Post by: GASoline71 on June 30, 2022, 08:34:20 PM
https://www.gohunt.com/content/news/new-bill-aims-to-repeal-pittman-robertson-act
https://www.fieldandstream.com/conservation/bill-repeal-pittman-robertson/
Gary
Post by: Jake Dogfish on June 30, 2022, 09:08:55 PM
Partisans attacking our fishing and hunting. :bash:
Post by: X-Force on June 30, 2022, 09:09:45 PM
Post by: elkboy on June 30, 2022, 09:47:15 PM
Post by: Special T on June 30, 2022, 10:43:59 PM
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.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on July 01, 2022, 06:16:57 AM
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.
Yep, I was thinking the same thing. Wolves were funded illegally by it.🤬🤬🤬
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 01, 2022, 07:50:50 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 01, 2022, 08:10:13 AM
Post by: elkboy on July 01, 2022, 08:34:20 AM
I am all for the majority of uses of PR funds, including expansion of shooting ranges. I have lived in several places where it was not convenient at all to get to a range. And hunter education, including archery hunting education programs, is always worthwhile. Throwing the whole business out the window, rather than fixing specific problems, just seems misguided.
Post by: Angry Perch on July 01, 2022, 11:30:59 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 01, 2022, 11:37:29 AM
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.
: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!
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 01, 2022, 11:46:20 AM
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.
Post by: elkboy on July 01, 2022, 11:56:13 AM
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.
Post by: pickardjw on July 01, 2022, 12:06:42 PM
https://www.howlforwildlife.org/returnact
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 01, 2022, 12:21:04 PM
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.
Post by: Platensek-po on July 01, 2022, 12:30:14 PM
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!
Post by: bearpaw on July 01, 2022, 12:33:03 PM
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.
Post by: Angry Perch on July 01, 2022, 12:40:54 PM
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)
Post by: follow maggie on July 01, 2022, 01:37:26 PM
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors?s=1&r=73&overview=closed
Post by: bigtex on July 01, 2022, 03:48:19 PM
Here’s the list of sponsors for anyone interested100% Republicans
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8167/cosponsors?s=1&r=73&overview=closed
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: follow maggie on July 01, 2022, 04:32:13 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 01, 2022, 04:57:27 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on July 02, 2022, 03:27:49 PM
Yep. Another example of how republicans aren’t friends of sportsmen.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Cougartail on July 02, 2022, 06:33:02 PM
Yep. Another example of how republicans aren’t friends of sportsmen.
Good Lord.. :bash:
Post by: blackdog on July 02, 2022, 06:39:53 PM
Post by: elkboy on July 02, 2022, 07:19:14 PM
And I would support exempting clearly defensive weapons or ammo from PR excise.
Post by: buckfvr on July 03, 2022, 09:19:23 AM
Post by: Rob on July 03, 2022, 09:23:15 AM
All shooters benefit. Not just hunters.
Loss of PR would put shooting and conservation efforts further at risk.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on July 03, 2022, 09:38:54 AM
Neither the democrat or the republican half of the ruling party support sportsmen as their is no money in it.Yep. Another example of how republicans aren’t friends of sportsmen.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
If PR was ended, we would need something to replace it, and I don’t trust the politicians to do that.
Post by: Bob33 on July 03, 2022, 09:43:23 AM
What a ridiculous effort. Shame on the Republicans who are pushing this.
Post by: Angry Perch on July 03, 2022, 11:06:50 PM