Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
Pittman-Robertson Act in Crosshairs of Repeal
Platensek-po:
--- Quote from: pickardjw on July 01, 2022, 12:06:42 PM ---HOWL already has an action up on the site regarding this. Sending mine today.
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/returnact
--- End quote ---
Dond. Thank you for the link!
bearpaw:
--- Quote from: pianoman9701 on July 01, 2022, 12:21:04 PM ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
I agree, I think there are arguments that the tax is unfair to some, especially gun owners who never hunt. I would hate to see the PR funds end completely, that would upend wildlife management in the US, but I could agree with some exceptions to the tax for purchases that have nothing to do with hunting, fishing, or wildlife.
Angry Perch:
--- 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 ---
I'm a supporter of it, but they can't (shouldn't) use the possible negative effects as part of a ruling.
(See some of the recent dissents on SCOTUS cases)
follow maggie:
Here’s the list of sponsors for anyone interested
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors?s=1&r=73&overview=closed
bigtex:
--- Quote from: follow maggie on July 01, 2022, 01:37:26 PM ---Here’s the list of sponsors for anyone interested
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors?s=1&r=73&overview=closed
--- End quote ---
100% Republicans
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version