Mark Slater Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Potential great news for consumers. Costco lawsuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Legislative update: There are a flurry of bills being introduced in Annapolis this session pertaining to wine. These are just some general highlights: SB812 would add to the definition of a “wholesaler” a winery that sells wine to retail dealers, and adds a “Class 6” wholesale license for small domestic wine producers (which, hey, aren't they all "small"?) However, while these new Class 6 wholesalers would not be able to transfer wines to a third party for delivery, they would be allowed to add more locations to warehouse, sell and deliver their wines (for a fee, of course). Picture those mall kiosks full of local wine next Chrismas! This bill passed. To avoid future lawsuit challenges following the Supreme Court's decision in Granholm v. Heald, (prohibiting differential treatment between in-state and out-of-state wineries as discrimination against interstate commerce), the Legislature decided to carve out an exception to the requirement of going through a wholesale distributer, for any winery in the country that produces fewer than 40,000 gallons of wine/year (the so-called "small" wineries.) As it happens, at least 18 of the 22 Maryland wineries are such small wineries and they don't currently use a wholesale distributer, and this bill will allow that to continue. This seems to be a victory for small out-of-state wineries. But there's a catch. Every Maryland or out-of-state small winery with this new license must designate an "agent" in Maryland to distribute its wine. The agent can't then turn the wine over to a third-party for delivery, and each agent can only represent one small winery. The key bill you all are probably looking for is HB625, which would create a “direct wine shipper” license for out of state winemakers, brand owners, importers or Maryland agents of brand owners or importers. The licensees would have to report to the Comptroller every year how much wine they shipped into Maryland, and pay state sales and excise taxes (and license fees, of course). They would be limited to shipping two cases per month to any individual. Orders and purchases would be allowed over the internet, but receipt of wine by anyone under 21 would be prohibited, as would be any use but personal consumption (as opposed to re-sale.) This bill died in committee.HB517/SB280 is my personal favorite: it would allow anyone who buys a bottle of wine with a meal at a licensed restaurant to take the partially empty bottle with them, provided they comply with the “open container” provisions of the motor vehicle law. Here’s the other kicker: the restaurant itself must re-cork the bottle, so that the top of the cork is level with the lip of the bottle. This bill was signed into law. An amendment allows for a cap in lieu of a cork.HB624 repeals the current limit of how much wine can be sold to an individual at a winery during a guided tour. The limit now is one quart per year. (You all knew that, right?) This bill also died in committee. One wonders if it has ever been enforced, and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Boy Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Thanks for the update, crackers. Maryland continues to be a joke with respect to direct wine shipments. Virginia, DC and West Virginia all seem to be on the bandwagon, more or less. Why not Maryland? grrrrr Perhaps if Willie Don is not voted back in as Comptroller, there might be less resistance in the legislature to get Maryland in to the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ol_ironstomach Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 According to the nice ladies at the Opera House Gourmet in Old Town Manassas, the Virginia legislature is in the process of banning direct sales from small Virginia producers to retailers, instead requiring them to go through licensed distributors, which is expected to increase retail prices by a couple of bucks per bottle for those wineries who are now self-distributing. Anybody have more information about this? [update with add'l background:] It seems that this is old news and that change has probably already happened. And apparently the situtation was somewhat the other way around. Virginia self-distribution by small producers was codified into law in 2003. Last April in Brooks vs. Danielson, a US District Court struck down Virginia's self-distribution law as being preferential to in-state wineries. Then in May, there was the SCOTUS decision (Michigan and New York) that started this discussion thread. VA Farm Bureau Federation legislative fact sheet The current session of the VA legislature sought to reinstate self-distribution by leveling the playing field in several other ways. It has apparently failed. VA Wineries Assn e-news 4/06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Apparantly, the US District Court in Seattle struck down Washington state's rule prohibiting volume discounts by wholesalers. The case was brought by Costco. Here is a link to the WSJ article. -->## The state announced today that they are appealing the decision. Appeal would be to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Maryland has passed a law that allows diners to recork their bottle of wine and take it home with them from the restaurant. (This is big news!) Cheers, Rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrescentFresh Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 That's way cool. Now what do we need to do to get DC to do the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Maryland has passed a law that allows diners to recork their bottle of wine and take it home with them from the restaurant.(This is big news!) Cheers, Rocks. Rocks, Sorry to edit your post, but it should say "Maryland has passed a law that allows diners to recork the CRAPPY bottle of wine they bought and take it home". The state is not known for its great wine selection, outside of perhaps Mills in Annapolis. Tempered Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Agree with Mark, until we get a better selection here in MoCo, that's not really anything to get excited about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabindc Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 That has been the law in Virginia for sometime now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jparrott Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 The state is not known for its great wine selection, outside of perhaps Mills in Annapolis.Yeah, but those old Bordeaux have been sitting on that 76 degree shop floor for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinwiddie Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Mark had the whole of it. Maryland is not a state for wine lovers. Until they permit shipping, and get the county out of the wine business all together in Montgomery County, I will do my wine list perusing in DC. Maybe we'll be lucky and Learing Don will lose as Comptroller and by some wild chance of fate, the alcohol distributors will quit bribing our legislature and sanity will prevail in the "Free State". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Riley Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Well, outside of Montgomery County, there ARE some very nice restaurants in the rest of the state. (And the most fun wine list I've seen in the county so far has been at Mannequin Pis in Olney.) How about Charleston, in Baltimore? Oh, and along with Mills, in Annapolis, Silesia Liquors, near Ft. Washington, is the best wine shop in the state. Owners Mike and Ray Tilch are great people, too. The rare wine room is only the tip of the iceberg of what their older stock consists of. If I lived closer, I'd go there more often, but they are definitely a destination store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meaghan Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 How about buy the wine in DC or Virginia and drink it at home! The truth is, I like to drink it all and then drive home pleasantly drunk. But seriously, you're taking about driving an extra hour or two to bring home a bottle of wine with a cork in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Landrum Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 My experience in Montgomery County so far has been that with the investment of about 25% additional investment in time in developing a wine program, about 20% additional investment in inventory, and by an additional 10 day lead time in ordering, a more than satisfactory wine list is possible. In fact, outside of Citronelle and NRG, I expect to have the most attractive wine program in the entire area, although not so far beneath Mark's program that I will win a Rammy. Sure, there are additional hassles, costs, and competitive downward drive in prices from the County stores, but at the same time by being in Montgomery County you are located amidst and have access to among the wealthiest, highest luxury-good spending, most highly educated and most widely traveled demographics in the world. Small price to pay if you are serious about your wine program; easy, ready-made excuses if you are not. (As bad as the County still is today, it is not nearly as bad as Mark's experiences and realities some years ago, so forgive me, Mark, for contradicting you). Further, I spent precisely $750 in legal fees in procuring my liquor license, representing myself in the public hearing, precisely $0 in purchasing the license from the previous owner, precisely $0 in blackmail and extortion to local churches, precisely 0 minutes meeting ANC and neighborhood representatives who seek to cripple my ability to conduct business all the while counting on two hands the number of tens of thousands of dollars the presence of restaurants increases their property values, and precisely $0 in fees to the permit guy. Amortise, per bottle over the course of a year, the typical $80,000-$125,000 dollars it may cost in legal fees and buy-offs to procure a license in DC, the $100,000-$500,000 in lost revenue annually due to ANC restrictions, secret costs to churches, untold lost revenue due to parking and traffic...well, total that all up and I'd say that an extra dollar or two per bottle wholesale is pretty cheap. As a trade off, having Thierry Thiese in the building above you is kinda sweet. This news is indeed very big news for one hugely important reason: It provides an alternative to over-consumption in restaurants by allowing the guest to have that last glass of wine safely at home rather than forcing it down before getting in the car to drive. Of course, I have yet to see the DC restaurant that concerns itself genuinely with taking responsibility for over-consumption. (I haven't gotten drunk at Citronelle, so I can't speak for that likely exception, or any other possible exceptions, as my experience is limited to places I drink and places I've worked). The norm is more to encourage it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 There are a flurry of bills being introduced in Annapolis this session pertaining to wine. These are just some general highlights: .... HB517/SB280 is my personal favorite: it would allow anyone who buys a bottle of wine with a meal at a licensed restaurant to take the partially empty bottle with them, provided they comply with the “open container” provisions of the motor vehicle law. Here’s the other kicker: the restaurant itself must re-cork the bottle, so that the top of the cork is level with the lip of the bottle. Legislative update:This bill was signed into law. An amendment allows for a cap in lieu of a cork. Maryland has passed a law that allows diners to recork their bottle of wine and take it home with them from the restaurant. (This is big news!) It's also kind of old news. The bill passed in April [see the entire thread here]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinwiddie Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 This news is indeed very big news for one hugely important reason: It provides an alternative to over-consumption in restaurants by allowing the guest to have that last glass of wine safely at home rather than forcing it down before getting in the car to drive. Of course, I have yet to see the DC restaurant that concerns itself genuinely with taking responsibility for over-consumption. (I haven't gotten drunk at Citronelle, so I can't speak for that likely exception, or any other possible exceptions, as my experience is limited to places I drink and places I've worked). The norm is more to encourage it. Michael, Good luck, we have all been waiting eagerly for you to arrive in Montgomery County. Couple of scattered comments to your points. I've talked to quite a fewl restaurant owners here in the county. Their biggest complaint, other than the absurd prices that the county store charges, is that they don't follow thru and that they are always "out" of what you ordered. They complained of the wrong wines being delivered, no ability to get wines quickly when they needed to, and an unwillingness to try to work with the restaurant owner. One said that the only way he was able to put together a decent (not that it was great) list was to work with the owner of the wine shop that was nearby, luckly a friend of his. And even then, I often find that what is on the list is not available because the county couldn't deliver. Yes, you could put together a list that would please 95+ percent of the dining public. Yes, you could put together a list that would go very well with your menu. But, to those of us who are really "into" wine, there are no "great" lists in the county. A couple of years ago I was discussing the county monopoly with the owner of a restaruant in Olney. He showed me the county order list to show me what was available. Not only were the prices to him not that good, they were higher than what I could buy many of the wines for at retail in DC. There were very few wines that were what I would have considered to be very good, much less excellent, and of course, there was no way for him to get limited production wines without breaking the law, the county was just not interested in getting them for him and he was not allowed to order them from anyone else, even a distributor in another part of Maryland. I certainly hope things have changed, but I'm not betting on it. But anyway, good luck and I'm looking forward to trying your list. Well, outside of Montgomery County, there ARE some very nice restaurants in the rest of the state. (And the most fun wine list I've seen in the county so far has been at Mannequin Pis in Olney.) How about Charleston, in Baltimore?Oh, and along with Mills, in Annapolis, Silesia Liquors, near Ft. Washington, is the best wine shop in the state. Owners Mike and Ray Tilch are great people, too. The rare wine room is only the tip of the iceberg of what their older stock consists of. If I lived closer, I'd go there more often, but they are definitely a destination store. Joe, Of course one would expect that one of the wealthiest counties in the country (not just Maryland) would have restaurants with great lists. It is much easier to drive to DC and enjoy a good bottle of wine from a great list than go elsewhere outside the county or to Baltimore (I can METRO it and not have to worry about driving home with a little too much wine in me ). Yes Bernard had an interesting list at Mannequin Pis (he has since sold the place so I don't know how long it will continue to be a good list, but one hopes) but even he complained about not being able to get the wines he wanted and you did not want to get him started about the County as the only legal supplier (he does have quite a temper doesn't he.) I haven't been to Silesia, I've always meant to, but my wife complains enough about the amount of wine I buy as it is, I don't need to be further tempted. Between you and James I can do quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hersch Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 In fact, outside of Citronelle and NRG Excuse me, what is NRG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Excuse me, what is NRG? Nick's Riverside Grille? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Michael, My experience with the county was in 1991, and I hear things have changed some. You can email them your orders now, for example, instead of waiting on hold for half an hour listening to Metallica blast through the phone. But they still have very limited delivery times (still once a week?) and only will deliver full cases, which is fine with wine, but no one really needs a full case of Grand Marnier or Hennessey XO. I believe they still only deliver COD. They do allow you to shop at the county store, and, as a liquor license holder, you are entitled to a whopping 15% discount off the shelf price. The wholesale prices are 20-30% higher than in the district, and any wine not regularly carried by the county is considered a special order and costs an additional 30% for the trouble it takes them to make exactly one phone call to order the wine from the local supplier. It's less than ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jparrott Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 They do allow you to shop at the county store, and, as a liquor license holder, you are entitled to a whopping 15% discount off the shelf price. The wholesale prices are 20-30% higher than in the districtThis ends up being the same number, no? I do know that for retail, any liquor that MonCo carries will be cheaper than anywhere else. Don't know how that translates to wholesale liquor. And who wants a case of Galliano?????We've just signed up a distributor in Maryland. We're very excited, mostly because we want to sell to Mike Tilch (Silesia Liquors, southern PG County), who is the biggest advocate of SA wines I've met in this area. But our distributor tells us they want no part of MonCo. It's a shame. MonCo's barriers for wholesalers to enter the market are annoying, even though only one guy (the county) has to maintain the stock list. You'd think that guy would love as many pass-thrus as he could get (no work!), but noooooooooooooooooooooooo. I hate it. But not as much as I hate corks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Boy Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Maryland has passed a law that allows diners to recork their bottle of wine and take it home with them from the restaurant.(This is big news!) Cheers, Rocks. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 This ends up being the same number, no? I do know that for retail, any liquor that MonCo carries will be cheaper than anywhere else. Don't know how that translates to wholesale liquor. And who wants a case of Galliano?????We've just signed up a distributor in Maryland. We're very excited, mostly because we want to sell to Mike Tilch (Silesia Liquors, southern PG County), who is the biggest advocate of SA wines I've met in this area. But our distributor tells us they want no part of MonCo. It's a shame. MonCo's barriers for wholesalers to enter the market are annoying, even though only one guy (the county) has to maintain the stock list. You'd think that guy would love as many pass-thrus as he could get (no work!), but noooooooooooooooooooooooo. I hate it. But not as much as I hate corks. Your distributor is right. MonCo is too much trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ol_ironstomach Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Perhaps somebody has already answered this question, but does this recent law have any provisions for accommodating Stel-Vin closures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinwiddie Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Maryland has passed a law that allows diners to recork their bottle of wine and take it home with them from the restaurant.(This is big news!) Cheers, Rocks. Do people actually have wine left over to take home? Sacre bleu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Horoscope Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 What dinwiddie said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Boy Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Do people actually have wine left over to take home? Sacre bleu! Never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Ox Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Maryland has passed a law that allows diners to recork their bottle of wine and take it home with them from the restaurant.(This is big news!) Cheers, Rocks. That's way cool. Now what do we need to do to get DC to do the same thing? Seriously, how can we get DC to do the same thing? I just spent some time bumping around RAMW's site and couldn't find any position, one way or the other. I'd think that this would have broad support from restauranteurs who'd like to sell some of their more expensive bottles, anti drunk driving advocates who will applaud the presumed fewer folks on the road that just had to finish that 3rd glass, and all those who enjoy a good glass of vino but hate to order a $15 splash when a whole bottle is such a better value. It wouldn't bother me as much if 1) I lived a little closer to the Metro and didn't drive almost everywhere 2) wines by the glass were priced better 3) half bottle selections were a little more common. What am I missing? It seems to work well in VA and MD, is there real opposition here or has nobody tried to do it yet? Any of you legal eagles out there know part of the DC code that would need to be amended to make this happen? I need a project for the new year. This may be it. Who wants to help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lackadaisi Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 all those who enjoy a good glass of vino but hate to order a $15 splash when a whole bottle is such a better value.Don't leave out those of us that are trying to kid themselves into thinking we are only going to have one glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Ox Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Don't leave out those of us that are trying to kid themselves into thinking we are only going to have one glass. Yup, those folks are welcome too. Also, I could have sworn that I added an x to the "bordeaux" in the subtitle of this thread. Perhaps I exceeded the max. character limit? Hey Mr. Rocks, any chance you can fix that for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saycheese Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 The National Restaurant Association website has a list of the 34 state laws as of July 2006 allowing consumers to take partially consumed wine from restaurants: http://www.restaurant.org/government/state...c_recorking.pdf. These are called "cork and go" or "merlot to go" laws. Lobbying the DC government would be the way to go. According to the National Restaurant Association research, the DC law prohibits anyone from "drinking[ing] [or] possess[ing] in an open container an alcoholic beverage in or upon a vehicle that is in or upon any street, alley, park, or parking area," and there is no law that expressly prohibits a customer from removing a partially finished bottle of wine from a restaurant. If a restaurant owner allowed a consumer to take a partially consumed bottle of wine home in a tamper-proof, one time use, sealed plastic bag, would that comply with the law, since the person would not possess an alcoholic beverage in a "container" that is "open?" If restaurants in DC starting to offer that service, maybe it would stir some action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lackadaisi Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 there is no law that expressly prohibits a customer from removing a partially finished bottle of wine from a restaurant.So, would restaraunts let me take home my unfinished wine if I walked home? That would both prevent me from drinking so much and give reason to exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jparrott Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 So, would restaraunts let me take home my unfinished wine if I walked home? That would both prevent me from drinking so much and give reason to exercise.And drive up your property value amongst DC's Burgundy drinkers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpschust Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 The National Restaurant Association website has a list of the 34 state laws as of July 2006 allowing consumers to take partially consumed wine from restaurants: http://www.restaurant.org/government/state...c_recorking.pdf. These are called "cork and go" or "merlot to go" laws. Lobbying the DC government would be the way to go. According to the National Restaurant Association research, the DC law prohibits anyone from "drinking[ing] [or] possess[ing] in an open container an alcoholic beverage in or upon a vehicle that is in or upon any street, alley, park, or parking area," and there is no law that expressly prohibits a customer from removing a partially finished bottle of wine from a restaurant. If a restaurant owner allowed a consumer to take a partially consumed bottle of wine home in a tamper-proof, one time use, sealed plastic bag, would that comply with the law, since the person would not possess an alcoholic beverage in a "container" that is "open?" If restaurants in DC starting to offer that service, maybe it would stir some action. not to be a grammar nerd, but what you mean to say, I think, is: If a restaurant owner allowed a consumer to take a partially consumed bottle of wine home in a tamper-proof, one time use, sealed, plastic bag, would that comply with the law There is a slight and subtle meaning change if you put the comma in after sealed. Ignore me if I'm too big of a nerd to have noticed that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 These are called "cork and go" or "merlot to go" laws. I like "Doggy Bottle" better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Ignore me if I'm too big of a nerd to have noticed that This board is going to drive you nuts. [You forgot to end your sentence with a period, among several grammar and punctuation mistakes.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripewriter Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 The National Restaurant Association website has a list of the 34 state laws as of July 2006 allowing consumers to take partially consumed wine from restaurants: http://www.restaurant.org/government/state...c_recorking.pdf. This document lists Virginia as one of four states "where bills have been defeated." So what's the real story in Virginia? I thought (and this thread suggests) it is legal to recork and go here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveBVI Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Here in California, I beleive the rule is only unfinished bottles. Just like in DC, there is a different tax structure for liquor sales, etc. But in DC, it would be more $$ for the city, with its 10% sales tax, so why not... just my 2 cents Dave (San Francisco?) Batista Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Here in California, I beleive the rule is only unfinished bottles. Just like in DC, there is a different tax structure for liquor sales, etc. But in DC, it would be more $$ for the city, with its 10% sales tax, so why not...just my 2 cents Dave (San Francisco?) Batista Dude, you're in CA now. way cool. Glad to see you're keepinig track of us folks back here on the right coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miami Danny Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 So, would restaraunts let me take home my unfinished wine if I walked home? That would both prevent me from drinking so much and give reason to exercise.There are different licenses for on- and off-premises sale. Right now, you can't do both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 There are different licenses for on- and off-premises sale. Right now, you can't do both. This comment gets a bit closer to the heart of the problem in DC. Two laws need to be changed in order to be able to take partially consumed wine home in your car from a DC restaurant. First, the type of licenses in DC are either for off-premises consumption (liquor stores etc.) on on-premises consumption (restaurants and bars). As such, if a restaurant allowed you to walk out the door with any alcoholic beverage you bought there it would be placing its license in jeopardy. It doesn't matter whether the container is sealed, whether you even opened the bottle, or anything else. Second, if you are driving, you cannot have an opened bottle of alcohol in your car. So the first thing that has to happen is to modify the license law. If it were, you could walk home with your leftover but you still couldn't drive home. For that, the second law, about having an open bottle in your car, also has to be modified. Interestingly, if I'm reading all this correctly, if you bring your own bottle to the restaurant AND walk home with the leftovers, that is OK under current DC law. Note, however, that it is against the law in DC to consume any alcoholic beverage in a public place, so you can't have a swig along the way, but I'm not aware that simply walking down the street with a resealed bottle in your possession constitutes consumption. Others more familiar with the laws may know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miami Danny Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 This comment gets a bit closer to the heart of the problem in DC. Two laws need to be changed in order to be able to take partially consumed wine home in your car from a DC restaurant. First, the type of licenses in DC are either for off-premises consumption (liquor stores etc.) on on-premises consumption (restaurants and bars). As such, if a restaurant allowed you to walk out the door with any alcoholic beverage you bought there it would be placing its license in jeopardy. It doesn't matter whether the container is sealed, whether you even opened the bottle, or anything else. Second, if you are driving, you cannot have an opened bottle of alcohol in your car. So the first thing that has to happen is to modify the license law. If it were, you could walk home with your leftover but you still couldn't drive home. For that, the second law, about having an open bottle in your car, also has to be modified. Interestingly, if I'm reading all this correctly, if you bring your own bottle to the restaurant AND walk home with the leftovers, that is OK under current DC law. Note, however, that it is against the law in DC to consume any alcoholic beverage in a public place, so you can't have a swig along the way, but I'm not aware that simply walking down the street with a resealed bottle in your possession constitutes consumption. Others more familiar with the laws may know better. DC also has an 'open container' law. You can't have an open container anywhere in public-this includes your front yard, by the way. The only way to change the law is to get one of the powerful lobbying groups behind it. That's what happened when DC rolled back the cutoff time for selling beer and wine in grocery stores to 10PM from Midnight. Guess who benefited from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 DC also has an 'open container' law. You can't have an open container anywhere in public-this includes your front yard, by the way. That's the same as the no public consumption I mentioned. Note, however, that it is against the law in DC to consume any alcoholic beverage in a public place, so you can't have a swig along the way, but I'm not aware that simply walking down the street with a resealed bottle in your possession constitutes consumption. If your container is open, it is presumed you are consuming. However, if your container is closed, I don't believe it falls under that. And yes, your front yard is considered a "public" place, even your porch. In DC, you may legally consume an alcoholic beverage only in two places--your home (inside the walls), or a licensed establishment, ie a bar or restaurant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miami Danny Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 That's the same as the no public consumption I mentioned. If your container is open, it is presumed you are consuming. However, if your container is closed, I don't believe it falls under that. And yes, your front yard is considered a "public" place, even your porch. In DC, you may legally consume an alcoholic beverage only in two places--your home (inside the walls), or a licensed establishment, ie a bar or restaurant. Public consumption is drinking in public. An open container is deemed a danger in and of itself and consumption doesn't have to be proved for you to get busted.My more 'important' point was that to change the law, there have to be some very powerful people who will benefit. Unless you can present it as a 'public health' issue a la smoking. Perhaps the Rest. Ass. would get involved if it meant their members would sell more wine? Or, of course, there's always the distributors. They have pretty deep pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Public consumption is drinking in public. An open container is deemed a danger in and of itself and consumption doesn't have to be proved for you to get busted. Correct. My point was that if the container is not open you won't get busted. AFAIK, "not open" can apply to never opened or to re-closed, but I'm not sure about the latter and perhaps somebody who knows could chime in. My more 'important' point was that to change the law, there have to be some very powerful people who will benefit. Unless you can present it as a 'public health' issue a la smoking. Perhaps the Rest. Ass. would get involved if it meant their members would sell more wine? Or, of course, there's always the distributors. They have pretty deep pockets. If that's the case we can forget about getting the law changed. The distributors will never see this as an issue that would be big enough for them to spend their chips. Probably true as well of the Assn. The best way, IMO, is a grass roots appeal to the City Council, emphasizing that the current regs. are out of step with modernity and making the District look silly. They tend to respond to that. Actually it's no longer my fight since I now live a long way from DC. But I do recall once, many many years ago, being followed out of a restaurant and shouted at by the owner when I carried out my half-drunk bottle of wine, wondering if the guy was nuts--now I understand his concern, even if his reaction may have been over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwhitney Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I have placed an order with Kongsgaard for a few bottles. I was just told they shipped via UPS, and told me to expect it in 7 to 10 days! When I wrote to complain about it, this was the response: "Due to local laws (DC permits only one bottle to be shipped directly to a consumer per month), we are forced to use the more time-consuming three-tier method to ship to your state. Orders are shipped via refrigerated truck to a local wholesaler, then a local retailer, and finally, via UPS, to you." Can anyone else confirm this claim that DC only allows one bottle per month to be shipped directly to a consumer? It sure sounds ridiculous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deangold Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Thats the law here in wunnerful DC. To top that, if you bring in a bottle to a restaurant and they cork it for you, you are not allowed to remove the bottle from the restaurant. Your own wine! I had to stop two customers from taking their own wines home with them. Boy was that Viader 1994 good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I have placed an order with Kongsgaard for a few bottles. I was just told they shipped via UPS, and told me to expect it in 7 to 10 days! When I wrote to complain about it, this was the response: Due to local laws (DC permits only one bottle to be shipped directly to a consumer per month), we are forced to use the more time-consuming three-tier method to ship to your state. Orders are shipped via refrigerated truck to a local wholesaler, then a local retailer, and finally, via UPS, to you. Can anyone else confirm this claim that DC only allows one bottle per month to be shipped directly to a consumer? It sure sounds ridiculous to me. Preposterous but not at all unexpected. DC government thrives on changing all the rules every 6 months. Most recent example: The test for DC food handlers is valid for 5 years. The course and test for restaurants costs several thousand dollars to administer. The DC food handlers license, which requires this test, expires after 3 years. You can not use the still valid test certificate for the license renewal. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Boy Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Can anyone else confirm this claim that DC only allows one bottle per month to be shipped directly to a consumer? It sure sounds ridiculous to me. This is technically true. But if you have a friend in Virginia, you can have your stuff shipped there in some volume.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deangold Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 This is technically true. But if you have a friend in Virginia, you can have your stuff shipped there in some volume.... My understanding with VA is 2 cases per winery per month is the limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now