The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider whether Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a ban on distilling spirits in private homes more than 150 years ago.
Plaintiffs challenging the prohibition on home distilling claim the 1868 law is an antiquated relic of Reconstruction-era politics. They argue that Congress overstepped its taxation powers when it enacted the home distilling ban as part of a tax reform measure designed to curb fraud by commercial distillers.
Government attorneys counter that Congress properly restricted where spirits can be distilled to prevent producers from evading federal excise taxes. They warn that lifting the ban would violate Supreme Court precedent and erode congressional powers.
Yeah, you can also distill using pressure swings entirely to be completely safe.
My neighbor is a licensed gunsmith and gun dealer. He still gets drunk, forgets which guns are loaded, and puts new holes in his walls every few months.
Something tells me that the people most excited about the prospect might have a “safety third” mindset.
Overall, I’m not against getting rid of the ban, even a fairly large still explosion probably won’t take out more than the distiller/their family, and I’m smart enough to not buy sketchy Bob’s moonshine. It does mean I get to play a bit more without breaking any laws.
Safety third doesn’t mean don’t think of safety. As much as I loathe Mike Rowe, it’s a valuable philosophy regarding safety. The idea is that “safety first” is so cliche as to be borderline useless, and at worst leads people to think that so long as they follow procedures and wear PPE, that they can’t be hurt, like some warding spell. Safety third puts personal responsibility and awareness of ones surroundings before safety