is not covered in the section. Refutation: Become a tortoise and quibble with Achilles. Invent a time machine and shoot Aristotle. Reinvent the universe so that things being one thing while simultaneously not being the thing is normal. You *can't* refute this.

 

[Goofynewfie]

What about a cyser or a melomel? Which side of the law do they fall on? Are only traditioal and show meads "illegal"?

 

[Zuljin]

Still legal.

 

[woozy]

Yall the ones puttin me to death over some mead.

If we were putting you to death then... well, we'd be putting you to death. We don't seem to be very good at it.

It's still legal, by the way.

There's an elephant in my yard. It's eating cabbages.

And Oslo is the capital of Sweden.

 

[woozy]

What about a cyser or a melomel? Which side of the law do they fall on? Are only traditioal and show meads "illegal"?

Only wine made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits may be produced under this section.

Are cysers and/or melomel wines made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of the juices of dandelions or grapes, raisins, or other fruits? If so they are covered by this section. If not, they aren't.

 

[Goofynewfie]

Thats why I ask. There are quite a few melomel recipes on this board where the fruit goes in primary fermentation, but also an equal amout where a traditional mead is fermented and stabilized , then fruit added without actually fermenting the juice. In the end it is the same product. How eould one tell which melomel was produced "legally"?

 

[woozy]

Thats why I ask. There are quite a few melomel recipes on this board where the fruit goes in primary fermentation, but also an equal amout where a traditional mead is fermented and stabilized , then fruit added without actually fermenting the juice. In the end it is the same product. How eould one tell which melomel was produced "legally"?

Well, for practical purposes you couldn't. No more then for practical purposes you couldn't tell if the head of household or the spouse made the brew or if the head of household let an unrelated friend drink it.

The law states what is and isn't covered. Not how they are going to go about proving who did or didn't obey it.

The law simply states that if you put the juice in first it is legal and if you put the fruit in later it isn't. It doesn't say anything about the law making any *sense* or being at all enforceable.

And we *do* know that no-one will be persecuted for any mead. We have a letter from the TABC stating the the law-enforcement considers it legal. Zuljin and the rest of us are in complete agreement about that. We're only in disagreement about what the law says.

Or, maybe, about what the definition of "legal" means.

I'm claiming the "illegal" means the written law prohibits it and that the texas written law prohibits mead. Zuljin diagrees with one or the other or has a strange sense of logic. I'm not sure which, but it seems to be that he thinks "legal" means what law enforcement will allow.

 

[Goofynewfie]

The law simply states that if you put the juice in first it is legal and if you put the fruit in later it isn't.

Going by that I could technically make a show mead, but add one drop of juice in the primary and now my "illegal" mead is a "legal" melomel. Therefore mead is legal, since the law states fruit or dandelion or raisin is required but does not specify a minimum amount required

 

[woozy]

Going by that I could technically make a show mead, but add one drop of juice in the primary and now my "illegal" mead is a "legal" melomel. Therefore mead is legal, since the law states fruit or dandelion or raisin is required but does not specify a minimum amount required

Or you could just make pure mead and assume no-one's going to do anything about it.

In a fantasy world where the police crack down on this, I imagine that if a judge had to rule on this it would be interpretted that "made from" means that a fruit juice plays a significant and necessary part in its production and rule against you. (A bit like the "he" means only men are allowed to brew.)

Or they might decide the exclusion of mead is silly and amend and replace the "only made from fruit juice" clause.

 

[mattd2]

If we were putting you to death then... well, we'd be putting you to death. We don't seem to be very good at it.

There's an elephant in my yard. It's eating cabbages.

And Oslo is the capital of Sweden.

And I don't have a belly button

 

[Zuljin]

And for my next crime, anise and clove mead.

 

[Renoun]

And this has been an amusing thread. I'd suggest that if you live in a rural Texas county and make mead you shouldn't have affairs with the spouses of anybody in law enforcement, prosecutors, or employed in the courts. It wont ever be an issue unless you really piss somebody off, they are out to get you, they are very familiar with Subchapter B. Section 109.21, and they have close relationships with the sheriff/prosecutor/judge. It would have to be a perfect storm of the authorities being out to get you and knowing how to do it but if they are you'll be screwed.

 

[mysteryshrimp]

I'd suggest that if you live in a rural Texas county and make mead you shouldn't have affairs with the spouses of anybody in law enforcement, prosecutors, or employed in the courts. It wont ever be an issue unless you really piss somebody off, they are out to get you, they are very familiar with Subchapter B. Section 109.21, and they have close relationships with the sheriff/prosecutor/judge.

This is the most informed statement to come out of this thread. I remember reading about a cop's daughter in Georgia that was over the age of consent, as was her boyfriend The boyfriend was arrested for adultery. The case was later thrown out, but the law was still on the books at the time and the unenforceable and mostly ignored law stated that it was illegal to have sex with someone who you were not married to, even if absolutely no one was actually being arrested for it.

My position is that it is technically illegal by the unfortunate wording of the law, but you could actually point this fact out to a cop and the cop wouldn't arrest you for it. If arrested, you probably wouldn't ever see the inside of a courtroom. If you're found guilty, a halfway decent lawyer could get it overturned because of the double speak of the code. If not overturned through the courts, the law would likely be altered if anyone in position to do so heard about the inconsistency.

 

[stophopandroll]

I say the only time its good to pay attention to technicalities is when your brewing a fresh batch woot!

 

[mattd2]

Woot woot!

 

[Zuljin]

And for my next crime, anise and clove mead.

This is still in secondary. A glass secondary. ANARCHY!