Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Congress considering measures to expand access to shooting ranges

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    11-21-04
    Location
    TEXAS, by God
    Posts
    1,821

    Congress considering measures to expand access to shooting ranges

    Wednesday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reported impending action on S. 1249, the "Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act." S. 1249 and its House counterpart, H.R. 3065, would permit a portion of the revenue raised through a long-established federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition to be used for the construction, operation, and maintenance of public shooting ranges.

    This tax--11% on long guns and ammunition, and 10% on handguns--amounts to a considerable sum of money, especially in light of the sustained boom in firearm sales. That money has, since the signing of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act in 1937, been used for wildlife conservation. A discussion about the appropriateness of a federal role in wildlife conservation is beyond the scope of this column, but it is fair to question whether funding such efforts is any more the responsibility of gun buyers than of the rest of the public. In 1937, when a far greater percentage of gun owners were hunters, the case for such a tax was perhaps stronger than it is today.

    There can be no "well-regulated militia" without a large pool of proficient shooters among the citizenry. Much of that proficiency is forged at the range. This legislation can thus be considered "necessary to the security of a free state."

    More here: http://m.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-...hooting-ranges

    My question is, since many states put PR Funds into the general fund, very little to P&W deparments. What will prevent these funds from being used the same way?

    Oneshooter
    Livin in Texas
    'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem' --
    - Ronald Reagan-

  2. #2
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    11-19-03
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    13,086
    I'm amazed they haven't just "redirected" those monies into the General Fund years ago, so hunters and shooters tax dollars can be given to hostile foreign powers.
    I'd rather they just eliminate the tax and let communities proved for their own ranges.
    If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

    http://czforumsite.info/

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-31-08
    Location
    Illiana
    Posts
    5,654
    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]
    They actually took the tax out of the general fund and earmarked it, all the way back in 1937.
    Paul
    People have some respect for the complexity of technology. But almost every ignorant fool thinks he understands money and economics.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    My gerontological paranoia speaking here.

    I don't like the idea that one must ID and sign in to be permitted to shoot, which will undoubtedly be the case on Federally-funded ranges no matter how they're funded.

    Where do these sign-in lists go, and how long are they kept?

    I do it at private ranges, but I don't like the idea.

    Yeah, yeah, you get a hunting license and you're listed.

    Yeah, yeah, you log on to a gun board, and you're listed.

    Yeah, yeah, you buy ammo with a credit card, and you're listed.

    Yeah, yeah, you sign a 4473, and you're listed.

    Yeah, yeah, so you get gun periodicals, and you're listed.

    So you're listed anyhow, so why don't I like it?

    I just don't.

    I remember the objections to registering all the ammunition you bought right after GCA68 became law and the requirement was finally dropped.

    Why? Because people didn't like it as a registration-in-fact.

    And huge computer data bases didn't even exist back then. Nor did 256-bit liquid-nitrogen-cooled supercomputers.

    Gerontological paranoia? Or just "Remembering History?"

    Grump. Grouse. Grumble.

    Terry "Living Historian," 230RN
    "Gun control is not about public safety, crime reduction, or 'the children.' Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they didn't." (An internet poster, not myself.)

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-13-04
    Location
    Tampa Bay area
    Posts
    1,371
    One must ID and sign in to be permitted to shoot, which will undoubtedly be the case on Federally-funded ranges no matter how they're funded.
    Photo ID? But the poor cannot afford photo IDs, Holder said so.
    Same thing smelling rotten to me also.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-31-08
    Location
    Illiana
    Posts
    5,654
    My friendly little private club up north had sign-in sheets, still does probably... just so they knew who was there, to ask, if something happened or got tore up.
    Paul
    People have some respect for the complexity of technology. But almost every ignorant fool thinks he understands money and economics.

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-30-02
    Location
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Posts
    11,339
    More places to shoot? I'm for it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •