Proposed repeal of Pittman Robertson Act - Thoughts?

[Inigoes]

DOA

The more the bill sponsors are thinking about it, they are jumping ship.

The largest effect: leaving a huge gap in conservation and nothing to replace it.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[gtodave]

DOA

The more the bill sponsors are thinking about it, they are jumping ship.

The largest effect: leaving a huge gap in conservation and nothing to replace it.

MSN

www.msn.com

Literally the same link I posted one ahead of you

 

[ericoak]

CA just passed a big tax on guns and ammo. Probably going to be tougher to knockdown in courts since this threads shows even a surprisingly large percentage of gun owners WANT taxes on guns and ammo because it subsidizes their hobbies.

 

[Occam]

If a single lefty non-gun-buyer/owner steps foot on grounds that are maintained using funds that are in large part derived from taxes on a product (guns) and a people (gun owners) they say they hate, then those funds should come out of the broader tax base. Write a bill that maintains the funding, but spreads the burden across everyone who benefits from conserved wilderness (which is: everyone). Hunters can still be glad the conservation is happening, but they can be glad that everyone is helping to pay for it, instead of just them. This is true for all sorts of federal expenditures that primarily please a smaller subset of the population - no reason this should be any different. They is making keeping the funds locked onto their current purpose, but broadening the means of appropriations. What are the lefties going to say, that preserving forests and wildlands is a bad thing? Or that only the people they hate should pay for it?