Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
Pittman-Robertson Act in Crosshairs of Repeal
bearpaw:
--- Quote from: Special T on June 30, 2022, 10:43:59 PM ---I think this is wrong but Im gonna play devils advocate because some one needs to. Fact. we generate a huge sum a money. Fact, Anti hunting groups have been able to tap into this huge sum to fight conservation in the name of conservation. Wolves, cougars, grizzlies dont need protection. fact is we are funding our enemies and that is in part because the democrat party has allowed those funds to be used against sportsmen's interests.
The problem as I see it has to do with the fact that the ESA allows Sue and Settle techniques that give advantage to anti hunting groups and give an unfair advantage against sportsmen. I understand why we should oppose taking away our funding because it gives us a superior voice... question is how do we solve the problem that Antis are using our $ against us.
--- End quote ---
:yeah: PR needs to be revised to prevent robbing funds to use against sports folks, here's the problem, with the current congress, now is not the time to do it! This needs to wait till next year!
pianoman9701:
--- Quote from: Angry Perch on July 01, 2022, 11:30:59 AM ---Regardless of what god the money might do, is it Constitutional to have a significant tax on firearms?
--- End quote ---
Damn good question. PR was forwarded and supported by the sporting community. That's probably why it's never been challenged, or at least I can't find where it has. That doesn't mean that all gun owners would be in favor of paying that extra tax that non-gun owners don't. Get it in front of C. Thomas and who knows what the SCOTUS would do. Overturning it would certainly be devastating to not only conservation, but the future of hunting. We (hunters) currently hold most of the cards when it comes to conservation dollars between PR and licensing. Losing PR would mean we don't have as loud a voice in wildlife issues.
elkboy:
--- Quote from: pianoman9701 on July 01, 2022, 11:46:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Angry Perch on July 01, 2022, 11:30:59 AM ---Regardless of what god the money might do, is it Constitutional to have a significant tax on firearms?
--- End quote ---
Damn good question. PR was forwarded and supported by the sporting community. That's probably why it's never been challenged, or at least I can't find where it has. That doesn't mean that all gun owners would be in favor of paying that extra tax that non-gun owners don't. Get it in front of C. Thomas and who knows what the SCOTUS would do. Overturning it would certainly be devastating to not only conservation, but the future of hunting. We (hunters) currently hold most of the cards when it comes to conservation dollars between PR and licensing. Losing PR would mean we don't have as loud a voice in wildlife issues.
--- End quote ---
Totally agree. We (hunters) frequently tout PR funds and license fees, as well as hunting-oriented non-profits, as "paying the freight" for a LOT of conservation. If there are problems with how PR is being expended, fix the problems. I don't see it as infringing on constitutional rights to levy a tax on firearms and ammunition, at least not at the 10-11% rate.
pickardjw:
HOWL already has an action up on the site regarding this. Sending mine today.
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/returnact
pianoman9701:
--- Quote from: elkboy on July 01, 2022, 11:56:13 AM ---
--- Quote from: pianoman9701 on July 01, 2022, 11:46:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Angry Perch on July 01, 2022, 11:30:59 AM ---Regardless of what god the money might do, is it Constitutional to have a significant tax on firearms?
--- End quote ---
Damn good question. PR was forwarded and supported by the sporting community. That's probably why it's never been challenged, or at least I can't find where it has. That doesn't mean that all gun owners would be in favor of paying that extra tax that non-gun owners don't. Get it in front of C. Thomas and who knows what the SCOTUS would do. Overturning it would certainly be devastating to not only conservation, but the future of hunting. We (hunters) currently hold most of the cards when it comes to conservation dollars between PR and licensing. Losing PR would mean we don't have as loud a voice in wildlife issues.
--- End quote ---
Totally agree. We (hunters) frequently tout PR funds and license fees, as well as hunting-oriented non-profits, as "paying the freight" for a LOT of conservation. If there are problems with how PR is being expended, fix the problems. I don't see it as infringing on constitutional rights to levy a tax on firearms and ammunition, at least not at the 10-11% rate.
--- End quote ---
There could be an argument that this tax is discriminatory and makes it more difficult for poorer Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, not only with the original purchase but ongoingly purchasing ammo.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version