Not too long ago, I had Todd Frye from the Home Brewery
on the show to discuss Home Brewing and homebrew law. There are currently two bill circulating in the Missouri House of Representatives that look to expand the rights of homebrewers in regards to sharing their beer. The laws were, at first, identical. The Senate Bill has since been amended to expand away from the original message, but still includes the same protections for homebrewers as the other law.
Unfortunately, this protection seems to be limited to home brewers of beer. Winemakers and meadmakers are not considered in the bill, and, in fact, seem to be deliberately excluded from the bill.
To illustrate my point, let’s look at the proposed language of the bill. In the first paragraph (which contains the original language used in the statute), the language used reflects “intoxicating liquor”. Unfortunately, the second paragraph limits the new provisions strictly to “beer”. Here is the language as it is listed in the bill. Please note that the emphasis is mine.
From paragraph one:
“The aggregate amount of intoxicating liquor manufactured per household shall not exceed two hundred gallons per calendar year if there are two or more persons over the age of twenty-one years in such household, or one hundred gallons per calendar year if there is only one person over the age of twenty-one years in such household.”
From paragraph two:
“Beer brewed under this section may be removed from the premises where brewed for personal or family use, including use at organized affairs, exhibitions, or competitions, such as home brewer contests, tastings, or judging.”
As a home brewer myself, I know many people who make their own mead and wine who will be excluded from this exemption. It may be that this is simply an oversight. Unfortunately, I do not believe it was an accident. The limitation of the bill to be beer only appears to be a deliberate exclusion of any home brewer who also makes mead.
Looking at the home brewing world from outside, it is easy to see the beer brewing competitions and craft beer festivals, and this exemption was intended as a reaction to one such event being disrupted last year in St. Louis. Unfortunately, the liberties granted in this bill do not go far enough.
Appropriate events such as homebrew competitions would apply for meads and wines, as well. Events such as the
Mazer’s Cup and
BJCP Certified Mead Making Competitions are popular with wine and mead makers throughout the country and the state. In addition, not-for-profit events at which wine and mead tasting is allowed could be considered an applicable event, as well.
Winemakers also have their own competitions. One of the larger events is the competition
organized by Winemaker Magazine, which is a publication for home winemakers.
The provision should allow for all intoxicating liquor covered under the personal production licensure. There is no disputing that all sales should be prohibited to home brewers, but I also believe that this law, if not changed, will allow for the interpretation that “personal use” is equal to “personal consumption” and that all other uses are illegal for wine and mead makers, and that is unfairly and unnecessarily limiting their right to enjoy and share their passion with friends.
For that reason, please write to your representative and request that the first word of the second paragraph from “beer” to “intoxicating liquor.” This will make the second paragraph read as such:
“Intoxicating liquor brewed under this section may be removed from the premises where brewed for personal or family use, including use at organized affairs, exhibitions, or competitions, such as home brewer contests, tastings, or judging. The use may occur off licensed retail premises, on any premises under a temporary retail license issued under sections 311.218, 311,482, 311.485, 311.486, or 311.487, or on any tax exempt organization's licensed premises as described in section 311.090.”
Just a single change of phrase will guarantee the same liberties to all home brewers regardless of their product.