Tactical Rifles

With the current boom in the sales of tactical rifles, or EBRs, I thought it would be timely to link to NSSF’s fact sheet on the tactical rifle, and where it fits into the industry.

Tactical rifles and accessories are a booming trend within the firearm industry. Actual sales figures are impossible to report accurately because many manufacturers are privately held companies, and ATF statistics do not distinguish between rifle types. However, anecdotal evidence is plentiful. Manufacturers say they’re backordered, tactical firearms now outsell traditional rifles, etc.

If you read the entire presser, you can see that the market for tactical rifles has been exploding in the past few years; obviously it’s blowing up right now.  Assuming for the moment that a new AWB would be mush harsher than the Clinton ban, one of the possible consequences of it would be to not only put a lot of people out of work, but to decrease federal tax revenues as well.  Like any other rifle, tactical rifles are subject to the same excise taxes levied on all firearms – banning their sale would have a significant impact on lowering the revenue collected by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (Pittman-Robertson) Act of 1937.

Maybe you’re thinking “so what, I don’t own tactical rifles, so a ban doesn’t hurt me”.  Well, that’s where you’d be wrong; because of what the money collected by the Pittman Robertson Act goes towards.

Funds from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition [Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161(b)] are appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior and apportioned to States on a formula basis for paying up to 75 percent of the cost approved projects. Project activities include acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat, introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, research into wildlife problems, surveys and inventories of wildlife problems, acquisition and development of access facilities for public use, and hunter education programs, including construction and operation of public target ranges (emphasis mine).

A loss in revenue for the Pittman-Robertson act affects all of us in a negative way, because even if you just shoot rifles, or .22s, or whatever, you’re going to have fewer places to shoot, fewer opportunities for training, and if you’re a hunter you’ll have fewer game animals to hunt due to a loss in funding for wildlife conservation acts.

This is why I’m constantly beating the drum of “unity”.  We’re not just hunters, or competition shooters, or EBR guys – we are all quite literally in this together.  Just because you don’t own a tactical rifle doesn’t mean that you don’t benefit from the insane sales numbers of tactical rifles.  Just because you don’t shoot .223 doesn’t mean that you don’t benefit from the fact that .223 is FLYING off the shelves.  To mangle the quote, we must hang together or we shall certainly hang separately.

3 thoughts on “Tactical Rifles”

  1. Mr. Cynical here…..

    The moneys collected as part of the Pittman Robertson tax are supposed to be used for certain things, and to the benefit of those being taxed.

    Yeh…. right.

    Make you a deal….. I’ll be less cynical about that if you can find me one (1) public shooting range that is funded with those taxes. Just one. I won’t ask for an accounting of the tens of millions soaked off us in P-R taxes each year, just find me one little range someplace that is made available with the money.

    As far as my buying habits…. they are influenced by nearly terminal lackocash, not my desires for new toys. Just before the last AWB I bought a handfull of EBR’s and made a considerable gain on my investment. This trip through I don’t have the cash to play that game.

    Sigh….

  2. “Assuming for the moment that a new AWB would be mush (sic) harder than the Clinton ban…”

    ASSUMING??? Urkel has already spoken of his intention to expand that ban, and make it PERMANENT. This is not some Evil Republican Conspiracy Theory, this is HIS OWN PUBLIC STATEMENT. If you couldn’t divine it from his miserable senate voting record, you now have it from the president-elect’s own mouth. All that campaign rhetoric about, “not taking guns”, and, “supporting the Second Amendment” was just so much bullshit. He hasn’t even taken office yet , and already the gun grabbers are having orgasms.

    “… one of the consequences of it would be not only to put a lot of people out of work, but to decrease federal tax revenues as well.”

    And this matters to Urkel and his minions…why? In the Obama view, if it sounds good, it must be implemented (and damn the will of the people).
    He’s got a plan to help out the downtrodden masses of the “middle-class”, funded by higher taxes on “the rich”. (I defy you to tell me how this differs from socialism.) But who will create the jobs these people need to rise from their abject poverty? Joe ‘The Plumber’ Wurzelbacher had it right—Tax the people who HIRE people, and those people will QUIT HIRING. Or, as another pundit put it, “When was the last time a poor person offered you a job?”
    And even after hysterically bashing G.W. Bush for eight years for driving the national debt so high that OUR GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE SADDLED WITH THIS CRUSHING DEBT, they’ve still managed to convince people that they will have it wrapped up nicely (but concede that it might take a couple years, so be patient). Don’t bother them with silly, niggling* concerns about funding. The rich will always provide.

    *No, it’s not racist. Look it up.

  3. The new AWB predates the Lightbringer, and anyway, he doesn’t author legislation any longer. Don’t worry, HR 6257 will keep coming back until it gets a president’s signature.

Comments are closed.