Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => General Homebrew Discussion => Topic started by: boulderbrewer on October 21, 2011, 03:08:01 AM

Title: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: boulderbrewer on October 21, 2011, 03:08:01 AM
The long story short Northern Brewer has pursued their agenda to serve beer at their store in Milwaukee. Great! but this bill will torpedo home brewers. The Wisconsin Home brewers who have been working for more than 7 months crafting legislation that would allow us to serve at beer fests and outside our home. Enter Mr. Jake K a member of the AHA governing committee promoting bill 290, this helps Northern Brewer his employer but sticks a big road block to home brewers serving at beer fests. I wonder if he really cares about homebrewers other than their money that they spend at Northern Brewer.

I'm greatly disappointed in Mr. Keeler's actions, He is a member of the Wisconsin Hombrewers Assocation web group and we were never notified of their pending legislation.

I wonder where Mr. Keeler's allgiences lies.

Marc OBrien AHA member since 2005
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: boulderbrewer on October 21, 2011, 04:41:32 AM
You can follow this on the Northern Brewer Forum but if this get deleted there I will post the conversation from there.

From Cheshire_Cat

"While I am not from WI, this is a little disconcerting. I have been teaching government advocacy and grassroots lobbying for almost 12 years and it seems strange that individual homebrewer and "business" concerns in this issue were separated. We are always, always stronger in numbers. As sad as it is, the truth is it is easier today to protect businesses than it is to protect the individual. I have never met Jake beyond being an avid fan Brewing TV, yet I feel he is passionate about homebrewing and our community. I don't really believe anyone is throwing homebrewers under the bus, most likely someone is taking advance from people trying to protect their own interest. I give to the AHA, I truly hope they will step in and help protect WI homebrews. A slight against one is a slight against all.

I also hope that Jake will take the time to respond to Boulderbrewers concerns and outline what is planned to help protect individual homebrewers in WI regarding this issue."
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: boulderbrewer on October 21, 2011, 04:43:11 AM
My response.

"The first we heard of this was from Gary Glass like 2 days ago, when it was up for a vote. Maybe we should look at the AHA under the same scrutiny. Why did we not hear this from the AHA! Hey wait Gary is a constant poster to the WIHBA! maybe Gary was blind (because of NB!) to this but alot of homebrewers trust the AHA and give alot of money to them but maybe NB has more money to blind Gary's eye.

I think this will be deleted before to many get to see this and I will be just a person with an axe to grind."

Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: boulderbrewer on October 21, 2011, 04:45:11 AM
The link to the NB forum.

http://forum.northernbrewer.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=105411&p=932316#p932316
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: hopvine on October 21, 2011, 12:52:06 PM
Could someone elaborate on what specific negative effects this legislation would have on homebrewers?
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: weithman5 on October 21, 2011, 01:51:29 PM
the details in the nb post seems scant but I think it boils down to this :to serve beer to the public one must have a server (bartender)  qualification.  they don't need liquor license.  seems like a decent idea not to need the liquor license.  the undermining is that now any homebrewer who wants to serve his beer has to also get the bartender license.  a pain in the butt but does not seem too difficult to obtain for an individual.  just a lot of work for a lot of brewers to do.  it sounds like people with out the bartender permit can serve though as long as there is a supervisor, so at fests, maybe only one operator needs the permit.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: dmtaylor on October 21, 2011, 02:05:21 PM
As a member of the Wisconsin Homebrewers' Alliance, I too was surprised that all of a sudden this Bill 290 came out.  My initial thought was, why couldn't homebrewers have piggybacked onto the same bill to get accomplished what we have been working towards for the past ~9 months!?

And now, wow, I never thought about the whole bartender thing this way.  Yeah, at brewfests, it won't be a big deal because they're required to have a certain number of bartenders on premises anyway -- not every server needs to be a licensed bartender.  At least, that's how it's worked for over a decade.  But for small events where only a couple of homebrewers might want to serve their brew to the public, this could become a very big deal.  Now every homebrew club might have to dish out funds out of their treasury to pay for several members to become licensed bartenders!?  That seems a little goofy, seeing as how we could do exactly the same thing in our own homes without a license.  I'll keep my eyes and ears open for any developments in this area.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: James Lorden on October 21, 2011, 02:21:03 PM
What about Homebrew Competitions?  I wonder how that works its way through.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: narvin on October 21, 2011, 02:36:06 PM
What is a bartender certification, anyway?  Do you have to know how to make a buttery nipple to pour a beer?
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: narvin on October 21, 2011, 02:47:04 PM
So, reading the NB thread, this stuck out:

Does the licensee or the agent always have to be at the premises when it is open for business?

No. There must be one or more licensed operators in charge of the premises. An operator's license is often called a "bartender's license." Not all bartenders must hold operator's licenses, but there must be at least one licensed operator in charge of the premises. If the premise is large, with several serving areas, bar areas, etc., licensed operators must be in charge of each discrete area, in order to supervise and direct unlicensed persons who may be selling/serving.


It sounds like the pourer doesn't haven't to be a licensed bartender, but there does need to be someone licensed who is in charge of the event.  Is this any different than serving commercial beer at a festival or non-bar?
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: garyg on October 21, 2011, 03:11:14 PM
>The long story short Northern Brewer has pursued their agenda to serve beer at their store in Milwaukee. Great! but this bill will torpedo home brewers.

I cannot see any way in which AB 290 torpedoes homebrewers.  The bill language simply allows homebrew shops to make beer and wine on their premises for educational purposes, and to serve free samples of such beer and wine to their customers.  You can see the bill for yourself here: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-290.pdf.

After a committee hearing, the bill was amended to require an "Operators License", which as I understand it is simply a municipally issued bartenders license.  The example I've seen for this license runs around $100 for a two year license.  Of course, in my opinion, no license is better, but the license requirement seems consistent with other areas of the code addressing the serving of alcohol in businesses.  Including the amendment likely avoids opposition from other small business groups that have to comply with license requirements.

The bill language that we've been working with on the Wisconsin Homebrewers Alliance is all about homebrewers rights, but it does not address serving homebrew at homebrew supply shops, so I think AB 290 fulfills a separate need.  If AB 290 passes, I think that probably bodes well for passage of the homebrewer bill.  AB 290 is a pro-business bill with bypartisan support that has now brought the issue of homebrewing before the Wisconsin legislature.  In my mind that dramatically improves the chances for success of a grassroots homebrewers' rights bill, since educating legislators and getting them to care about a hobbyist bill is often the biggest challenge in getting homebrewer bills going.

Right now, I am optimistic for the chances of passage of the bill the WIHA has been working on.  Hopefully the bill will be filed soon so we can move on to pushing it through the legislative process.

Cheers!
Gary
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: jkeeler on October 21, 2011, 03:23:14 PM
I'm happy to field questions, and clarify NB's actions in regards to WI AB 290.  I posted this response at the NB forum linked above, so pardon the repetition.  I 100% echo what Gary has said here, and I'd like to add the following:

1. NB and the AHA heard about the public hearing only days before it actually took place. So, we heard roughly the same time everyone else did.

2. NB decided to remove our business concerns from the WIHBA efforts on homebrewers' concerns 6/7 months ago because we did not want to railroad the efforts, and felt that separating the two concerns (business and homebrewers rights) would have be stronger served if dealt with separately. Our two issues were:

A. Homebrew shops cannot currently brew on the premise of our shop - homebrew/wine can only be made in one's residence. We sought to overturn this will bill 290 to simply allow us to brew homebrewed beer and wine on premise for research, development and educational purposes.
B. We cannot serve samples of any kind on our premise. For the record, this was never "legal" and if homebrew shops were doing it they were operating in legally grey area at best. Through bill 290 we sought to get legal permission to serve samples for educational purpose.

3. Rep. Kooyenga approached us to help draft the bill and we moved on the effort as quickly as we could.

4. The bill was introduced to committee last week with strong support, and it was then proposed to add an amendment requiring shops to acquire Operator Licenses for those employees who'd be serving the samples. These are often refereed to as "Bartender" licenses, and that is essentially all they are. Very simple, very reasonable. It would cost us, in West Allis, $97 for a two year license per employee.

This is something we already do in MN when throwing events and beer is served of any kind. It is required for our liquor liability insurance to be valid. Anyone serving alcohol of any kind should be properly trained, in the eyes of the law, to check ID's, verify age, and recognize over-consumption. This license is merely a way of ensuring that serving of samples is done in a responsible way.

5. The AHA is only involved in this effort (AB 290) as much as the fact that I am a member of the Governing Committee and I have been in touch with Gary Glass the entire time, and have deferred to him on judgment and opinion when taking action.  Gary has giving excellent support, guidance and advocacy for the homebrew shops in WI, and the homebrewers.  Although the efforts of Gary and the AHA may not all be visible on the surface, be assured they are involved and engaged.

6. I, and NB, truly think this bill is strong, makes sense for all homebrew shops, and will put any question as to serving samples and brewing on premise in the past. I do not think this will adversely affect homebrewers/WIHBA efforts in anyway, in fact I think it will help.

The WI government sees the economic vitality of the the homebrewing industry and customer base right now. They do not want to get in the way of it, and are looking to help in over-turning these interpretations and making sure homebrewing is once again vibrant and uninhibited in Wisconsin.

Further, I think this legislation, much like the legislation in Oregon, can be a blueprint for other states looking to protect homebrewers, and homebrew shops.

We, as an industry and hobby, have been operating in some grey legal space for a long time. Some places are better the other to be sure, but the days of flying under the government's (Federal, State, county or municipal) are over. Homebrewing is just too big to go unnoticed. Being that, I think it is better to get proactive about working with these entities to find practical solutions.

7. NB is committed to helping the WIHBA in their respective efforts, and the efforts of homebrewwers across this country. Sometimes we get distracted, busy and perhaps lose connection with these efforts....AB 290 admittedly may suffer from this. Regardless, we had every single shop and every single homebrewer in mind this entire time, and we will continue to do so moving forward.

thanks

Jake Keeler
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: denny on October 21, 2011, 04:12:49 PM
Thanks for the replies Gary and Jake.  It certainly makes it clearer.  I don't see "torpedoing homebrewers" at all.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: bluesman on October 21, 2011, 04:34:26 PM
I don't understand how this could "torpedo homebrewers" in any way. This looks like a step in a positive direction for our community.

Thanks for the update Gary and Jake.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on October 21, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
Jake Keeler:  "It was decided in the offices of NB that we would take up our business concerns separately from the homebrewer’s concerns to make sure one didn’t muddy the other’s chance of getting things changed."

So you don't think you muddied the waters for the homebrewers?  Will the homebrewers bill now have to include an exemption for the servers license at homebrew meetings/contests?  Or does it even apply?
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: denny on October 21, 2011, 07:59:47 PM
Jake Keeler:  "It was decided in the offices of NB that we would take up our business concerns separately from the homebrewer’s concerns to make sure one didn’t muddy the other’s chance of getting things changed."

So you don't think you muddied the waters for the homebrewers?  Will the homebrewers bill now have to include an exemption for the servers license at homebrew meetings/contests?  Or does it even apply?

I don't think 290 is applicable since it applies to businesses (as I read it).
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: garyg on October 21, 2011, 08:13:58 PM
Jake Keeler:  "It was decided in the offices of NB that we would take up our business concerns separately from the homebrewer’s concerns to make sure one didn’t muddy the other’s chance of getting things changed."

So you don't think you muddied the waters for the homebrewers?  Will the homebrewers bill now have to include an exemption for the servers license at homebrew meetings/contests?  Or does it even apply?

I don't think 290 is applicable since it applies to businesses (as I read it).

I do not think the license has anything to do with homebrewers, but does have to do with a business serving alcohol on premises to its customers. The operators (i.e "bartenders") license requirement seems to be consistent with requirements for restaurants and bars that serve alcohol to their customers.  I could see restaurant and bar owners objecting to a bill that lacked such a requirement for homebrew shops that are serving beer and wine to their customers.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on October 21, 2011, 08:17:35 PM
I read the link to the bill but the amendment wasn't part of that language.  Is the revised bill available?  I see it applies specifically to LHBSs but I think the precedent being set is unnecessary.  LHBS's aren't bars, why would someone assume you were going to serve so many samples that a customer passing through for supplies might get inebriated?  Its silly.  I seriously doubt a bar/restaurant owner would object to someone giving out a few homebrew samples.  Why would they, you aren't competing for business.  USing that logic, a brewery would object to you being able to brew on premises without a brewery license and without paying the associated taxes.  The legislators just got confused, you really need to make them understand what a homebrew/wine sample is.

And I do think it sets a precedent that homebrew clubs might be subject to if/when they bring up their own legislation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on October 21, 2011, 08:24:10 PM
All that said, I think its a good thing to be able to serve samples at a LHBS.  I've been to places that had samples and its a good way to show new brewers that you can make good beer from scratch.  Might even be better for kit wine, if you age it long enough.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: jkeeler on October 22, 2011, 12:01:27 AM
Tom, I replied to you post on the NB forum, but I'll repost here to make sure the cquaestions/concerned are addressed to the widest p[ossible audnece:

Early on, we got the impression that the WIHBA was going to pursue their bill for homebrewers rights separate from the homebrew shop concerns, so I think it was a mutual conclusion that having separate bills was the best way to proceed.

When I was stating that the NB office decide to adopt a separate route, I was attempting to make clear that we didn't want things like in-store sampling, or a business brewing on it's premise damaging the chances of the homebrewers rights bill. Sorry if that got lost in the translation.

We have supported our fellow homebrewers efforts through the WIHBA, and will continue to do so in the future. I pledge to make every possible effort be present at any and all public hearings and/or votes on the bill that is being worked on by the WIHBA. And, if NB can assist in any other way, we are prepared to do so. For the record, I mentioned the other bill and the efforts of the WIHBA and gave it/them/us full support.

I'm sorry if I/NB hasn't been on top of this as much as I/we should...you may have noticed we're having some, cough cough, website issues...and we have to open a store in less of a month. I know, excuses, but please don't take any absence of NB's presence, input or support as an indication that we don't care.

I'll add:  I've put an email into Rep. Kooyenga to get some further details about how the operators license might affect homebrewers/events/etc.  The amendment was introduced as a way to protect the bill, so all intentions so far have been to help homebrew shops and homebrewers.  There may be some things being glossed over and missed, so I'm committed to follow up with Rep. Kooyenga next week via phone, and others involved with this bill, to make sure it does not have components that may hinder homebrewers and/or home brew shops down the line. 

cheers
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: Mark G on October 22, 2011, 12:21:59 AM
It doesn't seem like this bill would torpedo the homebrewers' efforts on a bill. I would think with this bill passed, it would make it easier to get the homebrewers' bill passed. I haven't seen the homebrewers proposed legislation, but does it have a chance of passing without a provision for a server's license? I would think that type of provision is going to end up in the bill regardless of what happened with 290.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: ynotbrusum on October 22, 2011, 01:11:56 PM
Any action in this area can have a ripple effect - good or bad.  It will be up to the homebrewers to clarify and distinguish the homebrew club and competition events from all other commercially-related activities involving fermented beverages.  Let's face it, any movement away from the Puritannical mindset that pervades alcohol regulation should be better than living in stasis with the uncertainty that most present laws provide.  Move the mountain by a foot or a yard - at least there will have been movement.  Then keep the momentum going and follow up to assure homebrewers that they can enjoy the fruits of their hobby without fear of archaic retribution or technical violations.

Good on ya NB! 
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on October 22, 2011, 02:42:16 PM
I don't personally think 290 will torpedo a homebrewers' bill of rights, in fact I can see where it might have a positive effect inasmuch as you're getting the ball rolling and letting the legislators "chew on things in smaller bites".  It would be good if you could help the homebrewers avoid the licensing requirement for the small contests/ club events.  I'm sure NB would benefit from that legislation as well.

Thanks for clarifying your position, good luck to all homebrewers in WI.  I'd think with the tradition of brewing in the state, that making a case for modern sensible homebrewing laws would be a simple matter.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: hoptoittwc on October 22, 2011, 10:49:59 PM
These are my concerns with this bill in its present form:

An amendment was added to 290, without the input from other shop owners, which would require all brew shops that offer samples to have an operational license and licensed bartender on hand at all times samples are offered. An operational license may only be required for a Class A or B retail establishment selling alcohol or a manufacturing outlet. A homebrew store is neither. So, a bartenders license requires a retail license, but a retail license to sell alcohol basically disallows homebrew, unless other statutes are changed. Since a homebrew store does not sell alcohol, it, by statute, cannot be required to have a permit. More has to be changed than what 290 does. If I am required to get a retail license and none is available, it costs an additional $10000.
 
They also agreed to striking home made wine and beer from the list of homemade alcohol exempt from tax, leaving only cider remaining:
 
139.04  Exclusions. No tax is levied by ss. 139.02 and 139.03 in respect to:
(1) Making of wine, cider or fermented malt beverages at home solely for consumption therein and use thereof in such home by the family and guests without compensation.
 
WILL BECOME:

Section 2. 139.04 (1) of the statutes is amended to read:
139.04 (1) Making of cider at home solely
for consumption therein and use thereof in such home by the family and guests
without compensation, or manufacturing wine or fermented malt beverages in
compliance with the limitations specified in s. 125.06 (3), (3g), or (3r).

The word manufacturing is what trips this up. Why take out the mention of making wine or fermented malt beverages at home & replace it with manufacturing wine or fermented beverages?

man·u·fac·ture  (mny-fkchr)
v. man·u·fac·tured, man·u·fac·tur·ing, man·u·fac·tures
v.tr.
1.
a. To make or process (a raw material) into a finished product,
especially by means of a large-scale industrial operation.

By doing this, it leaves our Department of Revenue to say we can be taxed on beer or wine made at home, but not cider, and that a manufacturing facility would not have to pay a tax..... Making beer at home is certainly not manufacturing.

I am told this will be voted on this coming Tuesday with these changes. If it passes, it may or may not cause hardship. Why give it the chance to do so? I'd rather things stayed the way they are.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: dmtaylor on October 23, 2011, 12:22:22 PM
Why would homebrew shops want to screw with our exemptions??  It is high time for NB's attorney and the homebrewers to get together in the same room to hash out the differences in the language between our two proposals to ensure it's a win-win.  I don't think either side has need to try to hurt the other.  We all need to work together on this.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on October 23, 2011, 01:55:07 PM
Why would homebrew shops want to screw with our exemptions??  It is high time for NB's attorney and the homebrewers to get together in the same room to hash out the differences in the language between our two proposals to ensure it's a win-win.  I don't think either side has need to try to hurt the other.  We all need to work together on this.

Its not homebrew shops wanting something, but there are sometimes unintended consequences.  We're possibly arguing about things that won't ever come about.  I personally don't think WI would try to tax homebrew, although I could see them requiring the bartenders license at a homebrew comp.  The bartenders license just gives the impression that the legislators are being responsible as far as turning people loose to serve liquor willy nilly.  I think they should be educated on what a sample is for.  Why would you need to be knowledgable about when a person is inebriated, when you give them a 2oz sample of beer?  It makes no sense to require this license.  I suppose if it means the difference between passing the bill and not, its worth it.  But it shouldn't have to be a deal breaker.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: mabrungard on October 23, 2011, 04:00:09 PM
I concur that if this bill is intended to allow 'sampling' then the issue of needing a licensed bartender is overreaching.  That amendment needs to be discussed with the sponsor to point out the deficiency in the logic for needing a licensed bartender.

I'd say that a definition of what constitutes 'sampling' might be in order, excepting that I don't like the idea that putting a numeric limit on sample size or number.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: boulderbrewer on October 24, 2011, 02:50:03 AM
I want to apologize to Gary Glass, I understand that you did not know what was happening as it happens quickly some times in government and you are watching the whole country for the AHA and my comments were out of line.

I am sorry.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: jkeeler on October 24, 2011, 01:26:50 PM
Hey guys/gals, I'm glad to see we're hashing this out, and giving it the proper constructive discussion it deserves.

On Friday, I sent an email to Rep. Kooyenga expressing some of our concerns about the operators license warranting a class A or B liquor licenses for homebrew shops.  I also brought up the concern about this having a ripple affect on homebrewers themselves in regards to serving their beer.

He replied to me stating that they will look into any and all adverse affects this amendment to AB 290 may cause, and expressed very clearly that taking the amendment OFF the bill was an option on the table.  The amendment was added as a component to help the bill pass, not punish shops or homebrewers in any way. I'll keep you all posted as to what they determine.

I do think, that without having any restrictions to sample sizes and/or frequency in a shop means there needs to be some kind of guarantee that sampling will not get out of hand, and, patrons do not become intoxicated.  So, I could see an amendment replacing this one that regulates amount and frequency of sampling, which seems reasonable to me.

I will also add that most liquor liability polices will not cover a claim unless the businesses employees have acquired the proper serving licenses for a particular state/county.  This is something that will need to be explored further. 

Two questions I like to get feedback on:

1.  If further amendments would allow shops to obtain operators licenses without having to obtain class A or B liquor licenses, would this make the current amendment more palatable?  I know this still leaves open questions to how licensing may affect homebrewers, but I'd like to get opinions.
2.  If the current amendment is striked, and they propose a sample size limit, and limits to frequency of sampling, would this be acceptable to shop owners?

Please pass this along to the WIHBA listserve/google group  (I still need to be added!)

cheers

Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: Jimmy K on October 24, 2011, 02:56:52 PM
The word manufacture is currently used in the language excempting homebrew from licensing requirements (125.06(3), so there is no reason to worry that using the word in the tax exemption will create problems for homebrewers.  Also, it says manufacture according to 125.06(3) (3g) (3r). 125.06(3) is the definition of homebrewing.

Second, it adds licensing and tax exemptions for homebrew shops specifically with 125.06(3g) and (3r).

 
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: ynotbrusum on October 25, 2011, 10:56:06 PM
What he said above - the problem with reading any statute that references other statutes is that you need to read those other statutes! :o
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: jkeeler on October 26, 2011, 01:51:45 PM
Good news, the bill was passed by a voice vote through the Assembly yesterday.
Also, the amendment requiring shops to obtain an operators license was fixed/adjusted to reflect the fact that shops DO NOT need to obtain an additional liquor license of any kind to qualify for the operators license.

In essence, this means shops will only have to obtain the simple "bartenders" or operators license for employees whom will serve or oversee giving out samples at said shop. 

For more information: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/ab290

The bill now goes to the Senate.  It may require a hearing prior to going to the Senate floor, or it may go straight to the floor for a vote.  Since it passed on a voice vote through the Assembly, and no one has registered opposition, it may go straight to vote. 

cheers
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: udubdawg on October 26, 2011, 05:24:58 PM
Great, glad to see things look like they will be improving.

on a side note, are homebrew competitions legal or not in Wisconsin?  They did have a competition at the state fair this year didn't they?  I'm confused.

cheers--
--Michael
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on October 26, 2011, 05:43:35 PM
This is like watching Schoolhouse Rock while drinking a beer.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: dmtaylor on October 26, 2011, 07:30:02 PM
on a side note, are homebrew competitions legal or not in Wisconsin?  They did have a competition at the state fair this year didn't they?  I'm confused.

It depends who you ask.  On the one hand, the statutes are silent about it, and many communities have agreed to "look the other way".  On the other hand, representatives from the State of Wisconsin have told homebrewers that in their conservative interpretation of the statutes, it seems illegal to serve homebrew anywhere outside of your own home.  Personally, I think they're full of crap.  It's totally wide open to interpretation.  This is one of the biggest reasons we're basically forced into drafting up new statutes -- just so we can do what we've always been doing and what makes logical sense to any other human being on Earth besides the State.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: garyg on October 27, 2011, 03:02:21 PM
That's great news Jake!  The amendment clarifying that no Class A or B license is required to get the operators license for a homebrew shop is a major improvement to this legislation.

I also think that the bi-partisan support for AB 290 really bodes well for the bill that the Wisconsin Homebrewers Alliance has been working on.  This may be a model to use in other states: start with a small business bill, that will be hard for legislators to oppose out of hand in the current political climate, use that to educate legislators about the homebrewing, then follow with a homebrewers rights bill.

Hopefully AB 290 will receive similar support in the Senate.

Cheers!
Gary
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on October 27, 2011, 07:44:06 PM
The homebrew legislation made it on MSNBC last night!

Maddow was interviewing Rep. Cory Mason, a Democrat, and he was talking about how Wis Republicans were working on everything except jobs and he mentioned something about homebrewing and I think serving beer in brewshops.  Not the greatest inference but you made it to TV!
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: ynotbrusum on October 27, 2011, 10:15:52 PM
Looks like it was sent to the Senate committee; let's hope it doesn't stall out there.... ::)
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on October 27, 2011, 10:24:31 PM
You should have pitched it as a jobs bill since homebrewing and all that goes with it is a source of jobs in small businesses.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: denny on October 28, 2011, 03:59:19 PM
You should have pitched it as a jobs bill since homebrewing and all that goes with it is a source of jobs in small businesses.

That was one of the things we kept pointing out when we were working on getting our law passed here.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: boulderbrewer on November 06, 2011, 04:18:23 AM
We will save that for the homebrew legislation.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: jkeeler on November 14, 2011, 05:37:57 PM
Hey everyone, I just got notice that AB290 has a public hearing this Thursday (see details below).
I'm planning on attending to testify in support.
I'm also going to make some supportive remarks for the WIHBA's efforts.

Wish me luck!

Jake


------------------
Committee on Energy, Biotechnology, and Consumer Protection
The committee will hold a public hearing on the following items at the time specified below:
Thursday, November 17, 2011
10:00 AM
330 Southwest
State Capitol

Senate Bill 205

Relating to: the manufacture of wine and fermented malt beverages not offered for sale.
By Senators Zipperer, Galloway and Schultz; cosponsored by Representatives Kooyenga, Mursau, Spanbauer, Rivard, A. Ott, C. Taylor, Brooks and Berceau.

 
Assembly Bill 290

Relating to: the manufacture of wine and fermented malt beverages not offered for sale.
By Representatives Kooyenga, Mursau, Spanbauer, Rivard, A. Ott, C. Taylor, Brooks, Berceau and Strachota; cosponsored by Senators Zipperer, Galloway and Schultz.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: tomsawyer on November 14, 2011, 06:53:37 PM
Bring free samples with you, then say "too bad you can't try this but its against the law right now."

OK I've never been known for my powers of persuasion.
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: denny on November 14, 2011, 07:08:45 PM
Good luck, Jake!
Title: Re: Wisconsin Bill 290
Post by: jkeeler on November 18, 2011, 02:42:42 PM
The Senate hearing went very very well!
It's looking like it will pass through the Senate, and then onto the Governors desk.

David Mitchell from the Vine and Hop shop in Madison also showed up to testify in support and made some excellent points.

My impressions so far is that there is very strong, bi-partisan, and unified support for both this bill, and the efforts of the homebrewers.

Representative Dale Kooyenga who worked with NB to draft AB 290 said he is very interested in helping the WIHBA on any and all efforts of the "Homebrewer's Rigths" bill.  I think he has built strong relationships, trust and consensus in both houses on the issues Homebrewers are facing in WI.   His email:  Rep.Kooyenga@legis.wisconsin.gov

cheers!