U.S. Sen. Hagan Co-sponsors Bipartisan Bill To Help Build, Maintain Public Shooting Ranges in NC

[appal_jack]

http://www.hcpress.com/news/u-s-sen-hagan-co-sponsors-bipartisan-bill-to-help-build-maintain-public-shooting-ranges.html

July 17, 2013. U.S. Senator Kay Hagan (NC), Co-Chair of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, is cosponsoring a bipartisan bill to help North Carolina build and maintain public shooting ranges for hunters and sportsmen to responsibly practice their sport and promote firearm safety. The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would allow states to use taxes already collected on sporting equipment and ammunition to establish and maintain public shooting ranges without adding to the deficit.

“There are more than 1.5 million sportsmen and women across North Carolina who could use access to safe places for target practice and training,” said Hagan. “By helping communities across the state invest in public shooting ranges, this bill will go a long way towards continuing North Carolina’s proud tradition of responsible gun ownership, while also boosting our economy. Outdoor recreation contributes more than $19 billion to the state’s economy every year, and expanding recreational shooting areas means supporting job growth in this crucial industry.”

Outdoor recreation supports 192,000 North Carolina jobs, which generate $5.6 billion in wages and salaries and produce $1.3 billion annually in state and local tax revenue.

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would allow North Carolina and states across the country to use more of their designated funding generated from federal sales tax to acquire land for, expand, or construct public target ranges. The bill also encourages the federal land management agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain target ranges on federal land.

Very glad to have Hagan as a Democratic Senator - she is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise grim regional political scene. I believe that a second Democratic Senator and some more Democratic US Representatives would improve our state's (and nation's) politics considerably, but only foresee that outcome if we field pro-2A (& preferably pro-Bill of Rights / all liberties) candidates.

-app

[upaloopa]

1. You should not use tax payer money on gunners

fun when you deny women health care services.

[appal_jack]

3. Divide & conquer will be our undoing.

Divide & conquer will be our undoing. I was in Raleigh last week for a Moral Monday rally (I did not participate in the civil disobedience though, as I would likely lose my job if arrested). My sign said, "Pro-choice, Pro-voter, Pro-equality, Pro-NC." Guess what it didn't say? Anything about guns. Why? Because the RKBA is one of the few rights not under gross assault by the Republican-dominated state government.

I am pro-liberty. Are you? If not, please consider how many potential allies you are alienating with your inconsistency. If we are to rebuild a winning progressive coalition here in NC, I believe that it must start with a consistent and deep respect for all of the Bill of Rights.

-app

[upaloopa]

9. You should not use tax money for gunner fun

Why is that so hard to understand?
How about tax money for new fishing boats for sport fisherman? How about some surfing pools for surfers on the taxpayer's dime?
I don't get gunner logic at all

[beevul]

26. Tax payer money pays for...

Tax payer money pays for the management of fish and wildlife, including that which is hunted or fished.

Taxpayer money pays for...to put a finer point on it...fish cleaning stations, at many lakes. Public swimming beaches.

Campgrounds. Paid for by the tax payer.

Public gun ranges are not far fetched like you imply, besides, its not like its is a new thing.


Far from it.

http://www.cabq.gov/parksandrecreation/open-space/facilities/shooting-range-park-1/shooting-range-park

[appal_jack]

28. Taxpayer dollars pay for boat ramps, hiking trails, and many more sporting facilities

Taxpayer dollars pay for boat ramps, hiking trails, and many more public sporting facilities. You may wish to liken a public shooting range to the government sending me crates of .223 and .45 caliber ammunition for my personal use, but you'd be wrong.

But nonetheless, if you could prove to me that the funds saved via the deletion of these public ranges, supported by a tax paid on ammunition specifically could instead be diverted to women's health, you know what? I'd support that. Of course, I'd need something in return. What are you offering? Or do you just plan on scolding potential allies until they get in line according to your preferences? That sounds like a real winning strategy to me...

-app

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Read the article again- they're not:

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would allow states to use taxes already collected on sporting equipment and ammunition to establish and maintain public shooting ranges without adding to the deficit.

[upaloopa]

10. So divert some sales taxes for gunner fun?

Sales taxes belong in the general fund to be spent on all the people

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. Taxes on all sorts of things get diverted- gas taxes, for one.

The MBTA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Transportation_Authority )

gets 1% of all taxable retail sales in Massachusetts- people in western MA don't get any services from the T,
but they still have to pay. At least with this, the people getting the services would be the ones paying for it.

[upaloopa]

14. Those taxes are spent on behalf of everyone

not some segment of the population

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Western MA doesn't get anything from the T, but they still have to pay for it.

And would you say the same thing to antiwar/social justice tax resisters like Thoreau and
Julia Butterfly Hill?

[upaloopa]

23. look you know my opinion on this

It serves no purpose to go further

[beevul]

27. I guess you're against public beaches then, right?

I guess you're against public beaches then, right?

They only benefit swimmers.

Against public campgrounds...they only benefit campers.

Against fish cleaning stations...they only benefit fishermen.

Or is it just a gun thing?

[petronius]

30. It's not general fund money to start with: Pittman-Robertson Act funds are taxes

collected only on the sale of firearms and accessories, and I think other hunting and shooting-related items, for the express purpose of funding conservation and outdoor recreation activities, specifically including shooting ranges.

The P-R money is distributed proportionally to the states, so that specific state agencies can use the funds for the authorized purposes. However, for any use of the P-R money, states have to provide some matching funds out of their own budget; they can't fund a project 100% with the federal tax.

One of the things this bill would do is to reduce the required state share for shooting ranges. So, a state could fund 90% of a range with P-R money and only 10% from the state side (rather than the current 25% minimum from the state).

What it's really doing is allow the state to use more of its share of the federal pot, which has been paid into by hunters and shooter in the state for outdoors projects, and keep state money for other needs...

(And as far as it being spent on "all the people", it is - every resident of the state would be able to access the facilities. The same as basically every other state expenditure: for hospitals, school, parks that not every one goes to, roads that not everyone drives on, libraries that not everyone patronizes, health services that not everyone needs, etc.)

[sinkingfeeling]

12. "Generated from federal sales tax"

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would allow North Carolina and states across the country to use more of their designated funding generated from federal sales tax to acquire land for, expand, or construct public target ranges.

[SQUEE]

31. I guess you have never heard of the CMP.

Prepare to be quite upset....
So your idea is to leave training and facilities to those that are pimping NRA ideals?
You need to really examine your stance on these things, this is an actual nuanced and multi-layered situation and simple black and white pronouncements of outrage based on your personal bigotry to a large segment of the people is just the kind of thing I expect from the conservatives, not a pluralist progressive. YMMV.

[The Blue Flower]

2. This is what NC needs? Really?

nt

[appal_jack]

4. NC needs a winning progressive coalition.

NC needs a winning progressive coalition. If we are to rebuild a winning progressive coalition here in NC, I believe that it must start with a consistent and deep respect for all of the Bill of Rights. Being against the RKBA will not help candidates here, nor for that matter will it help anyone's life. The vast majority of gun grabbers and gun humpers alike (to use two loaded, lousy terms) agree that unprovoked violence should be criminalized. Passing feel-good, yet ineffective regulations on hardware (i.e.- most recent gun control proposals) only alienates shooters and sportsmen/women.

-app

[msongs]

5. let the gun crowd spend its own money for its playthings nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. DNRTA, did you?:

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would allow states to use taxes already collected on sporting equipment and ammunition to establish and maintain public shooting ranges without adding to the deficit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. If it's true the "majority of gun grabbers .. agree that unprovoked violence should be criminalized"

there should be some factual support for that somewhere.

If you know of any, it would be interesting to see links to support that.

From what I've seen, none of them ever express such concern at all. None of them ever seem to agree that the revolving-door system for violent criminals should be stopped. None of them ever seem to agree that criminals who use firearms should be separated from firearms with increased prison time.

Instead, it seems to be common for them to falsely equate criminals who use firearms with law-abiding citizens. Their focus doesn't seem to be upon criminals at all, but on emotional words and phrases, group-think, and their frustration with the fact that there are not enough people supporting group-think.

[appal_jack]

29. Well, I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Let NC pay for them. The federal sales tax should go to the nation.

[Eleanors38]

17. Outdoor sports taxes are collected by the feds, the states have authority to spend...

on outdoor sports uses they deem important projects. Sounds like you want fishers and hunters to pay these special taxes, but not let them use those taxes.

Nice try, but that's not how the law works.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. Could you provide information on a non-state outdoor sports taxes? The only

federal excise tax on sporting equipment I'm aware of is this:

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly know as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was approved by Congress on September 2, 1937, and began functioning July 1, 1938.

The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improvement of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of information produced by the projects.
The Act was amended October 23, 1970, to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public target ranges.

Funds are derived from an 11 percent Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the States and Territorial areas (except Puerto Rico) by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas set forth in the Act. Appropriate State agencies are the only entities eligible to receive grant funds. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.

Each state's apportionment is determined by a formula which considers the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Aid for up to 75 percent of the project expenses. The state must provide at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source.

http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2723&q=326164

[Eleanors38]

21. That's the one I had in mind, though there may be others.

I'm not sure what you are asking, since you have summarized the argument I was making pretty well. The P-R Act levies taxes on arms, archery, motor boat fuels, etc., and sends it back to the states, who are the only ones authorized to spend the monies. I don't know what NC or any other state has which provides the 25% match; bond issue, hold-overs from respective fish & game departments, NGOs or whatever. Depending on those sources, the state may indeed be able to say that no "additional" or "new" tax money was spent.

Reimbursement suggests that the states know what is already in the federal kitty (for N.C.) before they make expenditures. They get up to 75% back in any case. When they get this back, hopefully they will spend it on other state needs.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. I just don't understand if NC gets back its share of the fed money why

don't they just pay for these new shooting ranges?

[Eleanors38]

24. Are you suggesting they are acting in a different manner?

It seems they are paying, then getting reimbursed. Isn't that how it is working?

[premium]

15. Clark County, NV.,

did the same thing last year.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/25/reid-ensign-among-politicians-shooting-range-dedic/#axzz2ZKPwJYPA

Politicians and a couple of hundred spectators gathered to dedicate the Clark County Shooting Park this morning.

It was built using public funds with the aim of the facility being used to train Law Enforcement.

The public facility will occupy 148 acres on a 2,900-acre park, with the non-shooting acres serving as a wildlife preserve and a buffer against development. The park cost $61 million, with money provided through the congressional Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. The county hopes the park will draw competitive shooters and serve as a training facility for law enforcement.

[rdharma]

19. I have no objection to self-sufficient public shooting ranges.

In fact, it's a good idea.

[rrneck]

20. Hmmm

An opportunity for those who tout "gun safety" to endorse the public support of their rhetoric.

[ileus]

25. Pretty good use of collected taxes....nice to see a progressive 2Aer

in a red state...