TexasCHLforum.com

Just ran across this...

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/house-v ... ac8a689741

sbrawley wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:33 pm Maybe they’ll eventually allow carry into post offices. I won’t hold my breath.

It would be nice if we could legally enter the parking lot with a gun in the car.

Allons wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:52 pm

sbrawley wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:33 pm Maybe they’ll eventually allow carry into post offices. I won’t hold my breath.

It would be nice if we could legally enter the parking lot with a gun in the car.

I don't like this bill. Pittman-Robertson has been kept sacrosanct for use of it's revenue since it was originally passed in the depression years. That it was passed in the middle of an epic economic morass is an indication of how impassioned hunters were about the subject. Even end runs by the Clinton administration were shot down. It's for wildlife restoration, management and habitation. We certainly need funds for shooting ranges but robbing this fund is wrong and will surely result in further erosion of the original use of that money. rant complete

puma guy wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:25 pm It's for wildlife restoration, management and habitation.

Not that I don't like wildlife restoration, management and habitation, but what does that have to do with firearms?

The Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 provided an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition to be used solely for wildlife management, restoration and acquisition of habitat. It was driven by hunters, sportsmen and wildlife conservationist. Monies are distributed to states based on their submitting annual plans for use of the funds and they must provide 25% of the allocation ie Federal 75% and States 25% (generally from hunting license revenue). Pittman-Roberston is responsible for saving and restoring many species that are enjoyed by everyone not just hunters as well as land that everyone can use for recreation, but with out hunters the states could not allocate the 25% match. The white-tailed deer, wild turkey and many species of water fowl including the wood duck were saved with the P-R Act. Many other species were at the brink of elimination as well due to market hunters, habitat destruction and mis-management. Similar legislation was passed for archery and fishing known as the Dingell-Johnson Act in the 1970's. There have been changes to the bill that allocates monies for firearm and hunter education, which I have no issue with. The chipping process by politicians never ends once it starts. I will be surprised if many public ranges are built.

puma guy wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:25 pm I don't like this bill. Pittman-Robertson has been kept sacrosanct for use of it's revenue since it was originally passed in the depression years. That it was passed in the middle of an epic economic morass is an indication of how impassioned hunters were about the subject. Even end runs by the Clinton administration were shot down. It's for wildlife restoration, management and habitation. We certainly need funds for shooting ranges but robbing this fund is wrong and will surely result in further erosion of the original use of that money. rant complete

Not only is this taking money away from its original intended use, it now would increase government, because States would have to either assign the oversight, and management, of these proposed, public ranges, to an existing agency ( in Texas it would probably be TDPW) or they would have to create another entity. These type of operations, have been known in the past to be very inefficiently run, and allow for corruption, bid rigging, and other issues. Most,if not all of the money, would be used for administrative costs. This sounds like a pork barrel proposal, for a vey small portion of the general population.
I am all for encouraging, target practice, firearms training, and safety programs, especially for the youth, but this sounds like a backhanded way to redistribute ammo buyer's taxes. JMHO

I think wildlife conservation and building shooting ranges are both noble goals. I support federal funding for both.

However exercise of our constitutional rights should not be taxable. I believe that an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition is/should be unconstitutional.

the power to tax involves the power to destroy.

-US Supreme Court

Jusme wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:32 am I am all for encouraging, target practice, firearms training, and safety programs, especially for the youth, but this sounds like a backhanded way to redistribute ammo buyer's taxes. JMHO

Why should taxes from all shooters be used for wildlife conservation, when not all shooters hunt? Shouldn't someone who shoots but doesn't hunt have some of their tax money redirected to support their preferred shooting activities?

I mean, people are (correctly) castigating the former head of the Texas DPS in this thread for an op-ed where he says the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. But then if we say that such tax money should only be used to support hunting-related activities, it really undercuts the argument against him and his ilk.

Paladin wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:37 pm I think wildlife conservation and building shooting ranges are both noble goals. I support federal funding for both.

However exercise of our constitutional rights should not be taxable. I believe that an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition is/should be unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to spend money on wildlife conservation or public shooting ranges? This is a state or local issue.

CleverNickname wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:10 pm Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to spend money on wildlife conservation or public shooting ranges? This is a state or local issue.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power...

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

US Constitution

Militia Act of 1903:

Rifle ranges also are needed, not only for the National Guard,
but also for the citizen population. To shoot well is a large part
of the education of the soldier ; and if the Government can arouse
such an interest in shooting, in not only the organized but also
the unorganized militia, that our male population shall be familiar
with the accurate use of the rifle, we shall have gone far towards
evening up the advantage the foreigner gains by his universal
conscription. Much can be accomplished in this direction, if the
United States will offer free the use of the military rifle on ranges
to be established near our large towns. Such ranges would also
be available for the instruction of the National Guard. Their cost
would be little in comparison with the benefits to be obtained.
The cost of sufficient target ranges and camp sites for the whole
country will hardly exceed that of one or two new battle-ships.

United States Laws and Policies Protecting Wildlife shows that Federal Authority regarding wildlife conservation has been a long topic of dispute. Individual states have difficulty regulating migratory birds in general and birds from Canada in particular.

This definitively answers your general question regarding spending money for wildlife conservation on federal land:

Section 3
2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

US Constitution

Paladin wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:01 am

CleverNickname wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:10 pm Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to spend money on wildlife conservation or public shooting ranges? This is a state or local issue.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power...

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

US Constitution

Militia Act of 1903:

Rifle ranges also are needed, not only for the National Guard,
but also for the citizen population. To shoot well is a large part
of the education of the soldier ; and if the Government can arouse
such an interest in shooting, in not only the organized but also
the unorganized militia, that our male population shall be familiar
with the accurate use of the rifle, we shall have gone far towards
evening up the advantage the foreigner gains by his universal
conscription. Much can be accomplished in this direction, if the
United States will offer free the use of the military rifle on ranges
to be established near our large towns. Such ranges would also
be available for the instruction of the National Guard. Their cost
would be little in comparison with the benefits to be obtained.
The cost of sufficient target ranges and camp sites for the whole
country will hardly exceed that of one or two new battle-ships.

A range for military use is not a public range.

I don't see anything there about wildlife conservation either.

CleverNickname wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:08 am

Paladin wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:01 am

CleverNickname wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:10 pm Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to spend money on wildlife conservation or public shooting ranges? This is a state or local issue.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power...

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

US Constitution

Militia Act of 1903:

Rifle ranges also are needed, not only for the National Guard,
but also for the citizen population. To shoot well is a large part
of the education of the soldier ; and if the Government can arouse
such an interest in shooting, in not only the organized but also
the unorganized militia, that our male population shall be familiar
with the accurate use of the rifle, we shall have gone far towards
evening up the advantage the foreigner gains by his universal
conscription. Much can be accomplished in this direction, if the
United States will offer free the use of the military rifle on ranges
to be established near our large towns. Such ranges would also
be available for the instruction of the National Guard. Their cost
would be little in comparison with the benefits to be obtained.
The cost of sufficient target ranges and camp sites for the whole
country will hardly exceed that of one or two new battle-ships.

A range for military use is not a public range.

I don't see anything there about wildlife conservation either.

Please read my updated post. And review the definition of the "unorganized militia"

Paladin wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:01 am United States Laws and Policies Protecting Wildlife shows that Federal Authority regarding wildlife conservation has been a long topic of dispute. Individual states have difficulty regulating migratory birds in general and birds from Canada in particular.

This definitively answers your general question regarding spending money for wildlife conservation on federal land:

Section 3
2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

US Constitution

I don't think the intent of Article IV Section 3 was to allow the federal government to hold land for any purpose, in perpetuity. Nevertheless, many wildlife conservation laws also affect private lands, which wouldn't be covered.