Nationwide Lead Ammo Ban

[44 AMP]

While I do agree completely with the fact that ammunition containing lead does not pose a threat to the environment, I feel that the bulk of the discussion in this thread has missed a vital, and relevant point.

And that is, the authority and power of the EPA to make this decision. This is not an an elected body. Career bureaucrats and politial apointees should not have the power to make law.

Regulations are for the implementation of law, not the creation of such.


Thoughts?

[Tom Servo]

It seems to me that a ban on lead ammo is more likely to harm wildlife by drastically lowering the funds collected for wildlife conservation through the firearms excise tax.

A very good point, and one that I'm to understand resonated with the EPA during the RFC process.

And that is, the authority and power of the EPA to make this decision. This is not an an elected body. Career bureaucrats and politial apointees should not have the power to make law.

They don't have the authority. OSHA tried a similar backdoor thing with the 1910.109 standard a couple of years back.

People mobilized, and more than a few elected officials started asking the same question. OSHA very quickly back-pedaled on the matter.

To answer your question, they don't have the authority, but that won't stop them from trying. The good news is, the people who do have the authority can put a stop to it.

(I could make a wider political point about the number of "czars" who serve without the oversight of election, but I think we all know how that's being abused.)

[gc70]

EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead Ammunition Ban

Release date: 08/27/2010

Contact Information: Brendan Gilfillan [email protected]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today denied a petition calling for a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA sent a letter to the petitioners explaining the rejection – that letter can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/sect21.html

Steve Owens, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, issued the following statement on the agency’s decision:

“EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – nor is the agency seeking such authority.

“This petition, which was submitted to EPA at the beginning of this month, is one of hundreds of petitions submitted to EPA by outside groups each year. This petition was filed under TSCA, which requires the agency to review and respond within 90 days.

“EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead; however, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife.

“As there are no similar jurisdictional issues relating to the agency's authority over fishing sinkers, EPA – as required by law – will continue formally reviewing a second part the petition related to lead fishing sinkers.

“Those wishing to comment specifically on the fishing tackle issue can do so by visiting http://www.regulations.gov. EPA will consider comments that are submitted by September 15.”

R286

(the above U.S. Government public document is not subject to copyright)

[BGutzman]

Im glad thats over for today at least, who knows about tomorrow.

[mack59]

Yessssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But let us still let them know that lead sinkers are not okay to ban either - lets not be Fudds and say well my shotgun is okay so who cares about that black rifle.

[voyager4520]

Here's another document showing that the EPA has declined the request to ban the use of lead in ammo, they basically say that they don't have the authority to do so: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pub...n_Response.pdf

But at the bottom of that document they say they are still considering a ban on lead fishing sinkers.

[Edward429451]

How can they have jurisdiction over sinkers but not ammo? Sounds like they're testing the water to see if anyone calls them on it. If not, no more lead bullets next year.

[Standing Wolf]

How can they have jurisdiction over sinkers but not ammo?

Ammunition was specifically excluded from the EPA's purview by Congress; fishing wasn't.

In the simplest terms: government does anything and everything it can get away with. To be completely fair about it, so did I when I was five years old.

[Al Norris]

The excise tax that the Pittman-Robertson Act started, can be found in the U.S. Code as: TITLE 26 > Subtitle D > CHAPTER 32 > Subchapter D Part III, § 4181 imposes the tax on shells and cartridges.

As I was looking this stuff up, I discovered the Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950, which did much the same for the sports-fisher as the Pittman-Robertson Act did for the Hunter.

Interesting that Part I, § 4161, imposes the Tax on Fishing equipment. § 4162 lists the definitions, of which § 4162(a)(5)(G) is .... Sinkers.

While the EPA decision was based upon TSCA § 3(2)(B)(v), which excludes ammunition from any EPA authority, I think there is another problem with the EPA messing with ammo or, sinkers.

Banning lead from sinkers would be directly infringing on the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes. Since the Dingell-Johnson excise taxes go to specific watershed conservation efforts, monkeying with the amount that the IRS collects just might start a battle the EPA is ill equipped to face.

You fishermen out there, need to get in gear to oppose this on conservation grounds.

[HiBC]

Al,on noticing beareucratic agencies robbing our freedoms ,see page 1,post 17.I noticed.
On fishing sinkers,it is the same ridiculous idea.That bothers me two ways.One,there is a poster I saw,it talked about"When they came for(social group xxxx) I did nothing,because it wasn't me...
We need to stand with the folks who fish.I fish!!
The other thing,I am so annoyed,I can't think of the name of the new Supreme Court judge,my understanding is she is a lot more about precedent law than she is about Constitutional law.Its all a big ratchet with a cheater bar on it,and we lose Liberty one little click at a time.
The precedent law stuff corrupts the intent of the Constitution.

[BillCA]

HiBC,

Before you get your panties in too much of a wad over case precedents, realize that this doctrine is both important to the stability of our legal system and is a double-edged sword.

Precedents or Stare Decisis is a doctrine that adds to the stability of our legal system. Typically, once an issue of constitutional law, scope or definition has been decided, it usually isn't revisted for transient reasons. This applies only to the decision (usually) and not generally the how or why the decision was reached. This still allows challenges to precedent and that is usually based showing the "how & why" of the decision was flawed and arguing a "proper" interpretation.

This can be a double-edged sword. The Slaughter House Cases, Presser, US v. Miller and Cruikshank cases are examples of how precedents can cut against us. However, D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago are cases in which precedent is very useful in supporting our rights.

Instead of railing against precedent, I'd make the argument that too often the almost-bliind adherence to court procedures often interferes with getting to The Truth™ and the proper administration of Justice instead of merely application of law.†


† There is a difference between administering justice and applying the law. When the courts refuse to look at new evidence, which might prove the innocence of the convicted, on the basis that "due process was served" (i.e. no trial errors by the court) that is applying the law (via court procedure) -- and dead wrong IMHO. The administration of justice would examine such claims and determine if the evidence is sufficient or would have created reasonable doubt at trial.

[KyJim]

According to U.S. News, the EPA had given up on the ammo issue, dismissing the petition because of lack of jurisdiction. The EPA has not yet dismissed the petition regarding lead sinkers.

Source: http://politics.usnews.com/news/wash...-protests.html

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Today, 100 "different" (i.e. have different names but probably much of the same staff and funding sources) environmental groups have once again requested the EPA to ban lead ammo in shot and ammunition.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...nters-bullets/

The difference this time according to the NYT, is that "hunters" are now onboard with this ban, although the only evidence they offer of it is the same Anthony Prieto guy who has been the "hunter" quoted in every story on this issue in the last ten years. More astroturfing I expect.

Not sure why the emphasis on this issue again since EPA's last answer was that they lacked the legal authority to regulate lead ammo; but given it is the silly season, it is worth keeping an eye on them.

[gc70]

Not sure why the emphasis on this issue again since EPA's last answer was that they lacked the legal authority to regulate lead ammo

This may be an excuse for EPA to go to Congress and say they need "better" laws to do their job properly - just like DOJ did regarding F&F.

[44 AMP]

It could be the latest round in some truly dedicated but sadly misguided indiviuals to save the world from something they think is bad. Funny how so many "environmentalists" cannot grasp the concept that lead is not evil. Bad only applies when we put arbitrary standards in place.

Can't put lead in the environment, its bad! But we dig it up out of the environment to use it, why is it bad to put it back?

OR, the latest move could just be one more issue being brought to the news so we pay less attention to some other current issues.

Personally I think its likely a bit of both, heavy on the latter, from the timing...

[Wyoredman]

In my opinion, not only is a proposed lead ban bad for sportsman, it is also very bad for the economy.

First off, how many small business people will lose out if they can not afford to retool their opperations? How many folks will lose their jobs - from retail, to ranges folks, to manufacturing?

Secondly, once a ban like this is instituted, ammunition sales would drop drastically. The government will see a sharp drop in the collection of excise taxes being collected from ammunition. Funding for environmental projects will be shifted to the already growing national debt.

Finally, a lead ban will have great effect on already struggling State Wildlife agencies. Whithout access to affordable ammo, few hunters are going to be buying licenses, thus less money available for wildlife management.

[Fishing_Cabin]

I see a few problems by creating a total ban on lead

1. There is not another similar metal/product that is both suitable and cost effective at this time.

2. With the huge amount of ammo out there with lead used totally, or within a jacket in a projectile, it would be difficult to enforce.

3. Reloaders and casters will be able to find a good amount of lead scrap for the forseeable future probably, cost unknown though. If it is banned for ammo, I could see a slight drop in lead prices.

4. Some places like here locally, there are many somewhat shallow lead mines left over from the late 1860's unpleasantness. So, for those knowledgeable and willing, lead isnt that huge of a problem.

[KBP75]

I am willing to trade the government all my lead bullets for an equal number of gold or silver bullets. When will the buyback program begin?

[lawnboy]

Given the horrendous squalor and short lifespans that plagued most of human history, "We've always done it this way" is a ridiculous argument that should be viewed with the highest suspicion. Actual modern science shows that lead, even in small quantities, is dangerous to have in the food system. Claiming that just because you can't see a problem from your backyard means it can't possibly exist is at best naive.

Just because a problem exists doesn't mean a solution exists, or that it is ethical, moral or right to seek it. Lead poisoning exists, pollution exists. How much regulation are we willing to accept to deal with it? I'm not prepared to accept much at all.

This is where the debate is. Can we bubble wrap the world or do people, animals and things sometime die, get sick, become broken or otherwise take damage and cease to exist?

How far can you go in imposing a version of "the public good" on people who don't see it that way before you become the problem? I think it's gone about as far as it can in that regard. I almost always oppose almost all new regulation for this reason. Stuff happens. Sometimes to me.

[ltc444]

Following are my comments which I posted on Fox News Blog:

It is amazing that the EPA refused to commence rule making. Must be the election cycle. In my 20 years of dealing with the EPA I have never found them to be reasonable or concerned with the limits of their power. They have not shown a great deal of knowledge. I remember an incident were they were trying to fine Arkansas for not controlling lead levels in NE AR streams. When Ar pointed out that the streams in question drained off of the largest known deposits of lead, they could not comphrend that the lead could be naturally occuring.

My main point is, this is an election year and the Administration does not want to create additional controversy which will cause an increase in vote against the Administration. The issue is NOT DEAD.

[BGutzman]

Lead is a natural product of the earth and I am aware of no possible way to remove all of it from anywhere... Another exercise in green stupidity..

[44 AMP]

Metallic lead, as used in bullets is not soluable in water. IT does NOT dissolve and get into the "food system".

There is a recognised risk with chemical lead in certain compounds being able to get into the food/water system, and of course, if you eat it, it gets there even easier.

But the problem of laws (and regulations carrying the force of law) being written and applied without even a lick of common sense is the real issue here.

I haven't heard how it has turned out, but recently laws were passed that amounted to banning the sale of ATVs and small off road bikes because they contained lead, and were "children's products".

Never mind the fact that the lead was in the batteries, or the paint on the frames, and never mind the fact that they cannot be sold to children already, the law was passed. Anyone heard about how this is working out?

[langenc]

From post #3

I've seen some pretty convincing evidence that shows microscopic (but still toxic) pieces of lead getting scattered throughout the meat of deer that was shot with a traditional lead bullet. I can see how those would cause problems both in carrion eaters and in humans.

I diint know who say these 'pieces of lead' getting into venison. The CDC analized burger and decl;ared it ok after some other govt agency said it was killing people.

I still maintain more waterfowl are lost due to wounding than from eating lead. That was esp true in the first few years of 'steel shot'.

Some jurisdictions are after lead simkers and lures.

Bullet cos are leading use down the path with 'non-toxic' bullets. I dont think any have been proven toxic' yet...and most likey never will be.

[vytoland]

why just stop at lead......................how about the pesticides sprayed on fruit and vegetables………………….how about the chemicals drained into waterways by industries………………….how about the "enhanced" feed given to livestock………………how about the chemicals spread on farm lands, yards, etc that leech into the ground or drain off into waterways...............................how about the garbage and nuclear waste that is buried or dumped into the oceans..................................how about humans...the biggest polluters of all

[Sparks1957]

Bullet companies are leading us down the path with 'non-toxic' bullets

Doesn't it just tick you off when you see the firearms-related industries greasing the wheels for another subtle attack on gun rights like this?
Nothing is sacred except money, I guess.

Maybe lobbying efforts need to be directed as much at the ammo manufacturers as at the legislators.