There is an interesting yet little known tax on guns in our country that produced about $310 million in revenue nationwide last year, and billions in total since inception. The tax is called the "Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act" and it applies to all firearms manufactured or imported including pistols, revolvers, rifles, ammunition and archery equipment.
The proceeds of the gun tax go directly to the state wildlife conservation agencies of each state. None of the funds are used for such things as victim recovery programs, violence prevention programs or general health or education of citizens; all funds are given to state wildlife agencies and used to implement conservation programs that are primarily hunting related. This somewhat odd connection between gun sales and wildlife lies in the belief that hunting is wildlife conservation and guns are manufactured for this purpose. However, that is not the case. Many guns are purchased for self-defense, law enforcement or gun collections yet all Pittman-Robertson tax revenue is sent to state wildlife agencies.
The tax rate on guns is 10% of the sale price for pistols and revolvers and 11% for all other firearms and ammunition. It is collected annually from the "manufacturer, producer or importer" of the gun and distributed to state wildlife agencies by the Department of the Interior (after keeping some as reimbursement for expenses).There is an exemption for military sales made to the defense department but otherwise the tax is quite sweeping and applies to all guns purchased for a wide variety of reasons.
According to the public filings of Smith & Wesson Corporation, one of the leading firearm manufacturers, our domestic non-military gun market is estimated to be $2.1 billion and growing. This figure includes the production of revolvers, pistols, rifles and shotguns, many of which are not used for sport hunting. In fact, according to the 2004 National Firearms Survey, 40% of the gun market is comprised of handguns (pistols and revolvers), purchased for self protection purposes. Why then do all the gun tax dollars go into state conservation agency coffers? The answer goes back to the concept discussed in my September blog; the state wildlife agency system is the brainchild of the hunting community.
In the late 1930's when the tax was adopted, gun use was primarily related to hunting and the notion was, those who benefit from the tax should be the ones shouldering the burden by paying. This is an admirable concept but the proliferation of guns today makes the original justification obsolete and patently unfair. Today hunters continue to benefit from the Pittman-Robertson tax even though they are not the only ones paying. Assuming the cost of the tax is built into the purchase price of a gun, then the general public is paying much of this tax because many guns are purchased for local law enforcement (out of general tax revenues), for personal collections and for self defense purposes.
The formula for allocating the tax money back to state wildlife agencies also serves to encourage states to seek ways to expand the sport of hunting and increase license sales (resulting in such programs as youth hunting-see my October and November blog posts). Each state is given money based on a ratio which has two components:
1. the size of the state and
2. the number of "paid hunting license holders in the state".
The more hunters the state has, the larger the portion of gun tax revenue the state will get.
These two factors are compared to the total area of all states and to the number of paid hunting license holders in the entire country. So for example, in 2008, large states which are also big hunting states like Alaska and Texas, received between $13-$14 million each, while states like Rhode Island and Delaware received just under $2 million each. New York received $8.6 million last year and all states combined received $309,686,579 in 2008.
It seems reasonable to ask whether a portion of these funds might be better spent benefiting a larger segment of society. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service there are about 12.5 million hunters in the United States-4% of the population. But there are about 60 million gun owners and a few million dollars could be invaluable to a local school district or health care clinic. This year Governor Schwarzenegger attempted to do just that when he proposed redirecting some state wildlife agency funds to other badly needed state services in an attempt to help soften California's economic meltdown. The hunting lobby quickly quashed this proposal claiming the state was jeopardizing its federal funding. The issue the lobbyists were referring to is the requirement in Pittman-Robertson that in order to be eligible to receive gun tax revenues, states must have laws prohibiting the redirection of hunting license fees for purposes other than the administration of the state wildlife agency. But the prohibition against redirecting hunting license fees does not restrict the use of the gun tax money (of which California received $10.4 million in 2008); a point that was never clarified.
Another troubling nuance of the gun tax that turns the general public into unwitting patrons of sport hunting, is the law's requirement that only 75% of any state wildlife project or program be financed by the gun tax. The state must provide the other 25% from general funds or from hunting license fees. In a number of states, hunting license fees are not adequate and general funds are used.
A fund for victims of gun violence should be an obvious part of the gun tax. For crimes committed with handguns and other non hunting weapons, a fund could be established to help the victims and their families. I'm sure the survivors and families of victims of such tragedies as the Virgina Tech and Fort Hood shootings could benefit from some financial support. There's a lot of gun tax money out there-can't we spread the wealth?
