0
OHCHUTE

Here's one thing the Dems never thought of when banning guns.

Recommended Posts

State conservation funding. Hunters, fishermen who buy hunting and fishing equipment and buy licenses are mostly responsible for the funding of most state departments of natural resources. It's over a billion per year nationwide. There's an 11% tax just on buying arrows to help fund natural resources and conservation.

So when there is talk to take away hunting and sporting equipment that drives up costs of that equipment, or makes equipment unavailable, people will cut back on buying equipment or leave the sport all together. I'm hearing this now from people who are having a hard time finding ammo. They'll just give it up.

And if this is not enough, some state legislatures have raided dept of natural resources money, for general funds. What this means is, if less money comes in from hunters, then the democratically controlled state governments will have no excuse not to tax non hunters and fishermen due to loss of taxes. Conservation goes by the wayside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I wonder if what you say will induce increases in fishing licenses.



Many hunters already fish. The net sum of current conversation may decrease tax revenue across the board from decreased licenses and excise taxes on equipment. People forget that conservation of migratory game birds are funded via these resources.

Here are some facts about all the money hunters and fishermen supply state governments.

http://www.nssf.org/lit/HunterConservation10.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

State conservation funding. Hunters, fishermen who buy hunting and fishing equipment and buy licenses are mostly responsible for the funding of most state departments of natural resources. It's over a billion per year nationwide. There's an 11% tax just on buying arrows to help fund natural resources and conservation.

So when there is talk to take away hunting and sporting equipment that drives up costs of that equipment, or makes equipment unavailable, people will cut back on buying equipment or leave the sport all together. I'm hearing this now from people who are having a hard time finding ammo. They'll just give it up.

And if this is not enough, some state legislatures have raided dept of natural resources money, for general funds. What this means is, if less money comes in from hunters, then the democratically controlled state governments will have no excuse not to tax non hunters and fishermen due to loss of taxes. Conservation goes by the wayside.



One part of the gun bills just signed into law in CO, was to rob these funds and put these dollars into the genreal fund
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

State conservation funding. Hunters, fishermen who buy hunting and fishing equipment and buy licenses are mostly responsible for the funding of most state departments of natural resources. It's over a billion per year nationwide. There's an 11% tax just on buying arrows to help fund natural resources and conservation.

So when there is talk to take away hunting and sporting equipment that drives up costs of that equipment, or makes equipment unavailable, people will cut back on buying equipment or leave the sport all together. I'm hearing this now from people who are having a hard time finding ammo. They'll just give it up.

And if this is not enough, some state legislatures have raided dept of natural resources money, for general funds. What this means is, if less money comes in from hunters, then the democratically controlled state governments will have no excuse not to tax non hunters and fishermen due to loss of taxes. Conservation goes by the wayside.



would question the part about them not thinking of it. I think they know exactly what they're doing.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And a few more...

Federally Licensed Firearms Retailers in New Survey Overwhelmingly Oppose 'Universal Background Checks'

An online survey of federally licensed firearms retailers conducted this week by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, reveals that those who would be on the front line of implementing what is touted as "universal background checks" have serious concerns both about whether such proposals would work as well as the potential negative effects on their businesses.

Asked whether they supported or opposed "universal background checks," 85.7 percent of the responding firearms retailers said that they opposed them. To the question of whether they believed that such legislation would prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, a nearly unanimous 95.7 percent said no.

In addition, the retailers reported that that they feared these proposals would result in higher regulatory and additional record-keeping burdens, increased risk of license revocation for record-keeping errors related to private party sales of firearms, additional delays in processing of National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) requests, low government-set fees that will not cover their costs, and increased liability exposure arising from having to process private-party transactions.

"The concept of universal background checks sounds appealing on the surface, but the details involved in what actually would be required on the part of firearms retailers to make it work are quite another matter," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "In fact, the obligations and burdens that would be put in place could be overwhelming for many of those who would be called upon to carry them out. It is unfair to call upon private companies, many of them quite small and with limited personnel, to conduct what essentially would be a function of government."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

State conservation funding. Hunters, fishermen who buy hunting and fishing equipment and buy licenses are mostly responsible for the funding of most state departments of natural resources. It's over a billion per year nationwide. There's an 11% tax just on buying arrows to help fund natural resources and conservation.

So when there is talk to take away hunting and sporting equipment that drives up costs of that equipment, or makes equipment unavailable, people will cut back on buying equipment or leave the sport all together. I'm hearing this now from people who are having a hard time finding ammo. They'll just give it up.

And if this is not enough, some state legislatures have raided dept of natural resources money, for general funds. What this means is, if less money comes in from hunters, then the democratically controlled state governments will have no excuse not to tax non hunters and fishermen due to loss of taxes. Conservation goes by the wayside.



would question the part about them not thinking of it. I think they know exactly what they're doing.


With 4 state cops handling all the handgun transactions for a whole state, they don't have a clue what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0