Pittman-Robertson Act in Crosshairs of Repeal

[GASoline71]

Just saw this today

https://www.gohunt.com/content/news/new-bill-aims-to-repeal-pittman-robertson-act

https://www.fieldandstream.com/conservation/bill-repeal-pittman-robertson/

Gary

[Jake Dogfish]

“HR 8167, while just introduced on June 22, 2022, already has 53 co-sponsors (all Republican).”
Partisans attacking our fishing and hunting. 

[X-Force]

Stupid.

[elkboy]

Gun ownership and expression of 2A rights survived just fine for decades with PR excise, which has been a boon for conservation. It's the more recent threats to gun rights that need the focus.

[Special T]

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.

[Boss .300 winmag]

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.🤬🤬🤬

[JimmyHoffa]

I was thinking along the same lines, SpecialT.  Too much abuse allowing money generated by hunters and shooters to be used for items not only not benefiting hunting, but actively working against.  Predators are a great example.  Preferably, they would just clean up the program so it works as intended.

[pianoman9701]

It's an interesting bill, which will go nowhere, IMO. I actually would love to see the Ds confused as to which way to vote on it. Guns - bad. Taxes - good. I think the GA freshman and others supporting this bill don't understand that PR has the support of tens of millions of gun owners and sportsmen, or what it actually does for wildlife conservation. They will soon hear from them. I do agree that when they can get away with it, they'll abuse the funds for political reasons.

[elkboy]

Some good reading here (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45667.pdf)-  seems the majority of funding is by statute either directly allocated to hunter education, or apportioned to the states for a number of programs.  Not a lot about non-game species, although that certainly seems to be a valid area for states to expend PR funds.  So that might be an issue to be fixed at the state level, not at the national level. 

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. 

[Angry Perch]

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

[bearpaw]

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.

   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]

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.

[elkboy]

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.         

[pickardjw]

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

https://www.howlforwildlife.org/returnact

[pianoman9701]

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.