Can We Get Our Pittman-Robertson Dollars Back, Please?

If you were a fan of The West Wing, you’re probably familiar with Season 4, Episode 6. In that installment called ‘Game On,’ President Jed Bartlet (D) faced off with Governor Robert Ritchie (R-FL) in a Presidential debate. The opening question concerned states’ rights and the role of the federal government. Ritchie argued that states should decide where to spend their tax dollars without diktats from Washington.

Bartlet’s response eviscerated Ritchie, setting the tone for the entire debate and foreshadowing Bartlet’s eventual win. You can watch the exchange here, but the key line comes when Bartlet asks, “Can we have it back?” referring to the federal tax dollars his state has received.

Although the scene contrasts liberal and conservative views of government—and is written from the Sorkinesque perspective of a liberal president—it echoes today’s state-level battles over firearms and conservation.

How?

In his article ‘Anti-Hunting Activists Disguised as Conservationists Take Their Act to Colorado‘ on Shooting News Weekly, Nephi Cole, NSSF Director for Government Relations – State Affairs, outlines how “discredited anti-hunting activist” Wayne Pacelle is pushing to “ban statewide the use of traditional lead ammunition for all hunting.”

Chris Dorsey authored a piece, Portlandia Falls: How Oregon Collected 120,000 Signatures for the Right to Arrest Fishermen, that ran in the Weekend Edition of The Outdoor Wire about the proposed PEACE Act. In simple terms, the PEACE Act—currently a ballot initiative—“would effectively criminalize hunting, fishing, ranching, pet breeding, rodent traps, and even putting down a mortally injured animal” in the Beaver State.

Numerous bans on firearms — which are falling one-by-one thanks to the work of the Four Horsemen of Gun Rights, the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Gun Owners of America — have taken legally made and sold modern sporting rifles and handguns off the market in some states.

In each of these cases, state legislatures, backed by anti-gun political organizations and financial donors, have been working in direct opposition to federal law and, more specifically, the Constitution of the United States.

They have determined that states’ rights supersede federal law, especially when it comes to an issue they don’t like. Guns and hunting fall squarely into the Jeopardy category, “Things Leftist Legislators Hate.”

The conundrum facing liberal state legislatures is what to do with those Pittman-Robertson checks they receive from the sale of the very products and activities they clearly despise. These funds are distributed to state fish and wildlife agencies under the 1937 Wildlife Restoration Act and pay for wildlife conservation, hunter education, and public target ranges.

Where do those funds come from? P-R dollars come from the sale of long guns, ammunition, and archery equipment (an 11% excise tax) and handguns (a 10% excise tax). These taxes are paid by the manufacturers and are based on the initial sale price—usually to distributors, but not always.

While you as the consumer don’t see that tax, the cost is built into the price you pay. So in the end, you’re the one paying the tax. If you don’t buy ammo, guns, and archery equipment, dealers won’t carry it, and distributors won’t order it. When that happens, manufacturers stop making it, or at least cut back and Pittman-Robertson dollars decline.

In the mean time, states like California, Illinois and New York are happy to cash checks that result from the sale of products they ban in their states.

Which brings us back to The West Wing. When states prohibit hunting or ban the sale of firearms and ammunition while continuing to accept conservation dollars generated by the sales of those products, it’s reasonable for those of us who ultimately fund Pittman-Robertson—the 11 Percenters—to ask, as Jed Bartlet did, “Can we have it back?”