Environmental Protection Agency Reviewing Petition to Ban Lead Bullets | The Weekly StandardWill Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson make a back door move to ban lead bullets the day before the November 2 elections?
Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here's the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition. A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55.
Although the EPA could have dismissed the request due to a lack of jurisdiction, it is obliging CBD. The EPA has asked for public comment on banning lead in ammunition, and an EPA notice was published seeking public comment that closes on October 31. Jackson would then make a decision to accept or reject the petition on November 1. You might say that even considering enacting what is effectively a new tax on hunters and gun owners--seemingly the only non-liberal group the Obama administration hasn't yet intentionally provoked--is less-than-perfect timing for the already beleagured Democrats as the midterm elections approach.
But more importantly, says the NRA, the EPA is barred from regulating ammo or fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act. But the ammo foes think that they have found a way around that by asking the EPA to regulate elements of ammo and the element they want banned is the lead.
Cox said that would counter what Congress has intended in previous laws. "Put another way, if Congress exempts a cow from regulation, one could hardly argue that it nevertheless would allow for regulation of the hide attached to the cow's body," said Cox.
Despite the opposition from the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, the EPA is considering banning lead. It is seeking public comment until Halloween.
Maybe I'm being too much of a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like this could be used as a method to deliberately make ammunition more cost prohibitive. Can't control guns so just jack up the price of bullets based on "safety'.
You know, I believe that if a burglar broke into my home and I shot him, he would have a lot more to worry about than lead poisoning. :mrgreen:
In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn't have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.
Bam:
In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn't have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.
Source: U.S. News and World Report
We already have to buy steel shot for our shotguns to hunt waterfowl, and trust me they cost a good penny to get. Luckily the past few years they have been coming out with some more affordable high speed loads, but still... Plus steel does not work as good as lead (not dense enough) and the other non-tox stuff is the equivalant of shooting gold out of your gun barrel. Rifle bullets seem ridiculous to even think about since you won't normally be shooting them over water anyways.
It's law where you are?
You know, I read the thread title and thought to myself "I bet these right-wing wackos act like this is a decision that's already been made, completely ignoring the fact that they're just reviewing one of many thousands of petitions they get."
I was not disappointed.
You know, I read the thread title and thought to myself "I bet these right-wing wackos act like this is a decision that's already been made, completely ignoring the fact that they're just reviewing one of many thousands of petitions they get."
I was not disappointed.
It's the law everywhere when hunting waterfowl or any place where waterfowl congregate. Has been for many years.
I remember when they changed that. I think it has to do with the waterfowl potentially consuming lead pellets/BB's and then coming down with lead poisoning.What the hell..why?
Environmental Protection Agency Reviewing Petition to Ban Lead Bullets | The Weekly Standard
More reason to disband the EPA and remake it with a far more structured, and controlled focus. Take away the free hand.
I remember when they changed that. I think it has to do with the waterfowl potentially consuming lead pellets/BB's and then coming down with lead poisoning.
I think they further said that the lead would degrade and contaminate the water as well. I was a kid when that was changed, but remember the hunters bitching about the switch to steel shot because of the cost and the fact that it wasn't as effective. It was a pretty stupid ruling.You gotta be ****ing kidding me....:doh
You have the right to lead ammunition? News to me.And I was waiting for some left wing jerk to pop on and poo-poo the fact that backdoor regulation can potentially impair the ability to exercise an important right.... I wasn't disappointed.
You have the right to lead ammunition? News to me.
Hey, I think most gun owners are willing to compromise if there are good reasons (for example non-toxic shot for waterfowl). However, there have to be good reasons. Why do you think we should not be allowed to shoot lead rifle bullets? I can't think of any good reason. You have to make it worth it to the people who own guns. By and large gun owners are responsible and reasonable people and if there are good reasons they will listen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?