Direct Shipment Laws
- Thread starter David Baldwin
- Start date
-
Love Gotmead and want to see it grow? Then consider supporting the site and becoming a Patron! If you're logged in, click on your username to the right of the menu to see how as little as $30/year can get you access to the patron areas and the patron Facebook group and to support Gotmead!
-
We now have a Patron-exclusive Facebook group! Patrons my join at The Gotmead Patron Group. You MUST answer the questions, providing your Patron membership, when you request to join so I can verify your Patron membership. If the questions aren't answered, the request will be turned down.
With a recent victory for the consumers from the Supreme Court, I was really looking forward to Michigan joining the 20th century.
The State House of Representatives (Apparently representing the wholesalers and NOT the consumers or the Michigan wineries) passed a new bill "allowing" for direct shipment to consumers.
If the old laws were outdated and backward, I don't know how to describe the new law.
You wouldn't think that they could possibly take a giant step backward, but yes that is what they seem to have done.
No longer will Michigan wineries be able to sell directly to retailers, restaurants, or to the consumer.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-4959
I've just read through the text of the law as passed by the state house. I need to more thoroughly reread it and absorb it, but there does appear to be a provision by which a winery can sell to the consumer as long as they apply for yet another license along with more non-refundable fees of course. No criteria was laid out in the law to indicate what would constitute an approval or disapproval of this new Direct Shipper permit.
It looks like approval could be entirely arbitrary, and yet it still does not appear to allow the winery to sell directly to retailers or restaurants like they can now.
The wholesalers have got to be in hog heaven with this piece of legislation.
Maybe in the long run it's a good thing. I'm finally riled up enough to get involved and start making some phone calls to our state senators who now have to pass their own version of this law.
Maybe it is not yet too late.
David
The State House of Representatives (Apparently representing the wholesalers and NOT the consumers or the Michigan wineries) passed a new bill "allowing" for direct shipment to consumers.
If the old laws were outdated and backward, I don't know how to describe the new law.
You wouldn't think that they could possibly take a giant step backward, but yes that is what they seem to have done.
No longer will Michigan wineries be able to sell directly to retailers, restaurants, or to the consumer.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2005-HB-4959
I've just read through the text of the law as passed by the state house. I need to more thoroughly reread it and absorb it, but there does appear to be a provision by which a winery can sell to the consumer as long as they apply for yet another license along with more non-refundable fees of course. No criteria was laid out in the law to indicate what would constitute an approval or disapproval of this new Direct Shipper permit.
It looks like approval could be entirely arbitrary, and yet it still does not appear to allow the winery to sell directly to retailers or restaurants like they can now.
The wholesalers have got to be in hog heaven with this piece of legislation.
Maybe in the long run it's a good thing. I'm finally riled up enough to get involved and start making some phone calls to our state senators who now have to pass their own version of this law.
Maybe it is not yet too late.
David
I think you are misreading the bill. In the definitions section:
(9) "Wine maker" means any person licensed by the commission to manufacture wine, and sell, at wholesale or retail, wine manufactured by that person to sell that wine to a wholesaler, at retail on the licensed winery premises, and as provided for in sections 537 and 603.
It looks like a wine making license will preserve the ability to sell at retail on the premises.
I'm having my lawyer buddy look at it.
PS: Still on for a mead tasting this fall?
PPS: My buddy and I sent letters to each and every state rep. Looks like it is time to do the same for the senate.
(9) "Wine maker" means any person licensed by the commission to manufacture wine, and sell, at wholesale or retail, wine manufactured by that person to sell that wine to a wholesaler, at retail on the licensed winery premises, and as provided for in sections 537 and 603.
It looks like a wine making license will preserve the ability to sell at retail on the premises.
I'm having my lawyer buddy look at it.
PS: Still on for a mead tasting this fall?
PPS: My buddy and I sent letters to each and every state rep. Looks like it is time to do the same for the senate.
Upon further reading, it looks like you are half right and I am half right.
If this bill becomes law, we will be allowed to sell directly to consumers either from the premises or via mail (with a direct shippers license), but we will not longer be allowed to sell direct to liquor stores. We will be forced to work through a wholesaler, and a producer is explicitly forbidden from also holding a wholesalers license.
They just couldn't let it go through without throwing a bone to the farking booze lobbyists....
If this bill becomes law, we will be allowed to sell directly to consumers either from the premises or via mail (with a direct shippers license), but we will not longer be allowed to sell direct to liquor stores. We will be forced to work through a wholesaler, and a producer is explicitly forbidden from also holding a wholesalers license.
They just couldn't let it go through without throwing a bone to the farking booze lobbyists....
ScottS said:
Scott,
I think you and David are talking apples and oranges. The text that you're both referring to includes some text that was struck and other text that was added before passage in the House:
IANAL, but that looks like it's defining a wine maker within the state. wine makers outside of the state are referred to as Direct Shippers, and are covered in the following text:
(Note that this text was all in bold, although I haven't preserved that here; it was added to the bill.)
So, considering that David mentions direct shippers, I think he's railing against the fact that any wine makers out of state must apply for a direct shipper license, etc, etc, etc.
btw... looking at the text, "wine maker" doesn't apply to someone who makes mead. Would a mead maker then fall under the definition of a maker of spirits? (I kinda doubt he would fall under the definition of "brewer" / "beer maker"...)
Merry
David and I are both in MI, so we are looking at it from an in-state perspective.
There are two separate issues here - licensing of in-state small wineries, where the definition of "wine maker" comes into play, and direct shipping, which applies to everyone equally, both in and out of state. They are taking away some of our rights as in-state small wineries (sales directly to restaurants and retailers), and placing increased restrictions on our right to ship (better than losing that right entirely.)
I too noticed that the definition of "wine maker" doesn't include mead. But the section that forbids sale of alcohol without a license mentions "alcoholic liquor" rather than beer, wine, mead, etc. Interestingly enough, "alcoholic liquor" is not defined anywhere. I think I'd have a tough time convincing a court that mead was not an "alcoholic liquor", and thus arguing that the law doesn't apply to me.
The state handles mead-makers under the winery license.
There are two separate issues here - licensing of in-state small wineries, where the definition of "wine maker" comes into play, and direct shipping, which applies to everyone equally, both in and out of state. They are taking away some of our rights as in-state small wineries (sales directly to restaurants and retailers), and placing increased restrictions on our right to ship (better than losing that right entirely.)
I too noticed that the definition of "wine maker" doesn't include mead. But the section that forbids sale of alcohol without a license mentions "alcoholic liquor" rather than beer, wine, mead, etc. Interestingly enough, "alcoholic liquor" is not defined anywhere. I think I'd have a tough time convincing a court that mead was not an "alcoholic liquor", and thus arguing that the law doesn't apply to me.
The state handles mead-makers under the winery license.
ScottS said:
ahh... since he referenced direct shippers, i assumed he meant out-of-state ...
"Alcoholic liquor" is defined in the existing text of Act 58:
again, and i can't stress this enough, IANAL!!!! ... but, the definition of alcoholic liquor includes spirits, wines, malts, and fermented liquor. (OK... mead falls under "fermented liquor.) however, the act adds "which ... are classified according to alcoholic content as belonging to 1 of the varieties defined in this chapter". the chapter defines wine (grapes), beer (malted cereals), spirits (distilled, as well as 21%+ ABV wine), and mixed drinks (spirit-, malt-, or wine-based). so, in a discussion among friends, i might argue that a honey-based fermented liquor is not defined in Act 58, and therefore, the Act doesn't cover mead.
Of course, I wouldn't want to be in the position where I'd be called upon to defend that position in front of anybody representing the government.
As a practical matter, sure. but that doesn't mean that the act authorizes it. (of course, if anyone were to be able to make that case successfully, i'm sure that loophole would be quickly closed...).
Mootly,
Merry
I use the "I'm outside of the scope of that law" arguement as a raw milk provider in the state of Michigan, so I'm very familiar with that one. In that case though, someone else has already been the test case and has invited the state to take him to court. The state declined.Meriadoc said:
In the case of mead, I'd be the test case. And I'd lose. No thanks.
