GunTalk host Tom Gresham opened up a can of worms on social media recently when he expressed his support for the 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition imposed under the Pittman-Robertson Act, noting that the funds generated by the tax are used for good purposes.
No one likes taxes, but I gotta say that the excise tax on guns and ammo causes me no heartburn. It was requested by hunters and gun owners, and the money is what funds wildlife/hunting conservation as well as public shooting ranges. I'm good with that. https://t.co/yW9pRfwBwx
— Tom Gresham (@Guntalk) May 26, 2026
While Gresham received a little support from followers, most replies were strongly opposed to Tom's take.. including a few that weren't exactly family friendly. Here are a couple of the less explicit responses.
If only hunters and gun owners pay the tax why are all occupants of the USA allowed to use tge land it conserves. Keep the bird watchers and hikers out of our hunting areas that we pay for ( or charge them the use fee as well) .
— Matthew Janney (@JanneyMatthew) May 26, 2026
Bad take.
— 2A.org Human Right to Arms📜🔫 (@2Aorg) May 27, 2026
Comes off as:
"Everyone should pay for my hobby or something I believe in, even if it costs them more to exercise their rights, even if they are short on money, and even if it prices so people out of enjoying their rights."
So do you support the 11% excise tax California has added?
— The Black Lab 🇺🇸 (@TheBlackLab2A) May 26, 2026
Because that's going to spread if they get away with it.
I think that last argument is a pretty strong one. Yes, the 11% federal excise tax does do some good by funding both wildlife conservation and public shooting ranges. But Democrats in states like California and Colorado have used the federal excise tax as an excuse to put state-level taxes in place too, which not only further increases the price of guns and ammunition, but sees those dollars spent on things like "gun violence prevention projects" that are all too often promoting gun control policies.
An even better argument against Pittman-Robertson is the one presented by Second Amendment Foundation Director of Research and Education Kostas Moros, which is that a special tax on the exercise of an enumerated right is unconstitutional.
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) May 26, 2026
The Supreme Court has stated as much in several cases dealing with the First Amendment, but to the best of my knowledge the Pittman-Robertson excise tax has never been subject to a lawsuit.
I do understand where supporters of Pittman-Robertson are coming from. If the excise tax was levied on all outdoor equipment from camping gear to pickleball racquets, then the funds that are raised aren't going to go solely to things like wildlife conservation and range access. Anti-gunners could even commandeer some or all of those funds and put them towards anti-hunting and anti-shooting initiatives.
There are a couple of alternatives, though. One would be to take the existing federal duck stamp and expand its use to other game; a federal deer stamp, feral hog stamp, etc. That would raise less money than Pittman-Robertson taxes, but it would be a more constitutionally sound approach.
Another alternative would be to exempt sales of handguns and handgun ammunition, while imposing the tax on other hunting-specific products that are not currently subject to Pittman-Robertson. That too would probably have a negative impact on the amount of funds generated by the tax, but it would again resolve any constitutional issues by not tying the tax directly and solely to the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms.
Given the vulnerability of Pittman-Robertson to a legal challenge, I think it's incumbent on the outdoors community to start thinking about ways to modernize and update the statue before a court has the change to strike it down in its entirety. Even if those reforms lead to a reduction in revenue from the tax, I'd say that's a better alternative for wildlife lovers and the hunting community than seeing the tax disappear altogether... or expanded to the point that the law no longer benefits hunters and sportsmen.
