Can We Have Our 11 Percent Back?

If you're a fan of The West Wing, you're probably familiar with Season 4, Episode 6.

In ‘Game On’ President Jed Bartlet (D) faces off with Governor Robert Ritchie (R-FL) in a Presidential Debate. The opening debate question concerns states' rights and the role of the federal government. Ritchie argues states should decide where to spend their tax dollars without dictates from Washington.

Bartlet’s response eviscerates Ritchie, setting the tone for the entire debate and foreshadowing Bartlet’s win. It’s one of the many brilliant scenes fans of the The West Wing point to when explaining its popularity.

You can watch the exchange online, but the key line comes when Bartlet asks, "Can we have it back?”

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

How exactly is this analogous?

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.”

Numerous bans on firearms—which are falling one-by-one thanks to the work of the Four Horsemen of Gun Rights (Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Gun Owners of America (GOA))—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 states’ rights supersede federal law, especially when it comes to an issue they just don’t like. Guns and hunting fall squarely into the Jeopardy category, “Things Liberal Legislators Hate.”

The conundrum facing liberal state legislatures is what to do with all those Pittman-Robertson funds they receive from the sale of the very products and activities they 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 funds, for short, come from the sale of long guns, ammunition, and archery equipment (11% excise tax) and handguns (10% excise tax). These taxes are paid by the manufacturers and are based on the first sale price—usually to distributors but not always.

While you as the consumer don’t see this tax, the cost is built into the price you pay. So in the end, you are the one paying the tax because 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 on the quantity they do make. And that means the revenue generated under Pittman-Robertson declines.

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 those same activities, it's reasonable for those who ultimately fund Pittman-Robertson—the 11 Percenters—to ask, as Jed Bartlet did, "Can we have it back?”

– Paul Erhardt, Managing Editor, the Outdoor Wire Digital Network