Previous Post
Next Post

Firearms and ammunition manufacturers have topped $17 billion in excise tax contributions to the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund since its inception in 1937, the NSSF reported. When adjusted for inflation, the total is more than $27.38 billion. The latest Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) Collection report released by the Department of the Treasury, covering the 4th Quarter Calendar Year 2023, indicates that firearm and ammunition manufacturers contributed more than $222 million.

“The entire firearm and ammunition industry celebrates this milestone that demonstrates our commitment to wildlife conservation for all Americans,” said NSSF President and CEO Joe Bartozzi. “The firearm and ammunition industry knows the conservation of wildlife and the habitats in which they thrive are invaluable. They are critical to future generations taking part in hunting and the recreational shooting sports traditions and learning about their vital importance. This manufacturing industry, which produces firearms and ammunition for law-abiding citizens, also produces the funding upon which our wildlife depends and is vital for future generations to enjoy.”

The firearm and ammunition industry added $1 billion in conservation tax contributions in just one year. NSSF announced Firearm and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) contributions have totaled more than $1 billion annually for the past three years.

The Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson fund, is funded by excise taxes paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers on their products, as well as archery equipment manufacturers. The excise tax is set at 11 percent of the wholesale price for long guns and ammunition and 10 percent of the wholesale price for handguns. The excise tax, paid by manufacturers and importers, applies to all firearms produced or imported for commercial sales, including recreational shooting, hunting or self-defense. The tax is administered by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) of the Department of the Treasury, which turns the funds over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

USFWS deposits the Pittman-Robertson revenues into a special account called the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund administered by the USFWS. These funds are made available to states and territories the year following their collection based on a statutory formula. Earlier this year, NSSF announced that USFWS apportioned over $1.6 billion to the states for wildlife conservation projects, of which $944 million was sourced from Pittman-Robertson excise taxes paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers.

These 10 to 11 percent excise tax dollars collected since 1937 under the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act are specifically designated to be used by state wildlife agencies for conservation and related purposes. Collectively, purchasers of firearms and ammunition, hunters and the industry are the greatest source of wildlife conservation funding.

 

— Courtesy NSSF

 

Editor’s Note: Most people agree P-R funds are a good thing and the law was even championed by sportsmen back at the time it was passed in 1937. Still, some diehard gun guys among our crowd might bemoan the fact that all taxes ultimately get paid by the consumer, and why should they have to pay taxes that just benefit the hunting community. But that’s not entirely true, P-R funds, while used largely for wildlife management and education, are also used to build and maintain public shooting ranges. So, there are some benefits to those who want to see people simply have a place to go shoot.

Previous Post
Next Post

34 COMMENTS

  1. Taxation is theft.
    I am not interested in funding Fudd projects.
    Missouri voted for a conservation sales tax separately.

    • Challenge it in court then. Not trying to be an asshole to you but the votes to rescind it will likely never exist and you could make the argument it is analogous to a poll tax. I support what it tends to fund but that should be a voluntary contribution and I do worry it leaves the door open for “victim compensation” or other nonsensical “gun violence” taxes being “legal”

      • Not to be an asshole to you, but that is a stupid response. Try to challenge the NFA in court. Try to challenge the 1968GCA in court. You will never get the votes to rescind either of these unconstitutional laws, and it is extremely unlikely the courts will ever strike them down either. That doesn’t change the fact that they are wrong.

        I really HATE the fact thar the NSSF and TTAG keep putting out these crappy articles celebrating the illegitimate taxation of a basic fundamental human right.

        • Snowball chance in hell vs no chance at all also better than quit bitching and find something useful to do

            • Atleast that’s a better answer than using the 2nd Amendment. Self defense is certainly a God given right. One for every living creature. It is truly sad that more people don’t take up that right.

              Doing it with guns is an American right. So much of why this world lives in such misery is because so many governments restrict it. But even without firearms, humans still have the basic fundamental human right to self defense.

              • actually, Debbie is correct with “… includes firearms”.

                “Doing it with guns is an American right.”

                Self defense is an inherently natural instinctual right for humans and animals alike. Its self defense with what ever can be used, thus what ever a person can employ for defense for the best chance of ‘survival’ is valid. There is a natural right to self-defense and gun ownership is inherently connected to that right just as much as any other ‘thing’ or ‘method’ would be.

                The founders believed, rightly, that everyone has an inherent right to self-defense. Its even ‘hardwired’ into our brains and nature (e.g. ‘survival instinct’, ‘stress response’ AKA ‘fight or flight’).

                John Locke, the English philosopher influential with the founders, wrote of this with…

                “I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred.”

                John Adams said in his defense of one of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre in 1770, self-defense was “the primary canon in the law of nature.”

                So the founding era, the founders, and the ‘public’ – and all of mankind from their beginnings recognize the natural inherent right to self defense.

                And you are correct that “But even without firearms, humans still have the basic fundamental human right to self defense” – however, its basically incorrect to say that “Doing it with guns is an American right.” because its not just unique to Americans as the same right exists for all, American or not, to use what ever a person can hold to enact self defense and guns are one of those things if they are available to the person.

                So just as much as anything else a person can hold to enact valid self defense – or in reference called ‘bearable arms’ – there is a natural right to self-defense and gun ownership is inherently connected to that right. This was acknowledged in Heller for ‘bear arms’ using the understanding of ‘bearable arms’ at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified with “weapons of offence, or armour of defence,” or anything “that a man takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” (Heller, 554 U.S. at 581).

                firearms are ‘bearable arms’, self defense is a natural inherent right and a person has a right to use what ever ‘bearable arms’ they deem necessary to enact valid self defense and firearms are one of these things they can rightfully ‘naturally’ employ to do such and ‘bear’ such.

              • The use of guns for this purpose is just modern technology. They work well for it.

                The 2nd Amendment simply does not apply to anyone other than Americans.

              • There was a time when no one on Earth had firearms. When it was swords, knives, and daggers at best. The right to self defense was still there even then but nothing existed for guns. Your telling me people had a right to something that didn’t exist? No. We have the right to defend ourselves…to the best of our ability. That doesn’t automatically translate to guns. It means what it says (just like the 2A). *to the best of our ability* as with all living things. If you have a gun, use it. If not then use something else.

              • “The 2nd Amendment simply does not apply to anyone other than Americans.”

                Although that’s true, that’s not the subject of this segment of discussion you invoked with Debbie. The subject is, as you bought forth your self, the natural inherent right to self defense which you cited as “Self defense is certainly a God given right. One for every living creature. … But even without firearms, humans still have the basic fundamental human right to self defense.”

                And in that, one of the principals underlying the 2A, that there is a right to self defense, if it be defense against tyranny of government or tyranny of someone trying to harm you, does apply to all humans even if not American because the natural inherent right to self defense is inherent to all American or not.

                However, you are correct that the written codification of this right forms the ‘written’ version of the natural inherent right acknowledgement for Americans and as such it does apply to American citizens in the United States. But its not universal, for if it was it would also apply to American citizens outside the United States.

                However, as Debbie said, it also includes firearms for they are also ‘bearable arms’. And in that, in terms of the inherent natural right to self defense, it is universal, not just an American right but a right of all for firearms are ‘bearable arms’ and a person can use what ever a person can hold to enact the natural inherent right to self defense and guns are one of those things.

              • “There was a time when no one on Earth had firearms. When it was swords, knives, and daggers at best. The right to self defense was still there even then but nothing existed for guns. Your telling me people had a right to something that didn’t exist?”

                In terms of the natural inherent right to self defense and ‘bearable arms’ – yes, they did have a right to it even though it had not yet been invented. The fact that it did not yet exist does not mean it could not be used for enacting the natural inherent right to self defense at a time when it did finally exist.

                If there was a life saving medication that had not been invented yet, but would be say a year from now, and you had that disease the medication could cure – would you not use the medication claiming “because it had not been invented when i got the disease I have no right to it.” ?

                “Your telling me people had a right to something that didn’t exist?”

                That’s a flawed fundamentalist anti-gun argument they use today for AR-15’s, that because they did not exist when the 2A was ratified then they can’t be owned because they are not covered by the 2A.

                Times change, technology changes, simply because it does not yet exist does not mean it will not be something that can be used for self-defense in the future.

                The 2A reads ‘the right to keep and bear arms’ – it does not read ‘the right to keep and bear firearms’. firearms are ‘arms’ plain and simple – it doesn’t matter if they were or were not invented yet in the days of old for swords – they are still ‘arms’. So yes, in context with your “When it was swords, knives, and daggers at best. The right to self defense was still there even then but nothing existed for guns. Your telling me people had a right to something that didn’t exist?” – in terms of the natural inherent right to self defense, yes, they did have a right (pre-existing) to firearms for they are ‘arms’ – even if they did not exist yet because the right to self defense is natural and inherent and has always been there and was pre-existing in nature.

                “That doesn’t automatically translate to guns.”

                I never said it “automatically” translates to guns, and in citing that part in Heller neither did Heller.

                I said basically: What ever a person can hold to enact self defense and guns are one of those things if they are available to the person.

                Or as Debbie correctly stated… “… includes firearms”.

                I never said it “automatically” translates to guns.

      • SAFEupstateFML Good reply. Not offended. I have been thinking about a legal challenge, but we have so many battles to fight. Republican’t supermajority and Republican’t governor in Missouri and we can’t even get a vote for concealed Carry on buses and Metro public transportation.

        • Well let’s see…Is Gun Control Rooted in Racism Yes or No? And does centuries of History confirm Gun Control played a key roll in Slavery Yes or No? Then why praytell has Slavery been Abolished while it’s partner in crime Gun Control skated by without a scratch?

          All while Civil War monuments were torn down solely to whitewash the History of the democRat Party zipped lipped Gun talking blowbags did not utter a beep about Abolishing Gun Control. And where were the Gun Talking Blowbags? Their heads were up their behinds hiding from the diabolical Truth About Gun Control.

          Perhaps the blowbags can draw a connection with democRats whitewashing America’s Civil War History and the Cultural Revolution in China…

        • It’s a rough spot when you see it isn’t right and every option to fix it tends to suck and will leave you on your own. We are doing we can to establish the minimum.gov can’t fuck with rules (along with every other dem dominated state) but you do have the right idea on raising the ceiling and just like us available funds and ability to get people on board does tend to determine priorities.

    • Right prune juice…On the otherside of the coin Conservation paints a good image for hunters, sportsmen and the like. Keep that in mind when some Climate Change sack of sht thinks twice before going after hunting, fishing and other outdoor activity…Lord knows some party hardy hunters need all the image help they can get.

      • I just think it’s interesting that the activity of hunting benefits so much from the positive image of taxation.

        I’m not a hunter but I’m also not opposed to it. There are plenty of things in this world that require a certain percentage of people to do. Like farming.

  2. I don’t mind paying the tax however I have a feeling it just buys new pickup trucks and surveillance apparatuses that help the WPR bust people to get even more money to buy more pickups and surveillance apparatuses.
    Oh I forgot about the paint it buys for the signs that tell you what you can and cannot do.
    Hunting/Fishing licenses should be based on income, a poor man needs that squirrel or bass a whole lot more then a rich guy.
    “Yeah, that camouflage paint job on my $75,000 Tundra cost $8,900.
    The custom rifle, $10,000. No I hunt for the meat, it’s just a coincidence I never saw any tender doe’s. Nope just the tough old stringy 30 point Bucks. Did I eat the meat? No, to rank, fed it to the dogs, didn’t want the meat to go to waste yah know. I did spend $4,000 to have the deer taxidermied. It’s to remind me to hunt better for those elusive tender doe’s, because I’m a meat hunter, uh yup yup.”
    ps.
    KEEP OUT
    PROPERTY LEASED

  3. Let us not forget there was an existing tax on firearms that went directly to general funds. This act moved that tax to conservation.

  4. I’ll become slightly more tolerant of taxes and fees applied to Constitutional Rights when the Right weaponizes that against the Left, that is, returns the favor in spades.

    Until then, fuck off with your felate-the-state celebrations.

    In fact, fuck off regardless.

  5. ATF investigating t̶h̶e̶m̶s̶e̶l̶v̶e̶s̶ ATF ‘murder-squad’ in bungled, ill-fated no-knock raid (to murder their victim).

  6. 8 Items FEMA Will Confiscate in an ‘Emergency’ (note: firearms # 7 in video list – also mentions the illegal and unconstitutional tyrannical firearms confiscation by force during Katrina by the NOPD – and kept very quiet is that they were backed up and assisted by federal troops composed of national guard that were federalized under title 10 thus federal troops – the federal government through federal troops literally went door to door with NOPD and confiscated firearms either by threat of force and citing false information, without warrant or cause).

    • note on above video and clarification… this part is not mentioned in the video > “and kept very quiet is that they were backed up and assisted by federal troops composed of national guard that were federalized under title 10 thus federal troops – the federal government through federal troops literally went door to door with NOPD and confiscated firearms either by threat of force and citing false information, without warrant or cause” < those are my notes, a condensed summary, from previous research on statements made publicly in media by some troops and NOPD officers and from the victims of the unlawful and unconstitutional confiscation coupled with research conducted by others and media journalists.

  7. So, we have people here who support the taxes they like, but not the taxes they don’t like? That reasoning is how we the people created taxes in the first place; majority rules realm.

    We the people gladly moved beyond the taxes on foreign exchange (taxes on foreign goods and services). Given “our” government bases no expenditures on the amount of taxes collected, and the ability of govt to create what we commonly “money”…. seems there is absolutely zero need for US taxes at all.

    • Why do you think I harp on most Conservatives having no actual philosophical core and having never dedicated much mental capacity to actually thinking about things?

      Because this kind of “I support what I like and don’t support what I dislike” behavior is extremely common and purely emotional. The Right is no exception to this. They are, in the bulk, identical to the Left in thought patterns but with different policy preferences.

      The Left has taken a lot of ground across the spectrum, and the Right really still offers very little resistance outside certain pockets, because of this. Well, that and the fact that they’re far more ruthless and competent at this kind of manipulation.

      Recognition of this fact is what steels people against propaganda from all directions. This is a capacity you can pass on to others. Otherwise you’re just armored in one direction but will do *the thing* if the right person tells you too and you cannot pass this on to anyone who’s not already in agreement with you or seriously predisposed to agreement with you.

      You can see this with the members of The Resistance that were Bolshies. They were extremely resistant to Not-Z propaganda (which was admittedly rather ham-handed compared to US or USSR propaganda efforts) but only because they were ideologically deadset against the speaker(s), not the actions or the mindset. It was fine if Stalin did it. If Hitler was a Bolshie then they wouldn’t have joined The Resistance, they’d have joined the Wehrmacht.

      The rest of The Resistance found them very hard to work with because of this and, frankly, didn’t really mourn their passing when it occurred because they correctly deduced that these people couldn’t truly be trusted.

      That’s not being resistant to propaganda, that’s being an ideological tool but in a different direction. A “useful idiot”, as it were.

      Once you recognize how this kind of manipulation functions at its root you can see it no matter who uses it and then short-circuit its action and begin actual critical thinking on your own. If you can’t see it for what it is then you will only notice it when it’s not in your blind spots.

      • Two random remembrances:
        – – In 1985 a news column filler that proclaimed that welfare payments at all levels for 1984 were something around $2400, per person (not family). problem was that “the system” for distributing the money ate up around $4000/per. Seemed that simply sending checks based on to everyone in the nation would have been more efficient and effective.

        – – To explain taxes to my teen aged sons, I wrote “Federal Budget” on one sheet of paper, and “Taxes collected. Using published stats, I wrote the budget amount, and the taxes collected amount. I then held up the two sheets of paper, one in each hand. Then I asked, “What ties the two amounts together”? After getting blank stares, I laid the two sheets on a table, and asked the question again, unanimously, the teens said, “Nothing”. I then told them that without any connection, government spending had no relation to taxes, and that they would suffer the results not only in my time, but forever theirs.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here