Here's a white paper I put together that (I believe) addresses the specific sections of 26 USC Chapter 51 - DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER that must be changed in order to achieve legalization of home distilling.

The idea was to take care of some of the grunt work. Specifically, to identify how much of the existing law requires modification. If the changes were colossal, most politicians would probably decline involvement. As it turns out, the scope and number of changes appear very reasonable.

Anyway, here's the doc. I'd like to see some discussion regarding these changes in this thread.

Also, if you're willing, please start reviewing 26 USC Chapter 51 to see if you can find things that are not covered by the proposed changes.

[ATTACH]889[/ATTACH]

NOTE: This is an "open document." Please use it in any way you see fit ... copy it, distribute it, modify it to suit your needs.

Regards,
--JB

I just downloaded the posted pdf file and it looks good to me. Any chance you opened it with the wrong app?

Download and install this to enable reading a PDF.

http://get.adobe.com/reader/

Good read, John! "Processor" is misspelled on page 9 and page 4 is blank.

JB, GREAT WORK!! you are much better with your words then I. I believe that there is a lot of us out here that will stand for this. I know personally if I had a "lawfully" correct paper backing me it would boost my confidence on the matter. Thanks for taking the time to write that up, i know that i sure as hell couldn't have done that. Do you think having a lawyer or PA read over this could help us out? Maybe they would see something that their eyes are trained for? Thanks again

"Hi All,

Thanks for the positive feedback. I'll try to get spelling & formatting errors corrected & repost before Monday morning.

I think we should continue to review and ""test"" the changes against the different sections in 26 USC Chapter 51. What I mean by that is to take a few sections in the law & read it. Look for things that were missed. The great thing about the Internet and its forums is numbers ... and many hands make little work. So futurenmc, if you know folks with the proper legal training that would be willing to volunteer some free time, it would be great to get some help from them.

Md, your post is also what we need ... to understand what the changes do ... and don't do ... and adjust as necessary. So I'll make a few comments.

Currently, any of us who are currently distilling spirits are breaking the law. If and when home distilling becomes legal, you could immediately register your still. I would expect vendors to provide template registration letters (like a pdf that could be edited ... with instructions) and/or a website where you could enter the appropriate information and simply click ""Submit.""

If you already have a still, that meets the requirements that eventually show up in the CFR, then legally you would not be able to set it up until it is registered. I don't think simple possession would pose any problems -- but we should make sure of this. A still is ""set up"" when it's over a heat source. If you have internal heating elements, I think it would be sufficient to simply remove them from your boiler until you are registered.

I am probably splitting hairs with this one. But ... there isn't any limit on the total volume of spirits you possess (other than the annual limit), only the size of the containers that you use to store them. So if you have, say five containers of low wines, and those low wines are stored in five different one gallon jugs, you won't be outside the law.

This is all because of certain regulations that attach to the definition of a ""warehouseman."" To avoid all of that mess, if your spirits are stored in containers that are one gallon or less, you won't fall within that definition, since you won't be storing ""bulk distilled spirits."" That's based on my understanding.

I'm not sure if the proposed changes thoroughly covers all of the ""removal"" language in the law. So we'll have to continue to scrub through Chapter 51. Until we're sure, this would be a CYA guideline.

Basically, this is all related to the bonding requirements. That is, when you remove a spirit from the place where it is produced, you reach a trigger point where taxes must be paid (just like removing anything from a bonded area or facility). Some of the language uses terms like ""distiller"" (which wouldn't apply with the proposed changes) but Chapter 51 is loaded with the phrase ""no person may"" ... I'm just not sure if anything was missed. I'm also not sure if it would apply only to bonded areas.

In any case, it's a gray area. But I totally agree with you. Along with the things you mention, it would cool to be able to participate in competitions and that sort of thing.

This is a potentially big issue. Clearly, the TTB will want to regulate this. A hobbyist who wants to use a 300 gallon still will probably raise a few eyebrows at the TTB ... and get a big thumbs down. I would expect that a 15 gallon max would cover a majority of existing hobbyists.

Again, thanks for the comments. Let's keep digging through Chapter 51 to find things that were missed.

Regards,
--JB"

Hi JB. You da man. Great work. I I could I would send you a jar of my just finished 5 generations UJSM. I only wish that we could get away with not having to register the stills. I agree that it should not be an issue if the hobby was not illegal but with registration of anything comes registration fees. Someone in govt will have to get paid to keep all that info. Or at least that is the excuse they will use. However there is no registration for wine makers or beer brewers. That is a small issue however and certainly not a deal breaker for me.
Again awesome job. Thank you.

"Don't worry about self-policing ... that topic was just a curiosity of mine in another thread.

I was going to post an updated doc this morning that had a few grammar/spelling/formatting corrections ... but I'll hold off just a little while ... to see if I can address the still size and registration requirements in the proposed changes.

Just keep a few things in mind. We can propose anything we want. But whether or not certain proposed changes would be accepted is another matter ... and that supposes that we can even find a politician that is willing to take up the cause. I would be surprised if still registration requirements would be waived unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The argument for registration will most certainly be that it will continue to be a tool to monitor for abuse. And yes, I believe there would be some fee (an administrative fee). A good example is the salt water fishing registration that many of us have had to deal with over the past few years. Although there is no ""fee"" for the identification card per se, there is an administrative or processing fee, unless you live in a state like New Jersey, where they side stepped things to allow truly free registration. No matter what you call it, it's still a fee.

Anyway, I'll try to get at least the still size and registration issues address & I'll post an updated version of the doc.

Thanks for all of comments.

Regards,
--JB"

"Hi All,

I'll just continue to update my original post at the top of thread with the latest doc. Just keep an eye on the edit date/description for changes.

--JB"

"John,

this is a great paper! would you mind if I use it as a baseline for our dutch quest?
One question, why did you choose for a 15 gallon boiler?

Henk"

"Hi Henk,

I don't mind at all.

That was to accommodate the larger milk-can type boilers. But that's going to be changed to 15.5 gallons in the next version to account for all of the half-barrel boilers out there.

Regards,
--JB"