Feds give state $4mil towards 1 new range, and 1 remodel

[JeremiahJohnson]

A "D" or "R" by their name doesn't exclude them from doing the right thing for sportmen and women:

"In 2000, when evidence surfaced that the Pittman-Robertson Act sportsman`s conservation trust funds were being mismanaged, NRA board member and sportsman, U.S. Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act. The act passed the House 423–2 and became law on Nov. 1, 2000 and defines in what manner the monies can be spent"

 

[t-squared]

Is that the new ground birt material I have not read about ?

His buddy Ernie might be helping him build them!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Hurray! Free money!

It's not free. We paid up.

 

[Alamo]

I am of mixed feelings. On one hand I don't think the Feds should be building ranges for the general use of private citizens, nor should they be building or doing a lot of other stuff they do for citizens. On the other hand, if they don't use the money to build a range, I am double-dang sure they would not cancel the ammo taxes and give the money back to put in our pockets, they'd just blow it on studying the patriarchal oppression by the masturbatory rituals of the southern rock-hopping penguin as explained through the hixtory (yes it's a "word" now, look it up) of gender, class, and race of the early polar explorers. So if the gubmint is going to blow money on something, might as well be a range.

 

[Expat]

As I recall the history of this, sportsman groups voluntarily accepted the tax with the understanding that the money would only be used for this sort of spending.

 

[Libertarian01]

A "D" or "R" by their name doesn't exclude them from doing the right thing for sportmen and women:

"In 2000, when evidence surfaced that the Pittman-Robertson Act sportsman`s conservation trust funds were being mismanaged, NRA board member and sportsman, U.S. Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act. The act passed the House 423–2 and became law on Nov. 1, 2000 and defines in what manner the monies can be spent"

You are correct. A D or R makes absolutely, positively NO difference.

A true fiscal conservative would have KILLED the program entirely!!! A fiscal conservative would have said, "Let the sportsmen and women find their own ways to fund these noble projects through voluntary donations OR free market alternatives." But NO, let us keep our hands in the taxpayers pockets! Let us keep our authority! Let us continue with our nanny state program!

Heaven forbid we actually start to see the budget get cut. So yes, as you said, there is no difference between a D and R when it comes to continuing to take and spend for the nanny state.

Now that my little poke is over, let me say that I really don't care one way or the other. In the grand scheme of things the program has raised $2 billion according to your link. That represents less than 1/10 of 1% of the federal budget. And I also like the ranges. I really do! I use Roush Lake from time to time. However, I I also believe that $2 billion would have been a nice starting point to cut the budget.

My goal here is to remind one and all that we can be as guilty as the most progressive liberal when it comes to supporting a program WE believe in! We are not immune to being bought and paid for, we just don't like to admit it as much.

Regards,

Doug

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Not really the same thing at all Doug. Sportsmen and women agreed to this tax because it wasn't an income tax, not a sales tax, not any kind of tax that hits anyone but the sportsmen and women that use these resources. We gladly give up a percentage of sales/purchases of sporting equipment used in pursuit of these animals or activities to further expand the already owned property of the people for better use of the people. sportsmen and women pay - only they pay and they give it up gladly for it's intended use. It's not like a general tax that goes GOD KNOWS WHERE at all. Not at all the same thing.

 

[Libertarian01]

Not really the same thing at all Doug. Sportsmen and women agreed to this tax because it wasn't an income tax, not a sales tax, not any kind of tax that hits anyone but the sportsmen and women that use these resources. We gladly give up a percentage of sales/purchases of sporting equipment used in pursuit of these animals or activities to further expand the already owned property of the people for better use of the people. sportsmen and women pay - only they pay and they give it up gladly for it's intended use. It's not like a general tax that goes GOD KNOWS WHERE at all. Not at all the same thing.

Sir,

EVERYONE who voted for the original source of the tax/fee (ie. funding mechanism) is dead! Almost everyone who could have voted for a politician that supported the original Pittman-Robertson Act is dead. Not all, as the first election before 1937 was 1936. To have voted for any of these politicians an American citizen would have had to have been born in 1915 or earlier. According to the US Census 2010 there are about 55,000 people alive today that could have voted for the politicians that supported this original taxing bill. That is 0.02% of the population.

So I would humbly suggest that there is NO "active" sportsman or sportswoman alive today that agreed by choice to this bill. Until today I have bought ammunition and did not know I was being taxed for this Act. How many millions are in the same boat? Most, I would presume. Ignorance of a tax is not the same at all of "giv(ing) it up gladly." I certainly did not give it up gladly. How could I have if I did not know I was being taxed extra?

But that is fine. I am not mad or angry about it. My point is that this is a nanny state, big government program you like, so you and many others are OK with it. Heaven forbid we do away with the program and ask sportsfolks to cognizantly and truly voluntarily fund it at the same level. Except we all know that the same dollar amount would NOT be raised, so we leave it to Big Brother to pass the collection plate around for us. Or, if you prefer, we simply don't fight this preexisting program and let it silently run in the background.

Regards,

Doug

 

[bocefus78]

Never in my life would I have thought that a post about local public gun ranges receiving $ that it rightfully should get, from people who agreed to give it to them, would turn into something that's going to end up getting moved into the political forum.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Doug, if I'm not mistaken, the Pittman-Robertson money also goes to things like establishing wildlife preserves, preventing development (even by the government) and protecting habitat for game an non-game animals alike. When I was in high school and had to do debating, I usually chose hunting or shooting subjects to debate (this was in the 70's about the time the ecology movement was really starting to get legs an a lot of people were anti-hunting). One of the suggestions I made to people that wanted to "preserve nature" was to go out and buy a hunting license and a box of ammo. Even if they never used either, they would be contributing to the cause that they claimed to support.

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug, if I'm not mistaken, the Pittman-Robertson money also goes to things like establishing wildlife preserves, preventing development (even by the government) and protecting habitat for game an non-game animals alike. When I was in high school and had to do debating, I usually chose hunting or shooting subjects to debate (this was in the 70's about the time the ecology movement was really starting to get legs an a lot of people were anti-hunting). One of the suggestions I made to people that wanted to "preserve nature" was to go out and buy a hunting license and a box of ammo. Even if they never used either, they would be contributing to the cause that they claimed to support.

I think it is tremendously noble to support a cause, any cause, that is for the betterment of the world or mankind. Even if I don't prioritize saving the whales or setting aside land for wildlife I am glad there are people who do.

I would suggest instead of buying something that forces the dollars to be split up you donate to an NGO so that 100% of the money supports the work and/or workers you want it to, not just a portion. There are a host of organizations such as the National Audubon Society, the African Wildlife Foundation, Oceana, the Wildlife Conservation Society, etc etc. The list goes on and on. Don't like one of the ones I listed? Pick another. There are MANY!

Ignorantly paying a tax that supports a cause is not the same as intentionally supporting a cause. And I am NOT against the government doing certain things. I love NASA. I think we should do away with the Department of Education. However, I acknowledge there are those who would do away with NASA and support the DoE. Who is right? I believe I am. This doesn't make it so, only in my mind. I believe I could make a rational, logical argument that NASA brings returns that the DoE doesn't. However, in order to reduce my hypocrisy I support the Sequestration. It cut across ALL programs, even those I support.

I am not against this program. I merely started by pointing out how bloody easy it is to whine, b***h, and complain about those "evil, overreaching" government programs while at the same time embracing the idea when it supports a cause that is agreed with. Oh, the irony.

We all know we pay sales tax. What we don't know is what the import duty is on a massive amount of products! Nor do many people know there is an extra $0.40 tax per arrow for bows. This ignorance is NOT the same as support. And even when we are cognizant of the tax that doesn't mean we necessarily support it, this just means we aren't willing to expend the energy to try and fight it. Not fighting a thing does not equal supporting a thing.

I support conservation. I like public gun ranges, and I am not willing to call my congressman to lobby for removing this particular nanny state program. However, this doesn't equal my support of the program either. Want to support conservation? Donate to a conservation group, don't foist a tax upon the masses of shooters who may buy ammo in big cities and NEVER see a return on their "voluntary" tax!

Regards,

Doug

 

[OakRiver]

It's not free. We paid up.

But Bernie said free **kicks stone in disappointment**

 

[gundawg]

Any "federal" money coming to Indiana from excise taxes collected under Pittman-Robertson are apportioned and returned based on the size of our state and the number of licensed hunters and fisherman. In a very real sense, this is the federal government collecting our money and then sending some of it, not all of it, back to us.

In other words, it's our money, not the federal government's money.

In fact, the federal government doesn't have any money it doesn't take from us in the first place. It's all our money, which our elected officials take from us and redistribute as they see fit (i.e., as suits their personal and political agendas and not proportionally back to the states in most cases), after sucking up a good chunk of it for themselves.

 

[ryknoll3]

So they take our tax money, appropriate some of it back to remodel our ranges so we can pay to use them.

 

[oldpink]

The idea that money from a tax paid with each ammo, firearm, and other sporting equipment purchase being used to further the shooting sports is a source of contention is proof that it would be impossible to get a room full of 100 people to even agree about the current temperature.

 

[Deet]

Here we go again. Build new range with my money, charge me to use it and let a company from Illinois run it and profit from it, yea!

 

[gundawg]

The idea that money from a tax paid with each ammo, firearm, and other sporting equipment purchase being used to further the shooting sports is a source of contention is proof that it would be impossible to get a room full of 100 people to even agree about the current temperature.

In my experience, it's difficult to get more than 3 people to agree on where to have lunch.

This is one reason why committees often have difficulty getting anything done. Unless there is strong leadership or general consensus, much of the time is spent on debating what to do.

 

[Libertarian01]

Think of it this way - what is the big problem with taxing those who use gasoline to support the roads and bridges we all drive on? And there will be no argument against increasing this particular tax since we haven't increased it in decades.

We all support that don't we? We all want safe roads and bridges and won't mind a whit when they up the tax on gasoline, 'cause good cause an' all...

Or the fact that we pay dozens of little taxes all floating around in the background that are never seen unless there is a specific knowledge of these.

I'm not against taxes. I am not against supporting gun ranges or environmental conservation. But I find it funny in a silly way that most on these boards will complain about the evil, overreach of big brother yet turn around and applaud when big brother hands us a cookie. Handouts for not like me = bad. Handouts for like me = good. The irony is thick.

Kind Regards,

Doug