1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Do we always use these Federal Funds for trap?

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Big Heap, Jun 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Big Heap

    Big Heap TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,748
    H.R. 3065, Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act
    June 15, 2012
    As ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June 7, 2012

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3065 could affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any such effects would be minimal over the 2013-2022 period. We also estimate that implementing the legislation would have no significant impact on discretionary spending. Enacting H.R. 3065 would not affect revenues.

    H.R. 3065 would allow states to use grants awarded under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to fund up to 90 percent of the cost of building or operating public target ranges. Under that act, half of all federal excise taxes collected on pistols, revolvers, bows, arrows, and archer accessories are apportioned to states as grants for hunter education programs, including the construction and development of target ranges. Under current law, funds awarded under that act can be used to cover 75 percent of the costs of such programs. Because the provision of the bill authorizing federal funds to be used for up to 90 percent of such costs would not affect the total amount of Pittman-Robertson funds that could be spent, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would have no effect on the federal budget.

    The bill also would allow states to retain their shares of Pittman-Robertson funds for up to five years to acquire or construct target ranges. After five years those funds would be reapportioned for other uses by the Secretary of the Interior. Because, under current law, any such funds that are not spent in two years are reapportioned and spent on other activities, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would have no effect on the federal budget.
     
  2. charleyj10

    charleyj10 TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    337
    It would be good if those funds could be used to construct trap ranges. I note that the statement does not include any reference to long guns of any kind.

    Charlie
     
  3. sernv99

    sernv99 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,674
    I'll wait to see if the folks who constantly piss and rant about taking austere financial measures to help our economy, jump on this thread and support taxpayers' money going towards the funding of shooting ranges that benefit a small segment of the population LMAO I will get my popcorn ready for this.
     
  4. RobertT

    RobertT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,356
    Target ranges built in a southerly direction along the border using existing funds sound like a worthy idea.
     
  5. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,499
    RE: taxpayers' money

    Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act

    This Act, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669i; 50 Stat. 917) of September 2, 1937, is commonly called the "Pittman-Robertson Act." It has been amended several times, and provides Federal aid to States for management and restoration of wildlife.

    Funds from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition [Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161(b)] are appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior and apportioned to States on a formula basis for paying up to 75 percent of the cost approved projects. Project activities include acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat, introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, research into wildlife problems, surveys and inventories of wildlife problems, acquisition and development of access facilities for public use, and hunter education programs, including construction and operation of public target ranges.


    Public Law 91-503, approved October 23, 1970, (84 Stat. 1097) added provisions for the deposit of the 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers, one-half of which may be used by the States for hunter safety programs. This amendment also provided for development of comprehensive fish and wildlife management plans as an optional means for participating in the program, and changed the maximum limit from $10,000 to one-half percent for Puerto Rico and to one-sixth percent for the Virgin Islands and Guam.


    On October 25, 1972, the Act was further amended by P.L. 92-558 (86 Stat. 1172) to add provisions for the deposit of the 11-percent excise tax on bows, arrows, and their parts and accessories for use in wildlife projects or hunter safety programs.


    Amendments enacted June 8, 1974 (P.L. 93-313; 88 Stat. 238) provided for a six-month delay, until January 1, 1975, in initiation of collection of the excise tax on bows, arrows, parts and accessories.


    Public Law 98-369 (26 U.S.C. 1 note; 98 Stat. 502), approved July 18, 1984, contained a provision that expanded the tax on arrows to include those used in crossbows.


    Public Law 98-347 (16 U.S.C. 669h-1; 98 Stat. 321), approved July 9, 1984, amended section 8(a) of the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act to make American Samoa eligible for wildlife restoration and hunter safety programs.


    Public Law 101-233 (103 Stat. 1968), approved December 13, 1989, amended the Act to require the Secretary of Treasury to invest funds held in interest-bearing obligations. Provides that that interest be used to fund the North American Wetlands Conservation Act through fiscal year 2005, and then to be available for the wildlife restoration fund beginning fiscal year 2006.
     
  6. tachyon

    tachyon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    671
    sernv, enjoy your popcorn, but most of the individuals who post on here understand the history and intent of the Pittman Robertson Act. It was a tax that was proposed and advocated by sportsmen. Yes they wanted to tax themselves. I understand that is an anathema to the entitlement demoncrats.

    The 11% excise tax on guns and ammo was passed with the expressed understanding that the funds raised from this tax would go for wildlife habitat, hunter education, and public shooting ranges. Over time it was extended to sales of bows, arrows and other archery supplies. This was supported by the bow hunters.

    The demoncrats regularly try to move the funds raised from this tax to the general fund so it can pay for their efforts to buy votes via various federal give away programs. So far they have not been successful.

    I have taught a few hundred students in hunter safety classes and while all of us instructors are volunteers we appreciate the textbooks, videos and other support that the Pittman Robertson funds provide us in our educational endeavors.

    Go troll somewhere else.
     
  7. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Wait 'till defense sequestration kicks in...that's when you'll hear the REAL pissing and moaning. Sperm'n99 will probably screw himself into the ground then.
     
  8. sernv99

    sernv99 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,674
    buzzgun: you held your chin-up pretty well when testifying at the Sandusky trial LMAO Don't worry, the judge so far has refused to allow your real name to be used in court. Keep your fascination with sperm to yourself.


    Tachyon: You are another one in a long list of "me first" people that wants his cake and to eat it as well...cutting spending means just that....your Tee Pee Party are not very fond of the Dept of Interior, who by way manages and provides oversight for the very programs that you cherish. Or do you suffer from selective memory? The revenue raised should not be used managing and providing oversight to a HOBBY sport, such as providing free materials for hunter ed classes or constructing shooting ranges.

    some on here are all talk, no walk when it comes to advocating for reduced spending
     
  9. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Hey, I personally hope the "disaster" of sequestration does happen. I can't wait. There's going to be a lot of DC-area chickenhawks like you out of business, and it's going to be a hoot to watch.


    You see, by getting rid of your boys like Lugar, we're working diligently to make sure that 1.2 Trill of spending cuts does actually happen - including the 600 Bees of Defense cuts that will sever the servo99s of the world off the Government tit for the first time in their lives. No more "Grand Compromises."


    I can see it now...servo and Mrs. Keet, walking around the golf course, shouting..."You forgot your briefcase!"


    The Tee Party has gotcher number, buddy, and all the other DC and So. Cal area chicken hawk military types. Let's see how cocky you are, after sequestration happens, across the board cuts kick in, and about a half-dozen more continuing resolutions are needed to keep the Gubmint running. Wonder what the 10-year Pentagon spending plan looks like, _then_.
     
  10. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    99, you dolt, the taxes in that fund come from the " small segment of the population" that will benefit. It's no different than gas taxes used for Highway construction.

    Unless your puke gods in DC manage to snag it away.

    HM
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.