Lewis

If you chanced by my camp in November this year, we would probably talk about elk hunting and how it used to be, and we would talk about our favorite rifles, new and old. If my dad was there, he would tell you the story of taking his first elk, which was just about five years ago.

What we probably wouldn’t talk about is that the Weatherby 300 WSM he used on his first elk hunt he won at a benefit auction. The excise taxes from the original purchase of the gun were brought back to Oregon to benefit conservation efforts. And the money raised in the raffle also benefited wildlife in Oregon. And because he had an elk rifle, he bought a hunting license that year, and applied for a tag, helping to further fund scientific wildlife management. That gun did double duty for wildlife long before dad’s first elk hunt.

One of the things we take for granted are the taxes associated with buying guns and ammunition. Back in 1937 the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act was passed into law. In effect, sportsmen said, “Yes, we will impose an 11% tax on ourselves and the proceeds will pay for wildlife projects.” It’s part of this thing we call conservation. We hunt, we fish, we harvest, and we give back.

Yet there are folks in Oregon that think they know better than you and I about what we need. These same folks are trotting out a measure for the November ballot called Measure 114, the Reduction of Gun Violence Act. A low-information voter would look at the ballot title and read the last sentence in the summary and say, “Oh, this restricts magazine capacity to 10 rounds.” The low-information voter would say, “A hunter doesn’t need more than 10 rounds.” Excuse me, the Second Amendment wasn’t written for hunters. It was written about freedom and self defense. And the law-abiding people that this measure would restrict are not the people engaged in gun violence.

Measure 114 goes way beyond a magazine restriction. The real intent of Measure 114 is to stop gun sales.

Measure 114 adds roadblocks to an already cumbersome firearms purchase process. It’s a super background check which includes an application, photographs, fingerprints, FBI criminal background check, mandatory gun safety class with information about impacts of homicides and suicide on families, communities and the country. In addition, it requires live gun handling and live fire. We already have background checks. If you buy an elk rifle this fall, you will have to pass a background check. Measure 114 is not about reducing gun violence. It is about stopping gun sales through bureaucracy.

The burden of issuing new permits falls on police agencies (if you live in the city) and sheriffs (if you live outside the city). The record-keeping burden falls on the Oregon State Police. What this means is local police, sheriff departments and OSP would go back to voters and the legislature for more taxes to fund new hiring.

Worse, under Measure 114, there is nothing that compels chiefs of police or sheriffs to implement a permit-to-purchase and live fire training. If they do not have the staff to process requests, the citizen is not allowed to shop outside their jurisdiction. Remember that excise tax? Gone. Remember that gun shop? Gone. When lawful commerce in arms and ammunition stops, tax proceeds dry up. And the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is the loser to the detriment of wildlife programs to the tune of $14.3 million per year.

One of the other ways hunters support wildlife is through nonprofit conservation groups like the Oregon Hunters Association, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation who raffle and auction firearms to raise money for wildlife habitat and conservation efforts. One of the main draws at these events is the chance to win a new rifle. How many hunters are likely to show up at an RMEF event if they no longer have a chance to win a Winchester or a Remington? They are going to stay home. Wildlife loses. Freedom loses.

What can we do? We can make sure we vote before we head off to elk camp.