By Dave Workman
Writing at ProMarket, two researchers have declared it’s time for “alternative tax regimes to replace” federal excise taxes on handguns and long guns—which generate revenues to fund federal wildlife restoration programs—and doubling the taxes to “produce meaningful gains to society through a reduction in violence.”
Liberty Park Press reached out to authors Luis Armona and Adam Rosenberg, but did not recieve replies.
However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation noted that one year ago, an Op-Ed published on the NSSF website took Armona and Rosenberg to task for also pushing a gun tax proposal, leading off with this blistering observation: “Leave it to the ‘scholars’ at Harvard Kennedy School to come up with a scheme that combines the arrogance of the ‘intellectual elite,’ increasing taxes, administering gun confiscation plans and – again – purposefully conflating “public health” policies for crime control for the latest pie-in-the-sky gun control plan.”
This was back on April 4, 2025. Writer Salam Fatohi observed about their alternative tax scheme, “They just need to tax the snot out of them.”
In their new article, Armona and Rosenberg acknowledge “we know surprisingly little about how these markets operate, including how consumers make choices between the thousands of firearms available to them, how much they value these weapons, and how suppliers set prices or react to taxes. Without this information, it is impossible to know whether a tax of, say, 50%, 10%, or 0% is the “right level” to raise federal funds and reduce gun-related crimes, or what the effects of these taxes would be.”
Nowhere do they explain how y would mitigate the loss of federal aid funds for wildlife to the states, which have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars since the Pittman-Robertson fund was enacted in 1937. Under this dedicated fund program, which is strongly supported by industry and sportsmen’s organizations, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service provides annual apportionments to the states for wildlife-related programs, which include range development and hunter education.
While the researchers push the argument that violent crime is a public health issue, NSSF’s Fatohi noted last year, “…crime isn’t a public health crisis, as much as gun control advocates want to profess it is. Crime is a law enforcement issue. There is no prescription that prevents people who have no respect for life or law to make them not want to harm their victims. There’s no pill to cure that ill-minded intent.”
He reminded readers that “Criminals, typically, don’t legally buy guns. That means they wouldn’t pay the tax. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics own reports show that 90 percent of criminals convicted of crimes involving a firearm admit they obtained those firearms through illicit means. In other words, those criminals stole those firearms or bought them on the black market.”
Mark Oliva, managing director of Public Affairs for NSSF, called this new tax suggestion “a non-starter.”
He says the proposal pushes the premise “that law-abiding gun owners must subsidize (and pay an illegal poll tax) for the crimes committed by criminals.”
“I’m not aware of a tax on library cards to combat illiteracy,” Oliva said via email. “Or a tax on voting to combat election interference. The ‘right tax’ comment tells you everything. Criminals aren’t paying the tax when they illegally obtain guns. That would be forced on you and I.”
Whether the idea is a non-starter or may gain some traction, it underscores how wide the gap between common sense and nonsense, critics would argue. The gap is growing wider, and at stake is a funding mechanism which has served the nation’s wildlife programs for generations.
