Pittman-Robertson Act in Crosshairs of Repeal

[Platensek-po]

HOWL already has an action up on the site regarding this. Sending mine today.

https://www.howlforwildlife.org/returnact

Dond. Thank you for the link!

[bearpaw]

Regardless of what god the money might do, is it Constitutional to have a significant tax on firearms?

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.

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.       

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.

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]

Regardless of what god the money might do, is it Constitutional to have a significant tax on firearms?

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.

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]

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

100% Republicans

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[follow maggie]

Yep. Another example of how republicans aren’t friends of sportsmen.

[pianoman9701]

Yep. Another example of how republicans aren’t friends of sportsmen.

This certainly wouldn't help sportsmen. He believes he's following his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, which is more than almost every Democrat in office. I don't want this bill to happen and I don't think it will. But if you thought you had to make a choice between sportsmen or the rights of all gun owners, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer for me.

[bearpaw]

Yep. Another example of how republicans aren’t friends of sportsmen.

 

[Cougartail]

Yep. Another example of how republicans aren’t friends of sportsmen.

Good Lord..

[blackdog]

This could be aptly named the “Lorna Smith End Hunting Act”.

[elkboy]

Used to be that elected officials could be both pro-hunting and pro-2A.  That really ought to be the no-brainer here, I would think.  Piano, I agree that fundamental rights are always going to rate highest, but I really don't think that's a choice that really needs to be made, necessarily!

And I would support exempting clearly defensive weapons or ammo from PR excise.

[buckfvr]

Bringing light to the disparity put upon the millions of gun owners who do not hunt, this should be likened to requiring ALL politicians to pay into Social Security and not ever draw on it.

[Rob]

Pr funds are for more than wilflife.  The funds are used to enhance gun ranges and teach safety. 

All shooters benefit.  Not just hunters.

Loss of PR would put shooting and conservation efforts further at risk.

[Jake Dogfish]

Yep. Another example of how republicans aren’t friends of sportsmen.

 

Neither the democrat or the republican half of the ruling party support sportsmen as their is no money in it.
If PR was ended, we would need something to replace it, and I don’t trust the politicians to do that.

[Bob33]

If it's unconstitutional to tax firearms remove the sales tax. If that still doesn't do it subsidize the industry and make all guns $1.

What a ridiculous effort. Shame on the Republicans who are pushing this.