Is Pittman Robertson a good way to demonstate that ammo and guns sales are good...

[gfanikf]

if for those who don't enjoy firearms, but care about the outdoors?

Personally I think it can be argued that the STOP Ammo act (while having no chance of passage) and other bills like it have a detrimental effect on the environment. I mean as we all know public hunting land doesn't only get used for hunting, but for the benefit of all who use the land. Personally I think it's an effective tool for discussing the issues with non-shooters or people somewhat neutral to guns in general, but who has an interest in conservation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman-Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

The Pittman-Robertson Act took over a pre-existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.[7][8] Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money is kept separate and is given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the States.[4][8][9] The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.[2][3][6][9][10]
States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the State’s fish and game department.[3][6][8] Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.[6] Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of wildlife and/or habitat and acquisition or lease of land, among other things.[1][6][10] Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through P-R funds.[1][3][10] The 25% of the cost that the State must pay generally comes from its hunting license sales.[1] If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.[6][9]
In the 1970s, amendments created a 10% tax on handguns and their ammunition and accessories as well as an 11% tax on archery equipment.[1][2][3][8][10] It was also mandated that half of the money from each of those new taxes must be used to educate and train hunters through the creation and maintenance of hunter safety classes and shooting/target ranges.[1][2][3][10]

 

[jmr40]

I think so. Few hunters and shooters are even aware of the law. It is not only shooting gear, but anything used in hunting of fishing that is taxed.

 

[gfanikf]

I think so. Few hunters and shooters are even aware of the law. It is not only shooting gear, but anything used in hunting of fishing that is taxed.

Agreed, I mean every time someone buys a Glock, they help protect the environment!

When you buy 45ACP, you help the preservation of America's public lands to be enjoyed by all!

When you buy an AR-15, you help buy more public land!

I'm having fun coming up with taglines, the NRA and NSSF should really try this angle.

 

[jmr40]

This also funds hunter education classes.

 

[gfanikf]

This also funds hunter education classes.

Very true, but I'm thinking of angling it to people not interested in hunting and in general neutral about firearms.

 

[jmr40]

Maybe, but I think it is more useful against the anti-hunting movement. There are lots of anti-hunters who have no clue that the millions that hunters and shooters have voluntarily paid it taxes over the decades have actually done a lot of good for wldlife. Far more than their talking has done. When confronted with an anti-hunter using the PR law is a good defense. Ask them how much money they have actually put up. Tell them to put their money where their mouths are.

 

[gfanikf]

Maybe, but I think it is more useful against the anti-hunting movement. There are lots of anti-hunters who have no clue that the millions that hunters and shooters have voluntarily paid it taxes over the decades have actually done a lot of good for wldlife. Far more than their talking has done. When confronted with an anti-hunter using the PR law is a good defense. Ask them how much money they have actually put up. Tell them to put their money where their mouths are.

I agree, though with hunting the best use is arguing to the 80% who don't hunt, but don't actively oppose it (neutrals), vs Antis.

My thought about applying it to a non-hunting context is because handguns and handgun ammo funds it too, it's not just an act by hunters, every time some guy buys a bulk order at Sgammo/Aim/etc they just helped fund conservation and habitat defense. I'd love to see any data done on the breakdown of where money flows into PR (ie handgun vs rifle vs archery vs ammo etc). You can then say to someone if you restrict purchases of ammo and guns, you are directly hurting the environment.