Fulcher’s bill undermining conservation funding isn’t standing up for your gun rights

Rep. Russ Fulcher wants you to know that he’ll stand up for your gun rights in Washington. He wants you to know this, whether or not he’s done any actual work of that kind.

At the beginning of the month, Rep. Russ Fulcher sent out a news release, seeking attention for his co-sponsorship of the RETURN Act, a bill that would end the Pittman-Robertson excise tax on guns, ammunition and other equipment related to hunting and fishing.

As Nicole Blanchard reported last week, the bill was written by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Georgia. It is a response to a proposal by a few House Democrats to tack prohibitive taxes onto the purchase of semiautomatic weapons. It would replace the eliminated Pittman-Robertson funding — a major source of wildlife conservation funding for 85 years to ensure hunters have game to pursue — with the promise to divert some funds from federal oil leases.

“By eliminating this punitive tax on gun owners and securing a new funding source for programs important to sportsmen and conservationists, we seek to affirm not only the 2nd Amendment but our duty to be responsible stewards of our resources,” crowed Fulcher in his news release.

Fulcher’s explanation — that the bill would protect federal conservation funding from a massive increase in gun taxes, that in turn would lead to a decrease in gun sales, which in turn would lead to a plunge in Pittman-Robertson funding — holds water like a sieve.

For one thing, there is absolutely no risk that a bill imposing a 1,000% tax on semiautomatic guns could become law. Democrats have the slimmest of majorities in the Senate, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, can effectively block any bill he wants. Manchin famously campaigned for office by blowing a hole in a copy of the cap and trade bill with a hunting rifle.

For another, the U.S. Supreme Court has a 6-3 Republican supermajority, and it has shown itself ready to strike down virtually any gun control measure proposed by the states — measures much less restrictive than a prohibitive tax.

So a little bit of meaningless posturing is taking place on both sides — nothing new there.

What’s highly disappointing is Fulcher’s decision to turn this program that few have ever heard of into a political football.

Pittman-Robertson is an extremely well-designed program. It raises funds from hunters, through firearm, bow and ammunition purchases, and aims those funds toward conservation of game species — wild birds and mammals. Pittman-Robertson funds are also used for public shooting ranges.

According to hunting and fishing magazine Field and Stream, Pittman-Robertson brought in $1.5 billion for conservation in 2021.

Hunting and fishing organizations came up with and promoted the idea for Pittman-Robertson’s funding mechanism. And it’s enormously popular.

So don’t give Fulcher any credit. He isn’t standing up for the Second Amendment. He isn’t stopping the Dems from taking your guns. He’s doing a song and dance, and later he’ll pass his hat around.

That’s the one and only point of all this patronizing political theater.