How is wildlife affected by the Supreme Courtís ruling on
What so many of us donít seem to get is that both handguns and
bullets pay into the federal Conservation Fund. The victim of the gun
discharge is irrelevant to the flow of money to the government. When
there is a suicide using a firearm, when there is a drug murder using a
firearm, when there is a home invasion fatality as a result of a
firearm, money ends up in the Conservation Fund.
How? Excise taxes on
firearms and ammunition are collected at the point of import or
manufacture in the US. Those taxes are then doled out to the states
depending on the number of hunting licenses they sell relative to their
population. That gives states like Alaska, which has a relatively low
population, but a high percentage of hunters, a chance to get a large
share of the money in order to promote even more hunting.
Donít think for a second that there isnít a money flow in this
misguided and perhaps politically motivated decision.
Of the 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, 55% of them were due to
suicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A good investigative reporter (if there are any left) should look
into any pressure from the hunting interests, starting with the USFWS.
After all, they are the only beneficiaries.
According to an AP report:
The CDC research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocated more
than $2.1 million a year in the mid-1990s. The agency cut back research
on the subject in 1996 after Congress ordered that none of the CDCís
appropriations be used to promote gun control. The agency no longer
funds gun-related policy analysis.
C.A.S.H. has been informing our readers and the public through
letters to editors that the excise tax on firearms and ammunition should
be used to pay victims of gun crime and their families and not to
promote more use of firearms (as in hunting and general gun