[David Kopel, June 30, 2008 at 5:21pm] Trackbacks
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms party:

On Saturday, the Independence Institute held its 6th annual Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms party. We shot sporting clays in the morning, and then ate, smoked, and drank in the afternoon. Fred Barnes (of the Weekly Standard) and Jonathan Hoenig (financial journalist for Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and others) were the guest speakers. If you missed the event, you can view pictures at the Independence Institute website, coverage (with a slideshow) at Face the State (a right-wing Colorado news website), coverage with a slideshow and a soundtrack at the Colorado Independent (a left-wing Colorado news website), and in Westword (the Denver metro area's weekly alternative and entertainment newspaper).

If you would be interested in listening to radio replays or other audio podcasts of my analysis of Heller, there are plethora of links on my home page.

Something Wicked:
Sounds so much better than the order Cheney did it in.
6.30.2008 6:40pm
_anonymous_:
What, no explosives? You guys aren't keeping up with the times, LOL!
6.30.2008 7:16pm
anonymouseducator:
That sounds like more fun than my cocaine and pornography parties, if only because there are other people involved.
6.30.2008 7:40pm
Dennis Nicholls (mail):
It's odd how the whole bureau may be unconstitutional. The Feds are prohibited from regulating firearms by the 2nd Amd, and also prohibited from regulating alcohol by the 21st Amd, second section (removes alcohol from the commerce clause). I guess we can let them regulate tobacco but the FDA is trying to take over that racket.
6.30.2008 8:20pm
The Ace:
I know "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" party rolls of the tongue. Nonetheless, it should probably be called "the Firearms, Alcohol and Tobacco" party.
6.30.2008 10:03pm
pgepps (www):
quite understood, Ace, but then people would call it FAT
6.30.2008 11:26pm
wacki:
Kopel,

I've been trying to figure out the answer to this question for some time and information on the topic is sparse at best.

Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, said this:


The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.



If you are to believe the dissenting justices in the recent and very close SCOTUS case then the following would have to be true:

There was a total ban of arms in Europe.

Why? Because if arms were a privilege in Europe then they would have to be a right in America in order for Madison's quote to be true. Remember, according to Madison:

America >>>>>> Almost all of Europe on freedom with arms.

This is a very simple and somewhat scientific test:

Rights >>>>> Privilege >>>>>> Total Ban

The 4 dissenting judges of SCOTUS have a problem:
*The English Bill of Rights preserves the RKBA - somewhat
*Switzerland Est. 1291
What I'm interested in is how common arms were in the rest of the European countries at the time of the Bill of Rights:
http://www.euratlas.com/time2.htm

Any idea how I can figure out what 18th century European civilian firearm ownership was like? Thanks in advance.

BTW, I love your Samurai, Mountie, Cowboy book
6.30.2008 11:58pm
UW2L:
Hmm. More comprehensive than my Tea and Firearms birthday party, but I'll wager mine beat yours for quantity of dainty biscuits and finger sandwiches served.
7.1.2008 4:47am
Big Bill (mail):
What a wonderful party. And what an effective twist to liberal tail.

One must explain the event in liberal lingo for liberals to truly understand the significance, however.

The ATF event was not a "party", it should be thought of as a "multi-artist transgressive performance art installation."

Think about it. Had the participants played their cards right they could have gotten federal arts funding for their "art show".
7.1.2008 8:55am
DonP (mail):
I guess it's up to me to say it ... bumper sticker wise.

"Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store not a Federal Bureau."

Sounds a lot like our annual "Red Dawn Picnic" outing here in gun repressed Illinois.
7.1.2008 12:32pm
Allan Walstad (mail):
Dave, if you're still following this, I have a question for you. The number of justifiable homicides as reported in the FBI data is only a few hundred, most of them by police. But that doesn't mean all the rest of the fillings, outside of accidents and suicides, were murders, does it? I seem to recall that is, for example, one is acquitted of murder it still doesn't go into the statistics as a justifiable homicide.

I'm asking because of an AP article that appeared in my local paper today. It says in 2005, 55% of "gun deaths" were suicides, 40% were homicides, 3% were accidents, and 2% "included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent." I'm thinking of writing a letter to the editor, and I'd like to get straight if possible on how much of the 40% has actually finally cashed out as murders.

Thanks.
Allan Walstad
Johnstown, PA



[DK: Gary Kleck's book Targeting Guns contains the information you need to respond to that despicable article. Also, some of the social science amicus briefs in DC v. Heller, www.dcguncase.org will have relevant information.]
7.1.2008 2:39pm
Allan Walstad (mail):
"...Killings, outside of accidents and suicides, were murders, does it? I seem to recall that iF..." Sorry for the typos.
7.1.2008 2:44pm