Anti-Gun nuts want to take P&R fund money

Submitted by Charles Gossett on 5/13/01. ( Marl4570@aol.com ) 152.163.188.194

Just read number (3), to divert 2% of the P&R fund money thats would be used for wildlife and hunting rights.

New Federal Gun Control Bill
Representative Millender-McDonald of California has introduced Bill H.R. 233 in Congress, which would do the following:
1) Require gun dealers to provide a trigger lock with every gun sold, and require them to deliver a gun safety storage message with each gun sold. Penalty for violation; $10,000 fine and/or revocation of license.
2) Give the BATF the authority to regulate the design and manufacture of trigger locks. Penalty for violation; $10,000 fine and/or 3 years in prison.
3) Diverts 2% of the current 10% tax on guns and ammo to gun storage safety education. These taxes currently are used for wildlife management and preservation.

Return to Category Menu


Gigures

This response submitted by Elmer on 5/14/01. ( Topstaxidermy@aol.com ) 152.163.188.226

Figures some dude from Calif. would try that they don,t have anything else to do so they want to bring Cail. agenda to everyone.


Is 2% of 10% for safety education, such a bad thing?

This response submitted by BobB on 5/14/01. ( foxranch@hotmail.com ) 216.165.140.228

As a hunter, taxidermist, gun owner, and Hunter Ed instructor, I ask you, is spending part of the tax (collected on firearms) on safety education really such a bad thing?

In todays day and age, anything proactive to make guns not always the enemy, certainly sounds like money well spent.

Also if we have less to spend on public grounds, maybe non gun owners or sportsmen, will have to start kicking in their fair share. Boy that will anger those antis, having to pay for use of public areas previously paid for by gun owners.


right on!

This response submitted by Brice on 5/14/01. ( michelew@netwitz.net ) 64.240.155.139

i agree with bob. we are already paying the money so why not direct a little of it to education, then fewer people can complain that we funnel our money into such narrow causes. storage safety, as indirect as it may seem to some, is still linked to wildlife conservation and the outdoors. if it quenches a representatives thirst for gun control then do it. I think it would be cheaper than directing funds from elswhere to fight the bill.
besides i would love to see funds drawn from other areas to support wildlife conservation. so many people enjoy the outdoors and dont do much if anything to support the causes that give them the opportunities and places to enjoy. how many bird watchers do you know? of those that you do know, how many do you think purchase a state or federal waterfowl stamp every year? you know, those arent restricted to hunters. i live in illinois, we are also required to buy a "habitat stamp". i wonder how many outdoor recreationists have one of those.


I will tell you why

This response submitted by Charles Gossett on 5/14/01. ( Marl4570@aol.com ) 205.188.208.101

As soon as hunters do not pay more than the fair share we will no longer have any say. The only reason hunters have won any of these fights is because we have paid for it so long.
The other problem I have is who needs the gun safety? I mean if we pay for the safety classes are the anti-gunners going to go? Are the criminals who do 90% of the killing going to go? There were a whole 126 children killed by accidents out of some 180Million plus guns.
This in my opinion is nothing more than a ploy to eliminate two groups. The hunters right to have any say so, and when this is wasted they can say see safety don't work people still die.
They said after the assault weapons ban in 1972 that this was all that was needed, they said it again a few years ago, again with the Brady bill, again with the waiting period, Nics check and so on.
Just read their own words, No More Guns had nothing to do with safety.
Charles


Part of that money goes into ed anyway

This response submitted by LH on 5/14/01. ( ) 64.216.109.216

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but at one time, if not presently, P-R funds could be used for hunter safety education (of which the biggest part is GUN SAFETY), in addition to habitat development and so forth. Now, here comes along an opportunity to offer a little education, or maybe just a friendly reminder, to someone purchasing a gun, outside of a formal classroom setting - a reminder that may very well be the closest thing to hunter safety education that this consumer gets. We all know the overwhelming success that training our young firearms handlers in gun safety has had through the incredible reduction in firearms related deaths in the field. Why can't we be a productive part of the solution in instilling that same sense of responsibility in the home where we can offer the benefit of our culture - a culture where guns are and always have been a part of everyday life - to another group of people who just had the bad fortune of not being like us? I understand the kneejerk reaction we've developed over the years of assuming that anything said in D.C. that has anything to do with guns just has to be anti-gun and anti-us. But there comes a time when common sense has to prevail and when we can recognize and acknowledge that we may be better off being a part of the solution rather than accusing them of calling us the problem. Bubba's gone and Dubya's driving. Let's work to start something new that serves us for the first time in, oh, eight years.


Return to Category Menu