Why are alcohol, tabacco, and firearms in the same bureau?

[Amadeus]

Why are alcohol, tobacco, and firearms all together? I always get this mental picture of drunk guys wandering around, smoking cigarettes, and a rifle over their shoulder.

[Georgia_JimD]

The agency is changing as we speak. This URL should shed some light... http://www.theonion.com/onion3326/tradeagreement.html

[friedo]

The BATF is actually in the Dept of the Treasury, and was originally started to investigate cases of tobacco and alcohol excise taxes. Since then they've also included firearms and explosives and stuff.

I still don't understand why this can't just be handled by the FBI. Probably because their charter has to do with taxes. In which case why can't it be handled by the IRS or a Secret Service? Both of those agencies have power of arrest. Go figure.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (http://www.atf.treas.gov/)

[CurtC]

As Dave Barry pointed out, these three are the makings of a great camping trip.

[Bear_Nenno]

Tobacco, Alcohol and firearms (Full autos) all require a Tax Stamp for sale. This is why the ATF deals with those three and also why they are a division of the Treasury department.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by CurtC
As Dave Barry pointed out, these three are the makings of a great camping trip.

Dave Berry? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=32738)

[Punoqllads]

Originally posted by Amadeus
Why are alcohol, tobacco, and firearms all together?

One-stop shopping.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Did you know that there are now regulations in place for
American wine labels when it comes to appellations, like "Sonoma County" or "Columbia Valley". The BATF enforces this. I guess some of those vintners get pretty ornery
when they're accused of importing extra-regional grapes into their regionally-labelled wines, then the automatic weapons come out....:D

[Crafter_Man]

Being a firearms enthusiast, I've always considered it a major insult to lump guns with alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco are basically poisons, and do little to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the long run. (Now I'm not anti-alcohol. Hell, I homebrew!) Keeping and bearing arms, by contrast, is the single best way to ensure freedom from government tyranny.

Thus in my eyes, two are basically "bad," and one is good. But to the government, all three are bad. Governments have never liked the idea of an armed populace. Even ours...

Now don't get me wrong; I'm not a right wing militia wacko or anything. In fact, I'm just mimicking the words and sentiments of our Founding Fathers. But when it gets right down to it, you can only be free if you're armed.

[lissener]

Originally posted by Crafter_Man
. . . Keeping and bearing arms . . . is the single best way to ensure freedom from government tyranny.

. . . . .

Now don't get me wrong; I'm not a right wing militia wacko or anything. . . .

". . . I just talk and think like one."

Please see if you can refrain from turning this apolitical question into a soapbox for your personal right wing militia wacko wild-eyed psycho fringe bullshit.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO BEAR ARMS, AND NO COURT HAS EVER FOUND THAT THERE IS.

Sheesh.

[manhattan]

I think you should both take it to Great Debates, or to the Pit.

lissener, your offense was worse because you directly insulted a member in General Questions. Please do not do that again.

[lissener]

Originally posted by manhattan
I think you should both take it to Great Debates, or to the Pit.

lissener, your offense was worse because you directly insulted a member in General Questions. Please do not do that again.

Sorry; I should've just suggested he save it for GD.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by lissener
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO BEAR ARMS, AND NO COURT HAS EVER FOUND THAT THERE IS.

Sheesh.

[/B]

Just for kicks, maybe you should see US v. Emerson (http://www.users.nac.net/thelaw/gonj/emerson.htm) by criminalizing protected Second Amendment activity based upon a civil state court order with no particularized findings, the statute is over-broad and in direct violation of an individual’s Second Amendment rights. and US v. Miller (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174) In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
From US v. Emerson (http://www.users.nac.net/thelaw/gonj/emerson.htm):
It is difficult to interpret Miller as rendering the Second Amendment meaningless as a control on Congress. Ironically, one can read Miller as supporting some of the most extreme anti-gun control arguments; for example, that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly used for modern warfare, including, of course, assault weapons...

(Note to Manhattan:
I'm not debating, I'm correcting a factual error, completely within the spirit of General Questions. :D )