A can of worms?

[Scriv]

There has been an introduction written for ASA that has prompted some thought on things for some, and that I have thought about for quite some time. I'd like to just flat out say what I've been thinking purely for your consideration. It is incumbent on all of us to handle these thoughts in a constructive, rational manner to maintain the high standards we all enjoy here on HAM. It has been stated that a primary focus of the ASA is to promote hunting with airguns in more states. Let me state that I am not opposed to this, but it will come at a price, as all things do. We've already discussed the possibility of excise taxes being applied in the remarks section of that article. I think that is a real possibility. What really has me concerned is that when one makes the argument for expanding hunting with an air gun, one is going to refer to their ability to cleanly dispatch game. It will not take many of these conversations before some legislators realize that they can be as efficient as firearms, and should be classified as such. One thing that legislators love is to write laws. It is not much of a stretch to think that they could write something along the power level licensing that our UK members currently enjoy, or carte blanche apply the same requirements that are applied to firearms. Think about buying a firearm from an out of state dealer, as compared to ordering an airgun, and what that entails. I should probably just stop right there, so you can let that marinate for a bit. I'm sure that many of you have already thought about it. I'm also sure that many are thinking "that will never happen". Anyway, give it some thought, see what you think, and if you decide to share, please be responsible, respectful, and considerate in your response. Thanks for the read.

 

[FL22]

Well put Sir.
It does require thoughtful consideration.

 

[hameditor]

There has been an introduction written for ASA that has prompted some thought on things for some, that I have thought about for quite some time. I'd like to just flat out say what I've been thinking purely for your consideration. It is incumbent on all of us to handle these thoughts in a constructive, rational manner to maintain the high standards we all enjoy here on HAM. It has been stated that a primary focus of the ASA is to promote hunting with airguns in more states. Let me state that I am not opposed to this, but it will come at a price, as all things do. We've already discussed the possibility of excise taxes being applied in the remarks section of that article. I think that is a real possibility. What really has me concerned is that when one makes the argument for expanding hunting with an air gun, one is going to refer to their ability to cleanly dispatch game. It will not take many of these conversations before some legislators realize that they can be as efficient as firearms, and should be classified as such. One thing that legislators love is to write laws. It is not much of a stretch to think that they could write something along the power level licensing that our UK members currently enjoy, or carte blanche apply the same requirements that are applied to firearms. Think about buying a firearm from an out of state dealer, as compared to ordering an airgun, and what that entails. I should probably just stop right there, so you can let that marinate for a bit. I'm sure that many of you have already thought about it. I'm also sure that many are thinking "that will never happen". Anyway, give it some thought, see what you think, and if you decide to share, please be responsible, respectful, and considerate in your response. Thanks for the read.

In my opinion this is a very well thought out and written opinion. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Billm]

I agree 100%. Personally I see several “airgun issues” that might cause some bumps in the road or industry self-inflicted wounds as public exposure is increased. Some of my thoughts would be controversial and so I’ll keep them to myself. But, some of the videos I’ve watched of Airgun hunting kind of runs at odds with what is traditionally considered ethical hunting. I’m not sure how most states will look upon exploding pellets being used on wildlife.
I personally don’t want to pay more for an extra day of hunting. In Florida you can hunt almost anything with an Airgun with few stipulations: minimum .30 pcp or airbow is for big game and .20 or larger for Turkey. I’m not sure I like the idea of three or four manufacturers negotiating on my behalf with organizations pushing to tax me more. Their thought process is probably along the lines of more hunting equals more guns sold. Maybe we have all of this wrong. The other concern: I guarantee that the majority of airgun purchases are not for hunting. Who is representing the non-hunters? I will wait to hear more.

 

[Scriv]

In my opinion this is a very well thought out and written opinion. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you. I appreciate the environment in which I can share. Good group here.

 

[Scriv]

I agree 100%. Personally I see several “airgun issues” that might cause some bumps in the road or industry self-inflicted wounds as public exposure is increased. Some of my thoughts would be controversial and so I’ll keep them to myself. But, some of the videos I’ve watched of Airgun hunting kind of runs at odds with what is traditionally considered ethical hunting. I’m not sure how most states will look upon exploding pellets being used on wildlife.
I personally don’t want to pay more for an extra day of hunting. In Florida you can hunt almost anything with an Airgun with few stipulations: minimum .30 pcp or air is for big game and .20 or larger for Turkey. I’m not sure I like the idea of three or four manufacturers negotiating on my behalf with organizations pushing to tax me more. Their thought process is probably along the lines of more hunting equals more guns sold. Maybe we have all of this wrong. The other concern: I guarantee that the majority of airgun purchases are not for hunting. Who is representing the non-hunters? I will wait to hear more.

We share some the same thoughts. It was a chore to confine my thoughts to the core issue.

 

[Ezana4CE]

There has been an introduction written for ASA that has prompted some thought on things for some, that I have thought about for quite some time. I'd like to just flat out say what I've been thinking purely for your consideration. It is incumbent on all of us to handle these thoughts in a constructive, rational manner to maintain the high standards we all enjoy here on HAM. It has been stated that a primary focus of the ASA is to promote hunting with airguns in more states. Let me state that I am not opposed to this, but it will come at a price, as all things do. We've already discussed the possibility of excise taxes being applied in the remarks section of that article. I think that is a real possibility. What really has me concerned is that when one makes the argument for expanding hunting with an air gun, one is going to refer to their ability to cleanly dispatch game. It will not take many of these conversations before some legislators realize that they can be as efficient as firearms, and should be classified as such. One thing that legislators love is to write laws. It is not much of a stretch to think that they could write something along the power level licensing that our UK members currently enjoy, or carte blanche apply the same requirements that are applied to firearms. Think about buying a firearm from an out of state dealer, as compared to ordering an airgun, and what that entails. I should probably just stop right there, so you can let that marinate for a bit. I'm sure that many of you have already thought about it. I'm also sure that many are thinking "that will never happen". Anyway, give it some thought, see what you think, and if you decide to share, please be responsible, respectful, and considerate in your response. Thanks for the read.

I'm thinking that the issue of expanding legislation regarding hunting with airguns will follow practices already accepted and implemented in mostly southern/southwestern states. If you look at airgun regs with state DNR agencies, the wording is similar in certain regions. I think states with later airgun hunting adoption piggy back on states with established regulations and practices. I see this similarity in the Texes/Louisiana regs. Although, Mississippi regs differ from what I recall reading. In short, early adopters seem to have blazed the trail. The process for Texas was interesting with a sound method to prove the feasibility of hunting with airguns before gaining broader acceptance.

It is possible that legislation or acceptance will likely face issues in states on the opposite end of the political spectrum and states with metropolitan regions with high violent/gun crime rates. Also if a state already like to tax broadly, then said legislatures may see this as another opportunity to tax an additional area of citizens' interest. Taxation is an entirely different issue that I have no interest in discussing here. Either way, where I live and hunt I don't see much changing, so I don't think about it much. If things change, then I can either remain disgruntled or adapt and reminisce on "the good old days" like many older people seem to do.

I think we should also take into consideration that there will always be bad actors and criminals. I've actually spoken to a man convicted poaching. The guy told me he got caught doing a drive-by shooting at a dummy deer set out by game officials. TX hunting laws (at least the ones that affect me or that I pay attention to) haven't seem to have changed as a result of his actions and others like him. You can always bank on someone to do something selfish or foolish. I don't see that stopping progress concerning airgun hunting considering that, that has not seemed to have hindered firearm hunting in this state. Maybe things are different in other states. I cannot speak to that any more broadly. Look at how many states have adopted airgun hunting. If I'm not mistaken, I think that more than half of (US) states have some sort of permissible airgun hunting regs on the books. Worst case scenario, I can imagine certain limitations placed on specific airgun products (use your imagination here), but in no way can I see UK-styled regulation in Texas or most of the USA. That's just me speculating. I don't like to do a lot of that, so I'll stop there.

 

[Billm]

Personally, as far as taxes I’d rather see it be an airgun stamp rather than an industry wide excise tax. The state of Utah has already implemented airgun hunting permits that contributes part of the fee to the Pittman act. The Congressional Sportsman Foundation is a good source of news on hunting and shooting legislation including the excise tax. They talk about airgun hunters not contributing to the fund.

 

[Scriv]

Personally, as far as taxes I’d rather see it be an airgun stamp rather than an industry wide excise tax. The state if Utah gas already implemented airgun hunting permits that contributes part of the fee to the Pittman act. The Congressional Sportsman Foundation is a good source of news on hunting and shooting legislation including the excise tax. They talk about airgun hunters not contributing to the fund.

I like those ideas. A better way to apply a pay to play sort of fee. I can't tell you the number if times I've stood on a skeet field, and someone mentions that they don't hunt. They paid taxes to benefit others just to shoot skeet. I think that we all would like things to be applied fairly, but one thing I've learned about life is that it's not fair.

 

[Scriv]

I'm thinking that the issue of expanding legislation regarding hunting with airguns will follow practices already accepted and implemented in mostly southern/southwestern states. If you look at airgun regs with state DNR agencies, the wording is similar in certain regions. I think states with later airgun hunting adoption piggy back on states with established regulations and practices. I see this similarity in the Texes/Louisiana regs. Although, Mississippi regs differ from what I recall reading. In short, early adopters seem to have blazed the trail. The process for Texas was interesting with a sound method to prove the feasibility of hunting with airguns before gaining broader acceptance.

It is possible that legislation or acceptance will likely face issues in states on the opposite end of the political spectrum and states with metropolitan regions with high violent/gun crime rates. Also if a state already like to tax broadly, then said legislatures may see this as another opportunity to tax an additional area of citizens' interest. Taxation is an entirely different issue that I have no interest in discussing here. Either way, where I live and hunt I don't see much changing, so I don't think about it much. If things change, then I can either remain disgruntled or adapt and reminisce on "the good old days" like many older people seem to do.

I think we should also take into consideration that there will always be bad actors and criminals. I've actually spoken to a man convicted poaching. The guy told me he got caught doing a drive-by shooting at a dummy deer set out by game officials. TX hunting laws (at least the ones that affect me or that I pay attention to) haven't seem to have changed as a result of his actions and others like him. You can always bank on someone to do something selfish or foolish. I don't see that stopping progress concerning airgun hunting considering that, that has not seemed to have hindered firearm hunting in this state. Maybe things are different in other states. I cannot speak to that any more broadly. Look at how many states have adopted airgun hunting. If I'm not mistaken, I think that more than half of (US) states have some sort of permissible airgun hunting regs on the books. Worst case scenario, I can imagine certain limitations placed on specific airgun products (use your imagination here), but in no way can I see UK-styled regulation in Texas or most of the USA. That's just me speculating. I don't like to do a lot of that, so I'll stop there.

I agree. I brought up the UK as an example, more aptly, just spit balling here. I think that enforcement would be more difficult than folks here are willing to endure.

 

[Billm]

I like those ideas. A better way to apply a pay to play sort of fee. I can't tell you the number if times I've stood on a skeet field, and someone mentions that they don't hunt. They paid taxes to benefit others just to shoot skeet. I think that we all would like things to be applied fairly, but one thing I've learned about life is that it's not fair.

In Florida hunting licenses are fairly priced and inexpensive. I bought stamps for categories that I never intended to hunt, knowing that it supported the FWC. I am no longer required to pay for a hunting or fishing license, but I’ll continue to contribute one way or another. I hate seeing a Federal excise tax being applied as some States will piggyback on it with additional taxes. California and Colorado is already doing that and their additional taxes are used for political agendas not wildlife management.

 

[Billm]

I think an airgun association for the shooters, by the shooters would be a good thing. If the ASA takes that direction, I will be interested. Your thread could also be called “Pandora’s Box: a process that generates many complicated problems as the result of unwise interference in something.”. But, in all honesty, I think they’re trying to make the best of the inevitable.

 

[Scriv]

I think an airgun association for the shooters, by the shooters would be a good thing. If the ASA takes that direction, I will be interested. Your thread could also be called “Pandora’s Box: a process that generates many complicated problems as the result of unwise interference in something.”. But, in all honesty, I think they’re trying to make the best of the inevitable.

Agreed. This has been in my mind for a couple of years at least. I guess I thought that it was time to rip the bandaid off, and let the sunlight hit it.

 

[Scriv]

I like the way that this thread has matured. Thank you to everyone for your thoughts.

 

[Billm]

I’ve been sitting in a surgical waiting room for the last 5 hours and so it’s given me something to think about lol.

 

[Scriv]

I’ve been sitting in a surgical waiting room for the last 5 hours and so it’s given me something to think about lol.

I hope that everything turns out well for you in that regard.

 

[hameditor]

I hope that everything turns out well for you in that regard.

Me too!

 

[Chief55]

They haven't had any problem with other primitive weapons like bows, crossbows or sidelock muzzleloaders, so I don't see any problem for hunting. In fact, Georga has a special primitive weapons season that you can use any of them including airguns in. I wish Florida would do the same rather than just during the gun season. In line muzzleloaders can be an issue in some locations. In my view a can of worms could open up with all of the power increases if they exceeded sidelock muzzleloaders and or the high-powered semi auto models. Sidelock black powder muzzleloaders, 45 & 50 cal. with 120 grains of BP can shoot a round ball at 2000-2200FPS, basically twice as fast as any airgun, so as long as they stay well within the primitive weapons realm. I would not lose too much sleep over it. I think it is more likely that they will strongly encourage everyone to use primitive weapons someday down the line, but I don't think I will be around long enough to see it.

Good luck Billm

 

[Scriv]

Yes, there are excise taxes on those items as well.

 

[Chief55]

Well, they don't miss much. There will always be some do gooder finding a better way to spend your money for you. It is the way. Be glad they don't tax our farts.