Bill introduced to eliminate PR funding

Downeast

Downeast

Happy to be here
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
3,392
Location
28433
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
For those who know the history of hunting in the USA many of the game species we hunt today were in dire peril a hundred years ago, with the whitetail deer and wild turkey at the top of the list. It was the hunter who lobbied Congress in the 30's to create an excise tax on guns and ammunition that would go directly to managing wildlife resources across the nation. For anyone taking the time to visit our Game Lands if you take a few moments to read the notices on the kiosks you will see statements pertaining to projects paid for by PR funds. Without PR money the GL program would collapse as there is no way that the states could afford to maintain them (roads, impoundments, plantings, etc.). As hunters WE paid for most of the wildlife that we enjoy today. I can imagine that the Dingell-Johnson Act to restore fisheries (striped bass restoration, trout stocking, to name a few) and fish research would be eliminated as well.

This bill needs to be killed now.

 
I find that the name of the bill "Return our Constitutional Rights Act of 2022" personally insulting. If he was serious about returning our rights he would be fighting to eliminate Article 1, Section 8. Much like the Bible, so many pick and choose snippets of our Constitution to support their opinions.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .
 
Last edited:
Downeast said:
For those who know the history of hunting in the USA many of the game species we hunt today were in dire peril a hundred years ago, with the whitetail deer and wild turkey at the top of the list. It was the hunter who lobbied Congress in the 30's to create an excise tax on guns and ammunition that would go directly to managing wildlife resources across the nation. For anyone taking the time to visit our Game Lands if you take a few moments to read the notices on the kiosks you will see statements pertaining to projects paid for by PR funds. Without PR money the GL program would collapse as there is no way that the states could afford to maintain them (roads, impoundments, plantings, etc.). As hunters WE paid for most of the wildlife that we enjoy today. I can imagine that the Dingell-Johnson Act to restore fisheries (striped bass restoration, trout stocking, to name a few) and fish research would be eliminated as well.

This bill needs to be killed now.

Click to expand...
Eh I'm not sold. I need to pay more taxes so mr green jeans can keep on thinking he don't need warrants? Commercial hunting is what caused the issues back then.

Any and all tax on arms is as unconstitutional as a poll tax if you ask me.
 
These funds cannot be used for salaries to pay Mr. Green Jeans. But I understand that folks that don't hunt or fish could care less. Perhaps we need to focus more on eliminating those nasty bits of the Constitution like Article 1, Section 8.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .

;)
 
Downeast said:
These funds cannot be used for salaries to pay Mr. Green Jeans. But I understand that folks that don't hunt or fish could care less. Perhaps we need to focus more on eliminating those nasty bits of the Constitution like Article 1, Section 8.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .

;)
Click to expand...
I don't hunt for real anymore but it's way more of the entire shall not be infringed thing I'm yelling about
 
Last edited:
Downeast said:
PR funding does nothing to infringe on firearm rights. and has been around for almost a hundred years.
Click to expand...
sorry but I have to call BS on this. A tax on a constitutional right is an infringement. Hence the poll tax example. Just because it’s a small tax, doesn’t mean it’s not an infringement. If you still disagree, then I guess you’d support the proposed $1k tax on “assault weapons”?
 
Jerzsubbie said:
sorry but I have to call BS on this. A tax on a constitutional right is an infringement. Hence the poll tax example. Just because it’s a small tax, doesn’t mean it’s not an infringement. If you still disagree, then I guess you’d support the proposed $1k tax on “assault weapons”?
Click to expand...

Interesting. I need to think about this.

SCOTUS flip-flopped on poll taxes a few times in the 20th century, and the best argument wasn't really the passing of the 24th amendment but the equal protection clause of the 14th. So your argument is that all recognized rights in the BOR cannot be taxed because any tax on them is unconstitutional, based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

If it sounds like I am arguing, I am not. Just trying to understand.
 
I just found out that PR funds can also be used for Hunter Ed and public ranges. Most of the public ranges throughout the state that the WRC operates or leases to the counties were initially built using PR money. And if you use a public boat ramp managed by the WRC they were built using Dingell-Johnson tax money derived from the sale of fishing tackle and boat gas.

I think this is one of the biggest attacks on sportsmen and the shooting sports in decades. And totally supported by 57 RINO cosponsors.

Pittman–Robertson Act

www.hunter-ed.com www.hunter-ed.com
 
Last edited:
Chuckman said:
Interesting. I need to think about this.

SCOTUS flip-flopped on poll taxes a few times in the 20th century, and the best argument wasn't really the passing of the 24th amendment but the equal protection clause of the 14th. So your argument is that all recognized rights in the BOR cannot be taxed because any tax on them is unconstitutional, based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

If it sounds like I am arguing, I am not. Just trying to understand.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t thinking in terms of the various amendments, but equal protection does seem like a good argument. My argument is more logic/principal than legal-based.

Taxes are a common way to discourage an activity. The higher the tax, the less people buy said good/service. Conversely, gov lowers taxes to encourage certain activities. Gov often gains power via taxation.

That said, the gov should have no ability to discourage any constitutional right.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
I wasn’t thinking in terms of the various amendments, but equal protection does seem like a good argument. My argument is more logic/principal than legal-based.

Taxes are a common way to discourage an activity. The higher the tax, the less people buy said good/service. Conversely, gov lowers taxes to encourage certain activities. Gov often gains power via taxation.

That said, the gov should have no ability to discourage any constitutional right.
Click to expand...

life, liberty, property

yet they tax all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom