Federal government to eliminate funding for archery, hunter education in public schools

As others have stated, elections do have consequences. True enough. However, it is more complex that it might appear to many.

During the last session of Congress, a small group of republican congressman (14, IIRC) and 15 republican Senators, including Senator Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator McConnell (R-KY), voted with the democrats to pass the most significant gun control bill in two decades. That bill included provisions that are now being used to impact the hunter education programs discussed here - and much more.

Bottom line, we all need to do a better job of vetting the political candidates that we ultimately vote into office - republican, democrat and independent. Just accepting their word when they tell us, "I support the second amendment", isn't enough.

The same seems to apply for the public lands issue, IMHO.
 
SAJ-99 said:
There is much more? What did this thread miss?
Click to expand...
I don't want to thread crap or turn this OP's thread into a patrician debate, so I'll just suggest that everyone can learn more by conducting their own internet search using a few of these terms:

“Bipartisan Safer Communities Act”
Gun Control
Gun Control Advocacy Group funding/benefiting
Red Flag Laws
Boyfriend loophole
Senator Cornyn (R-TX)
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Further, you can learn more from some of the so-called "gun-tube" channels on YouTube, etc. There are some decent 2A-oriented news websites too. You just won't find much of it on the over-the-airwaves, evening news broadcasts.

That probably still fits with within what Big Fin would support for HuntTalk.
 
bucdoego said:
As others have stated, elections do have consequences. True enough. However, it is more complex that it might appear to many.

During the last session of Congress, a small group of republican congressman (14, IIRC) and 15 republican Senators, including Senator Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator McConnell (R-KY), voted with the democrats to pass the most significant gun control bill in two decades. That bill included provisions that are now being used to impact the hunter education programs discussed here - and much more.

Bottom line, we all need to do a better job of vetting the political candidates that we ultimately vote into office - republican, democrat and independent. Just accepting their word when they tell us, "I support the second amendment", isn't enough.

The same seems to apply for the public lands issue, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, it is never a simple binary calculation. Some folks try to boil it down to that in order to make a point. What do you do when your “pro-public lands” politician seeks to stack the wildlife commission with anti-hunting, animal rights activists?
 
Last edited:
There are so many layers to this problem. We have what is really a two party system. I am not seeing people of high character making it into the upper echelons of politics. They seem to be beholden to financial partners. The political climate at the state and national level involves game playing for almost everyone. I have had a few connections to state level politicians, and they talked about how it all involves scratching backs. It isn’t about their constituents or issues.

What do we do? We stay as informed as we can. We act, in any way we can. We put our resources where our priorities lie.
 
RobG said:
Is this taught as part of a public school curriculum? Doesn't the ban limit itself to classes in public schools?
Click to expand...
That's the question being asked and nobody is answering.

This is an interpretation for a piece of legislation by the Department of Education. How far does that extend? Only to the classes themselves? To schools that host those classes on their facilities and therefore provide indirect benefit? To PE classes that teach such? To schools that field teams in State High School League sanctioned shooting events that use school facilities for teaching, coaching, transportation to events?

The extent of this interpretation is still the big mystery that nobody seems willing to address. Their is the interpretation of what the law means according to Dept of Ed. What is their interpretation of how far their interpretation extends?
 
Big Fin said:
That's the question being asked and nobody is answering.

This is an interpretation for a piece of legislation by the Department of Education. How far does that extend? Only to the classes themselves? To schools that host those classes on their facilities and therefore provide indirect benefit? To PE classes that teach such? To schools that field teams in State High School League sanctioned shooting events that use school facilities for teaching, coaching, transportation to events?

The extent of this interpretation is still the big mystery that nobody seems willing to address. Their is the interpretation of what the law means according to Dept of Ed. What is their interpretation of how far their interpretation extends?
Click to expand...
Randy, who is asking those questions and to whom are they speaking? Because I sent a couple of politely worded emails to different folks in the Department of Ed and have spoken with a press secretary as well as a program director. As in multiple emails exchanged, phone conversations with follow up. ***Edited to clarify--I have no connection with these people or the DoE, I was simply "cold calling" email addresses.

To be honest, I think there are a lot of pot-stirrers out there right now building their email lists and fundraising on this issue that have no interest in bringing clarity to the situation. If it was widely understood that this prohibition applied to less than 5% of all school funding in this country and that DoE had already committed to working with lawmakers on a legislative fix to clear up the statutory language, there wouldn't be too many flames to fan.

The only uncertainty here is how many students could potentially be affected because the DoE doesn't fund this stuff in any systematic or programmatic way. There are a few instances where ESEA funds are known to overlap with these activities, but it's not tracked or documented. They have no idea how much money is spent on this stuff and no way of figuring that out. I have a few examples of how and when ESEA funding could overlap with hunter safety/shooting sports, but it's all tertiary stuff. Until there is a legislative fix, this will pretty much be an "on the honor system" deal because the DOE doesn't collect information on where these funds end up, much less what activities kids are doing.

The prohibition very clearly applies only to ESEA dollars and schools with these programs are in no danger of losing them if they aren't using ESEA money. If they are, a few simple accounting tricks [that I was told have been suggested to schools by DoE] would clear things up (i.e., spend ESEA money on the school nurse's salary and use the savings to fund your archery program). The risk, I think, is that school districts fall for the end-of-hunter-ed rhetoric all over social media and cut programs based on the misinformation that they might lose all of their federal funding if they simply offer these activities.

If our community was more interested in making this issue about the importance of these activities for kids from all walks of life, this situation could be a moment for us to tell that story to a wider audience, etc. But certain actors have framed this all as a Trojan Horse as part of the Biden War on Hunting and so a pretty clear-cut case of a law with an unintended consequence has been rabbit-holed into the world of innuendo and conspiracy.
 
For a bit of additional background that hasn't been discussed elsewhere...

DOJ and DHS grant funding for school safety include the very same prohibitions on schools buying guns or training teachers with federal funds (DOJ's statutory language actually includes the same "any person" phrasing).

After Parkland, school districts in Texas and Oklahoma asked SecEd Betsy DeVos if they could spend money for enrichment programming under Title IV, Part A (think STEM, arts, music, etc.) on guns for their teachers and other school staff. She refused to say yes or no when asked by Democrats in Congress whether she thought that fell within Congressional intent for those funds. Because the law didn't say that schools couldn't spend that money on guns and tactical training, she said it was up to the states. At the time, DOE spokesperson Liz Hill stated that “If Congress would like to clarify the law, they should take the opportunity to do so.”

So the next chance they got, Congress added those provisions to the ESEA. DOJ and DHS grants didn't include a carve out for hunter ed--why would they? So the DOE language didn't either, as was very recently noticed. Here we find ourselves...
 
mmw194287 said:
Randy, who is asking those questions and to whom are they speaking? Because I sent a couple of politely worded emails to different folks in the Department of Ed and have spoken with a press secretary as well as a program director. As in multiple emails exchanged, phone conversations with follow up. ***Edited to clarify--I have no connection with these people or the DoE, I was simply "cold calling" email addresses.

To be honest, I think there are a lot of pot-stirrers out there right now building their email lists and fundraising on this issue that have no interest in bringing clarity to the situation. If it was widely understood that this prohibition applied to less than 5% of all school funding in this country and that DoE had already committed to working with lawmakers on a legislative fix to clear up the statutory language, there wouldn't be too many flames to fan.

The only uncertainty here is how many students could potentially be affected because the DoE doesn't fund this stuff in any systematic or programmatic way. There are a few instances where ESEA funds are known to overlap with these activities, but it's not tracked or documented. They have no idea how much money is spent on this stuff and no way of figuring that out. I have a few examples of how and when ESEA funding could overlap with hunter safety/shooting sports, but it's all tertiary stuff. Until there is a legislative fix, this will pretty much be an "on the honor system" deal because the DOE doesn't collect information on where these funds end up, much less what activities kids are doing.

The prohibition very clearly applies only to ESEA dollars and schools with these programs are in no danger of losing them if they aren't using ESEA money. If they are, a few simple accounting tricks [that I was told have been suggested to schools by DoE] would clear things up (i.e., spend ESEA money on the school nurse's salary and use the savings to fund your archery program). The risk, I think, is that school districts fall for the end-of-hunter-ed rhetoric all over social media and cut programs based on the misinformation that they might lose all of their federal funding if they simply offer these activities.

If our community was more interested in making this issue about the importance of these activities for kids from all walks of life, this situation could be a moment for us to tell that story to a wider audience, etc. But certain actors have framed this all as a Trojan Horse as part of the Biden War on Hunting and so a pretty clear-cut case of a law with an unintended consequence has been rabbit-holed into the world of innuendo and conspiracy.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with the fact that there are always "pot stirrers." This situation is ripe with partisan fruit to those willing to pick it.

As for who is asking, it is plenty of folks. Two who are asking, that I doubt would be "pot stirrers" for the Administration are Senator Tester (D-MT) and Senator Heinrich (D-NM). They are asking.

This is an email from a staffer working on the issue that was sent to me on Friday, just three days ago ....

The Senator is very concerned with the Department’s position and we’ve been handling the staff-level work on it. We have had several calls with the White House and the Department of Education. Unfortunately, we have not yet succeeded in getting the guidance revised, but we are working with Senators Tillis, Cornyn, Sinema, Murphy, Heinrich, and Tester to get this addressed.​

That email is from a Senator's staff who would know. Senators from both sides are asking for D of E to revise their decision. So far, no progress.

Normally a lot of this stuff is just stirring the pot. There always are some groups that are seeking a crisis to capitalize on. That is why I waited a few days to make any comments while I sought input from folks who might know.

From what I've learned, D of E is not being very forthcoming. If I were to add together the comments that I've received from those working on it, it's not a huge dollar amount in terms of D or E budgets. But, it represents some folks at D or E making some rather far reaching interpretations.

Maybe my information will turn out to be wrong. I don't think so. If it was so easy for D of E to clear up, I think such would have happened by now. I suspect this is a position that someone with influence is pounding the desk for. It's surely not something the Administration is going to worry about, given how the votes fall for them between rural/urban, gun owners/non-owners.

I agree that we have folks taking this issue and using it for headlines, click bait, membership, and money. But it is also a case of the Administration and/or someone in the D or E not doing much to change it if such is merely an "interpretation" that doesn't effect much.
 
Hammsolo said:
Take action and click the link below. I am also working on a template for writing to your Senator and whoever else you can think of. If you haven’t watched Fresh Tracks Weekly Episode 51 you should. Please share with a friend. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

ACTION ALERT
Click to expand...
Done.
 
Big Fin said:
It's surely not something the Administration is going to worry about, given how the votes fall for them between rural/urban, gun owners/non-owners.
Click to expand...
I’m leaning toward it being a manufactured crisis so certain senators in competitive races can declare victory when it gets changed. I’m not saying don’t send emails, because I certainly did. Just saying it is a possibility. Only time will tell.
 
SAJ-99 said:
Thanks. Sounds like an solid source for an objective analysis of the law.
Click to expand...
Some are credible and some aren't. Some are all hype as my "so-called 'guntube'" reference might have indicated (cheap shots are more fun though). Some are lawyers, constitutional scholars and 2A authorities that are also published authors with works quoted in SCOTUS rulings such as Heller and Bruen.
 
SAJ-99 said:
I’m leaning toward it being a manufactured crisis so certain senators in competitive races can declare victory when it gets changed. I’m not saying don’t send emails, because I certainly did. Just saying it is a possibility. Only time will tell.
Click to expand...
For the record, I hope you are right with your leanings. However, I'm more skeptical, so less optimistic.
 
Another impact of the 'Bipartisan Safer Communities Act', so related to the hunter training discussion. It may end non-FFL supported gun sales and even loaning a gun to a family member or close associate.

Biden set to implement universal background checks
By Tom Knighton | 4:30 PM on August 14, 2023

One of the things gun control advocates have been pushing for is universal background checks. They claim these measures are incredibly popular, despite most people not really understanding what all such checks entail.

Passing one has been a major part of what the Biden administration has wanted since taking office.

And, thanks to some language in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, he and his anti-gun allies are set to get what they want.

[more...]

bearingarms.com

Biden set to implement universal background checks

The Biden administration and its anti-gun allies have wanted universal background checks for years, now, they're more or less going to get it.
bearingarms.com bearingarms.com
 
“The prohibition very clearly applies only to ESEA dollars and schools with these programs are in no danger of losing them if they aren't using ESEA money. If they are, a few simple accounting tricks [that I was told have been suggested to schools by DoE] would clear things up (i.e., spend ESEA money on the school nurse's salary and use the savings to fund your archery program). The risk, I think, is that school districts fall for the end-of-hunter-ed rhetoric all over social media and cut programs based on the misinformation that they might lose all of their federal funding if they simply offer these activities.”

Schools shouldn’t have to rely on accounting tricks.

Both of my kids participated in Archery in Schools program. Excellent program that got kids involved who often didn’t participate in other sport’s programs.
 
Big Fin said:
I don't disagree with the fact that there are always "pot stirrers." This situation is ripe with partisan fruit to those willing to pick it.

As for who is asking, it is plenty of folks. Two who are asking, that I doubt would be "pot stirrers" for the Administration are Senator Tester (D-MT) and Senator Heinrich (D-NM). They are asking.

This is an email from a staffer working on the issue that was sent to me on Friday, just three days ago ....

The Senator is very concerned with the Department’s position and we’ve been handling the staff-level work on it. We have had several calls with the White House and the Department of Education. Unfortunately, we have not yet succeeded in getting the guidance revised, but we are working with Senators Tillis, Cornyn, Sinema, Murphy, Heinrich, and Tester to get this addressed.​

That email is from a Senator's staff who would know. Senators from both sides are asking for D of E to revise their decision. So far, no progress.

Normally a lot of this stuff is just stirring the pot. There always are some groups that are seeking a crisis to capitalize on. That is why I waited a few days to make any comments while I sought input from folks who might know.

From what I've learned, D of E is not being very forthcoming. If I were to add together the comments that I've received from those working on it, it's not a huge dollar amount in terms of D or E budgets. But, it represents some folks at D or E making some rather far reaching interpretations.

Maybe my information will turn out to be wrong. I don't think so. If it was so easy for D of E to clear up, I think such would have happened by now. I suspect this is a position that someone with influence is pounding the desk for. It's surely not something the Administration is going to worry about, given how the votes fall for them between rural/urban, gun owners/non-owners.

I agree that we have folks taking this issue and using it for headlines, click bait, membership, and money. But it is also a case of the Administration and/or someone in the D or E not doing much to change it if such is merely an "interpretation" that doesn't effect much.
Click to expand...
They did it on purpose.

They are not going to change anything.
 
Hammsolo said:
Take action and click the link below. I am also working on a template for writing to your Senator and whoever else you can think of. If you haven’t watched Fresh Tracks Weekly Episode 51 you should. Please share with a friend. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

ACTION ALERT
Click to expand...

Prudent to take action. Contact your Senators and Congress-people. Enough well-reasoned noise from their constituents can make a difference. You might include the Leadership teams for both the Senate and House as well, since they have control.

[more news...]

Conservation Orgs File Intent to Sue Education Dept. Over Archery & Hunter Education Policies
August 15, 2023 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief

On Friday, August 11, 2023, Safari Club International, along with the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, sent a notice of intent to sue the Department of Education over the Department’s misinterpretation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which would prohibit the use of federal funds for shooting sports, hunter education, and outdoor education programs in schools.

Co-sponsors and authors of the BSCA have repeatedly confirmed that it was not intended to restrict funding for these programs. Rather, these programs are vital to helping students find safe and healthy outlets—and to develop a love of the outdoors.

SCI and SAF’s notice of intent to sue warns the Department that its interpretation of the BSCA is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of federal law. It requests a response within ten days, or the organizations will have no choice but to file suit. These shooting sports and hunter education programs are far too important to allow this funding uncertainty to continue.

[more...]

www.ammoland.com

Conservation Orgs File Intent to Sue Education Dept. Over Archery & Hunter Education Policies

The Department of Education is stating that federal funds may not be used for safety training of “any person,” including teachers or students, in “the use of a dangerous weapon.”
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

joelweb
Rep. Clyde Introduces Legislation to Eliminate the Excise Tax on Firearms and Ammunition
7 8 9
Replies
177
Views
16K
longrunner
L
BigHornRam
What The 2018 Election Results Mean For Forest Management
Replies
5
Views
2K
Sytes
Sytes
M
Oil Was Central in Decision to Shrink Bears Ears Monument, Emails Show
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
jryoung
jryoung
M
Ryan Zinke Is Opening Up Public Lands. Just Not at Home.
Replies
15
Views
2K
noharleyyet
noharleyyet
K
MT HB 151 could cost us over $20 Million
Replies
0
Views
2K
katqanna
K
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,994
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474

Share this page

Back
Top