Is it because alcohol, tobacco, and firearms also have legal pathways? So they spend time tracking down cheats and checking/enforcing regulations?

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m still annoyed alcohol isn’t administered by the Food and Drug Administration. It’s both a food and a drug. I want nutrition labels (mostly for the calorie count) on my alcohol. They don’t have them because the ATF does not require them as the FDA does.

    Honestly, the ATF can just be split with half being folded into the FDA and the other half folded into the FBI. The ATF doesn’t need to exist.

  • justhach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    ATF = cracking down on legal funtime stuffs

    DEA = cracking down on illegal funtime stuffs

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Never understood the ATF hate until I became a gun enthusiast. Heysus! Even us libs hate 'em!

      I bought a perfectly legal .22 rifle, pretty much this (without whatever suppressor thing is shown). It’s like the baby brother version of an AR-15. Jams a lot, but it’s fun!

      Note the stupid looking flexible stock. That was a way to get a “short barreled rifle” because a normal, rigid stock would be illegal. “Uh, it’s not a stock. It’s a handicap thing for one-armed shooters.” Yes, it can work that way and yes, it’s a loophole.

      Now I’m a felon for owning such a thing even though it was legal when I bought it. ATF: “We changed our mind. And no your gun isn’t grandfathered. Because fuck you, that’s why.”

      Shit like this is why shooters rail against any gun legislation. One dumb thing after another like this sucks political capital that could be spent on better, more effective gun laws.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m with you. We absolutely need some common sense gun legislation, but every time it comes up, it turns into a political mess. And almost all of the legislation is either like a bandaid on a leaking dam, or overbearing nanny-state bullshit.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m with ya’, but gun debates taught me to avoid the “common sense” argument, in any context.

          If you use those words, you imply that anyone that doesn’t agree doesn’t have “common sense”. It’s a shortcut to say, “You’re an idiot if you don’t accept my premise.” And that’s no way to reach consensus.

          I’d used that term my whole life! Now I avoid it like poison.

          Maybe drifting off topic a bit, but I’d like to hear your “common sense” ideas. There’s got to be ideas we can all come around to.

          I’ll go first, and it seems an easy one; Draconian laws regarding storage. Do it please ya’ gunslinger, but everything other than your primary and secondary self-defense weapons must be locked in a safe. Don’t care about ammo. Don’t care about guns in pieces that you’re working on. Does it fire? Pick two and rotate the rest out your safe(s). That doesn’t seem unreasonable. And if you’re unsecured weapon is stolen or used by a minor? You. Are. Fucked.

          • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            How do you enforce storage laws? Do you regularly inspect people’s homes?

            Storage like that isn’t unreasonable, but the methods required to enforce it are.

              • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                You’ve glossed over how someone would get caught. Storage is done in private residences, so in order to catch someone you’d need to search their homes.

                Regular searches would be unreasonable. As well as any searches just because they own a gun. The only time someone would be charged for this is when another search of the home would be conducted. The law wouldnt protect anyone nor would it increase safety or lower the rates of crimes, but add more charges to someone already being arrested. It would only inflate prison times.

                • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  No, you just make people have a requirement to carry gun insurance. See if the insurance company wants to write you a policy unless it’s sure you’re storing the gun properly. Maybe you need to provide a receipt for a storage locker before they will write the policy.

                  Maybe you do have to have someone inspect it. Plenty of states have motor vehicle inspections.

                  Let the free market solve this problem. Right now. Gun owners want all the toys they can dream of but want zero responsibility for when someone inevitably uses their gun to murder someone.

                • phillaholic@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You can’t keep a Tiger in your living room. In order to catch someone with it, police aren’t going door to door doing Tiger checks. That’s how literally every law works.

  • Nemo Wuming@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Don’t forget that back in 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms reached a Trade Agreement with the Food & Drug Administration

    WASHINGTON, DC—The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and the Food & Drug Administration reached a formal trade agreement Monday. Under the terms of the deal, the ATF will provide the FDA with alcohol, tobacco and firearms in exchange for equal value in food and drugs.

    “My administrative assistants and I were enjoying some of our food the other day when it hit us,” FDA Commissioner Michael Friedman said. “We have tons of food lying around, and tons of drugs, but nothing to drink, smoke or shoot. Then, someone—I think it was [deputy commissioner] Phil [Royce]—suggested we call up those guys at the ATF across town and see what we could get. Turns out, they were ready to deal.”

    https://www.theonion.com/bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-reaches-trade-agr-1819564792

  • It’s because the main laws that regulated these things arise out of different statutes that were enacted at different times and under different circumstances.

    An agency’s main job is to interpret and execute its enabling statute. They may seem similar but the subject matter is all very different.

    You’d have to read about the history of each of these two agencies.

    I don’t know much myself but I suspect they were born out of working groups from predecessor agencies.

  • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Governments are organized according to political processes rather than rational ones.

    Even under ideal conditions, any (especially larger) organizational body is extremely difficult to keep from falling into these types of irrationality.

    We have many names for variations on the phenomenon. I’ll cite groupthink. You can fall down a rabbit hole on your own from there.

  • kn33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yeah, that’s about it. The ATF deals with making minor interpretations of existing law regarding its purview (which are sometimes challenged in court) as well as enforcement of regulation regarding items that are legal. The DEA is all about enforcement of the prohibition on drugs. It’s the same reason that the DEA and the FDA are different, despite both dealing in drugs.

  • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Most people don’t consider alcohol and tobacco drugs, also alcohol, tobacco and guns have been around in the US for hundreds of years. Pretty much all the drugs that the DEA covers are relatively new compared to alcohol and tobacco, Cannabis is probably the only exception but even that wasn’t nearly as common to grow and consume as the other two. The ATF was founded a year before the DEA.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Kinda how I figured it, but didn’t know how closely in time they were founded. Interesting!

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Me either, I looked it up to figure it out and was surprised as well. I thought they were founded further apart. I think the ATF had a different name formerly.

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Alcohol and pills are the good drugs because they come from corporations.

    Moonshine and diacetyl morphine are the bad drugs because they come from criminals.

  • Luke_Fartnocker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    What I want to know is; why is there an enforcement agency for alcohol, tobacco and firearms, when they are are all 3 legal?