Groups Seek Nationwide Ban on Traditional Lead Ammunition By Petitioning EPA


PDA






Buckeye Dan
August 9, 2010, 03:10 PM
Also Seeks Ban on Lead Fishing Tackle

8/5/10

This week, two environmental groups filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking a nationwide ban on lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle. Such a ban would drastically reduce sportsmen numbers and result in decimated funding for wildlife conservation programs due to a loss of revenue from licenses and taxes on sporting equipment.

The petition filed was filed under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which regulates dangerous chemicals, on August 3 by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the American Bird Conservancy and several other groups. It claims that the use of traditional ammunition is dangerous to certain types of wildlife, including numerous birds, which scavenge on parts of game that remain in the field.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) and other groups have repeatedly pointed out that scientific evidence connecting lead ammunition to the harm of most animal populations is inconclusive. However, there are real concerns that forcing sportsmen to purchase higher cost, non-lead ammunition will decrease the number of days spent in the field as it prices many out of the market.

“It is important for everyone to remember that the engine that drives wildlife conservation is fueled by the dollars generated by the American sportsman,” said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president for government affairs. “In fact, sportsmen contribute nearly every dime used for managing wildlife and habitat preservation from coast to coast. Given our history of over 100 years of successful wildlife conservation, you would in essence be killing the goose that laid the golden egg with this meat cleaver approach.”

Take Action! Sportsmen are encouraged to express their opposition to this petition by contacting the following Environmental Protection Agency staff. Let them know that sportsmen represent the foundation of America’s conservation movement and that this ban will result in a critical loss of funding for wildlife and other important programs:



Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4700
Fax: (202) 501-1450
Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

And

Steve Owens
Assistant Administrator, Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2902
Fax: (202) 546-0801
Email: owens.steve@epa.gov


Note to mods:
Put this where it belongs and will get the most exposure if I selected the wrong forum. I highly recommend a sticky in every forum as it pertains to all things hunting and fishing.

If you enjoyed reading about "Groups Seek Nationwide Ban on Traditional Lead Ammunition By Petitioning EPA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
August 9, 2010, 03:25 PM
An Associated Press article on the above, in case anyone doubts the authenticity of this.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCramAIeFnoLFi0z49hPQAC6CrPQD9HC84U80

Cosmoline
August 9, 2010, 03:38 PM
FYI, here is the petition itself:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/Final_TSCA_lead_ban_petition_8-3-10.pdf

And yes they really are sweeping as broadly as they possibly can. This is not just some proposal for some phased-in plan to limit the use of lead on federal hunting land.

Yo Mama
August 9, 2010, 03:43 PM
SO, we now start writing and calling. Let's get going.

Ryanxia
August 9, 2010, 05:34 PM
Here was my e-mail to the 2 above posted people..

I am writing in regards to the current issue of the petition filed under the Toxic Substances Control Act seeking a nationwide ban on lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle. I feel it imperative to point out that sportsmen represent the foundation of America’s conservation movement and that this ban will result in a critical loss of funding for wildlife and other important programs.
Sportsmen contribute nearly every dime used for managing wildlife and habitat preservation from coast to coast and there are many of us that wish to raise our children in a fun, safe environment where hunting and fishing go hand in hand with just being close to wildlife. I ask you to take your time in considering this issue and the effects of your decision. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[Redacted]

FourteenMiles
August 9, 2010, 05:45 PM
Why should lead ammo and tackle not be banned?

If your bullets and fishing weights are no longer made out of lead will it really affect anything?

All I'm seeing arguing against the ban is something like "If we can't shoot lead and use it in our tackle we will stop shooting and fishing; and stop donating to wildlife conservation efforts!"

I just gotta ask why? Is lead the perfect ballistic material or something? Would the alternatives be inferior or too expensive?

Ryanxia
August 9, 2010, 06:00 PM
In response to FourteenMiles - To my understanding there is not another material that can realistically be used to produce ammunition (thinking mainly of target rounds where expense and performance is the goal). The 'donations' is not the issue, it is the fact that states get their funds from money paid by sportsmen to hunt/fish/etc.
Example: Hunting permit here is $20 (roughly) I use the gun range offered by the Fish and Game protection association (which I am a member only because of the range). If I cannot afford to target shoot that $100/year does not go to the fish and game department.

If my facts/logic is flawed please feel free to correct me..

And thank you for bringing up points you believe to be common sense, too many people these days take everything at face value..

TexasRifleman
August 9, 2010, 06:01 PM
I just gotta ask why? Is lead the perfect ballistic material or something? Would the alternatives be inferior or too expensive?

What if tomorrow the EPA mandated that cars no longer could have steel in them. It's not that there aren't alternatives, it's that in such a short timeframe no one would be able to AFFORD the alternatives. It might be fine to make your car out of titanium, but do you want to pay for it? Are the costs of the new material worth the tradeoff?

Even today, literally decades after steel shot was mandated for waterfowl hunting, it's more expensive than standard shotgun ammo.

And no grandfathering of the millions upon millions of rounds of ammo already out in the market? So the analogy is that not only would new cars need to be steel free, but all other cars already on the road would need to be parked.

So yes, it would be extremely expensive to force this change in such a very short timeframe, which is of course the point. This is about making it more expensive to hunt so that fewer people will do it.

And also if you read the current firearm laws you will find that it's actually illegal to use many metals in ammo without potentially making it "armor piercing".

So they want to ban lead yet lead is almost a requirement to avoid the armor piercing ammo laws.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

The definition of AP ammo is at 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17):

"(B) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' means-

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

So that leaves what, aluminum?

The AP law does contain this:

The term 'armor piercing ammunition' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,

But, EPA doesn't make that decision. They can't guarantee another agency will all of a sudden declare that soft iron or copper ammo for example is non AP. And that "sporting purpose" stuff has caused us an incredible amount of harm in what firearms can be bought and sold here already.

OK soapbox off :)

Guns and more
August 9, 2010, 08:22 PM
There will always be a group to ban something. The problem occurs when we listen to them.
from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;
I just learned that brass is armor piercing.

hso
August 9, 2010, 09:16 PM
There are economic problems with giving up lead because it's so cheap. We essentially throw it away when we shoot so it has to be cheap. It has to be cheap to make as well or we can't afford to throw it away. Other materials aren't as cheap.

The problem is that in certain forms lead is highly mobile in the environment (and as we know highly toxic). In the form of spent ammunition it isn't very mobile because it forms a pasivation layer (think the oxide on aluminum) that protects "chunks". In acidic environments that doesn't get to happen or it doesn't happen well and it forms soluble salts that are mobile and can bioaccumulate causing problems. This becomes a problem when you have a range or mine/roaster or industrial source that acts as a point source for concentrating the contamination. When disbursed broadly, as in hunting away from waterfowling areas, there isn't a meaningful contribution to the environment.

benEzra
August 9, 2010, 10:27 PM
Also keep in mind that this is FAR more than a "hunting" issue. 99.99% of ammunition sold annually is used for purposes other than hunting.

mljdeckard
August 10, 2010, 12:26 AM
This deserves full attention, and it's obviously a backdoor attempt to ban ammunition, but I don't see it going anywhere. There are already restrictions in place for migratory birds, I don't see where they can argue that there is a big problem with this anymore.

gun guy
August 10, 2010, 01:19 AM
don't they already require steel shot in many waterfowl areas for just this reason? nothing new here. lead is toxic, they took it out of gas, we still have cars, better faster cars actually, that get better fuel mileage. is making our wetlands less toxic, that bad an idea? as to rifle, pistol ammo, im sure if we can put men on the moon, we can still make bullets for them too. It's just a suggestion for change, things change and that's what upsets alot of people. i'm sure there are those that think we should still have lead in gas.

LaserSpot
August 10, 2010, 03:01 AM
The problem is that in certain forms lead is highly mobile in the environment (and as we know highly toxic). In the form of spent ammunition it isn't very mobile because it forms a pasivation layer (think the oxide on aluminum) that protects "chunks". In acidic environments that doesn't get to happen or it doesn't happen well and it forms soluble salts that are mobile and can bioaccumulate causing problems. This becomes a problem when you have a range or mine or industrial source that acts as a point source for concentrating the contamination. When disbursed broadly, as in hunting away from waterfowling areas, there isn't a meaningful contribution to the environment. These are good points. Lead paint and leaded gasoline were harmful, lead shot in wetlands was a problem. I can even see banning lead ammo in some indoor ranges and some hunting areas, but you have to know when to quit banning things.

The anti-lead, can't-be-too-safe hysteria is getting out of control when we have to ban lead wheel weights and lead solder. They are now making lead-free circuit boards. Do netbooks and iPods need to be so non-toxic that you can eat them? Are people getting poisoned from lead in landfills? I really doubt it. All that lead came out of the ground in the first place.

There have to be thousands of abandoned trap ranges where tons of lead was shot into the woods. To hear how dangerous lead is, you would think every bird, deer, rabbit and squirrel in these areas would be dropping dead from lead poisoning. Walk through one and tell me what the problem is; you will see not one pile of bones from poisoned animals.

The world is a dirty place, always will be.

Buckeye Dan
August 10, 2010, 05:22 AM
First. Where does lead come from? It is a base element metal that occurs naturally all over the globe. We mine it, although large portions of lead today comes from recycling. We can't manufacture lead. It's abundance is what makes ammunition so cheap. So to dispel one myth, when we use lead all we are doing is putting it back where we found it. In the earth.

Secondly. I am not aware of any modern ammunition manufacturer that uses lead in it's purest form. I could be wrong. Other metals are added to lead to make various alloys. Things like tin, antimony, nickel etc etc. are added to the lead. This changes it's consistency to make it better suited for traveling at high rates of speed without deforming. This also changes the chemical process of it's decomposition. Lead typically breaks down as soluble salts. This process can be slowed down or sped up depending on the other metals added to form the alloys.

The amount of lead typically used in hunting leeches these poisonous salts back into the ecosystem so slowly and gradually that it is virtually harmless. It's not transferable in nature unless it is ingested directly. Look up civil war lead bullets. You'll find oxidized lead bullets that are almost intact. Hunting and even wars do not concentrate lead in a single location densely enough to impact the environment. Just remember where the lead came from in the first place.

A shooting range, a mine, a dump that would allow lead to be stored and concentrated...Those are dangerous. Ingested lead even in alloy forms is dangerous. 50 ounces of buckshot over wetlands is not dangerous. The oxidation that takes place making the lead transportable or mobile in the ecosystem is so slow that it is actually less harmful than where lead occurs naturally.

Enough of the chemistry lesson. Do animals sometimes ingest our lead? Yes they do. Fish swallow sinkers and lures. Something eats the fish and it gets passed along. An unrecoverable animal that we have shot might drop dead and a predator or scavenger bird or mammal eats it and so on. Accidents do happen and sometimes our quarry gets away. The number of animals that suffer because of our stray lead? It's unrecordable. The instances are so few and far between and on such a broad scale no one can measure it. All it takes is a tree hugger to find one dead bird and it's too many. A panic has been created and we have been lied to based on emotion and speculation. There is very little science involved.

Saving kittens is far from what is really at stake here. That is the smoke and mirrors. What is really going on behind the curtain is this thing has a 90 day deadline. What happens in roughly 90 days? The elections. If the EPA says to the bird lovers *poof* your wish is granted who knows how this would be implemented? Well if the implementation is instantaneous...What else happens in 90 days? Hunting season in every state in the US. No time for the ammo makers to retool. Certainly not enough non lead alternatives on the shelves. Now are you concerned enough to SLAM the hell out of those those phone numbers and addresses? If you don't this has the potential to eliminate all gun hunting in the US. At least for a while.

That last bit is a worst case scenario. Here is another concern. Where does your state stand on armor piercing ammunition? Because many of the alternatives to lead are just that. Pistol hunting is gone forever.

The definition of AP ammo is at 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17):

( B ) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' means-

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.


If you people sleep at the wheel on this one or think it doesn't impact you? Guess again. It's not that far of a stretch to say if it's bad for the environment and animals then it would be ludicrous to allow it for use on humans. Think I am making that up?
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/news/m855a1-green-ammo-shipped-to-afghanistan/

All the top manufacturers have been playing with lead alternatives for years. Specifically copper. They knew this day would come. Well guess what? Copper is toxic to the environment too. In fact a single stray round can kill trees and plants. What happens after a copper bullet was discovered to be the reason a tree died that an endangered bat uses?

Lather, rinse, repeat. We give in a fraction on lead and you might as well start hammering your gun metal into broad heads. But we already know death by hemorrhage is constantly under attack on several other fronts. In the not so distant future no one but the elite will be able to afford to hunt. That assumes it is still permitted at all.

Make the phone calls, send the emails, raise hell and pass the word to everyone you know. If we loose this one...The snowball has rolled from the mountain top.

1911Tuner
August 10, 2010, 08:45 AM
Been sayin' it for 20 years. They can't get the guns...on constitutional grounds...so they'll come after the ammunition, and it'll be in the name of the environment. They don't have to ban it. All they have to do is make it so prohibitively expensive that the average workin' stiff can't afford to buy it in greater quantities than 50 rounds a year.

It's not about the whales and the buzzards and the ducks and the geese...and it's not about the children. They couldn't care less about those things.

See to your ammunition stocks. When you buy a box...buy two...and store it carefully.
Dark days are coming as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

TexasRifleman
August 10, 2010, 09:47 AM
as to rifle, pistol ammo, im sure if we can put men on the moon, we can still make bullets for them too. It's just a suggestion for change, things change and that's what upsets alot of people. i'm sure there are those that think we should still have lead in gas.

Tetra-ethyl lead is not even REMOTELY the same chemical compound as lead used in tire weights and bullets.

hso
August 10, 2010, 10:05 AM
So to dispel one myth, when we use lead all we are doing is putting it back where we found it. In the earth.

That's actually the myth, that we're just putting it back in the ground where we found it so it can't be doing any harm. It's not only not a factually accurate statement, but it isn't logical to think that if we move something from one place to another it can't produce any harm.

The form that we find it and how we come in contact with it is different for naturally occurring lead and the lead that we're concerned with. As has been said it's the solubility of the lead compounds that we encounter that produces the problem. Lead naturally occurs mostly as low solubility massive deposits of lead minerals PbS, PbSO4 and PbCO3 associated with copper, silver, and zinc ores. The ores are roasted, changing the insoluble lead minerals to lead oxide which is subsequently reduced in blast furnaces to metallic lead that we put to use. The ore minerals are not very soluble and not as much of an exposure or environmental problem as a result. The lead we need to be concerned with is the soluble forms we might be exposed to and those are the source of the concern of both public health, occupational health and environmental regulators. Not all lead we put into the environment is released in soluble forms, but much of it does. Further complicating the picture is that not only is the chemical form changed, but the lead that is in a smaller particle size is more readily soluble as well. That's the source of the concern about lead in the environment, not the low solubility lead ores that we derive these lead compounds from.

So, oversimplifying things and thinking "It came from the ground we should be able to put it back" is dangerous oversimplification. It came from the ground in an insoluble form, so we have to be careful to not put it back in a soluble form where it can harm wildlife, the environment and us.

The facts from various environmental studies at firing ranges is that lead is usually only a problem when the environment is acidic causing higher solution rates and greater exposure hazards.

benEzra
August 10, 2010, 11:08 AM
im sure if we can put men on the moon, we can still make bullets for them too.
We can't put people on the moon. Congress threw away that capability (and I'm NOT talking about the Constellation white elephant), just like some appear now to be trying to throw away the ability of companies to provide affordable ammunition to civilian shooters.

Adding inexpensive, nontoxic new metals to the Periodic Table of the Elements is a no-can-do; we're stuck with the metals we have. And if we don't want to have ammunition availability drastically curtailed and priced out of the reach of most of us, we're stuck with the cheap metals we have, unless we all become one-box-every-once-in-a-while shooters.

The problem is, most of the better non-lead substitutes are either more toxic than lead, not cheap enough or abundant enough to replace lead (gold would be perfect but...), are problematic from a performance standpoint (aluminum isn't dense enough, the Army's bismuth-core replacement for M855 has been a total flop, etc.), or are banned by Federal law (steel, brass, bronze).

There is no surer way to decimate the nonhunting shooting sports in the United States than to ban lead-core ammunition, methinks. And something tells me that the prohibitionists would sue to force lead-free primers too...so say goodbye to a long shelf life...

hso
August 10, 2010, 11:15 AM
We could make an iron or steel composite bullet since it wouldn't be a "steel" bullet. Centered brass and iron is viable, but the density will be different than lead so the ballistics will change.

Chemistry Guy
August 10, 2010, 11:27 AM
I spent several years working on methods to detect heavy metal contamination... this legislation is not about the environment at all. The government has literally dumped millions of tons of lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, uranium, and other heavy metals into lakes and rivers before environmental restrictions were in place, and the current major sources of contamination are mostly related to batteries. The contribution from ammunition is really a drop in the bucket.

Lead, historically and in the present, is a very useful metal due to its softness, density, and in the last century, electrochemical properties. It is toxic, but lead contamination is very much proportional to population density: since everyone uses lead the contamination is where the people are. Lead contamination in wide open expanses where hunting is common is minimal. I make my students take water and soil samples for analysis in my lab as part of a laboratory course, and I have never seen more than a few parts per billion lead in any rural water sample, but the water in a lake near campus has at least 5 parts per million lead, depending on the season. The big problem with lead shot is that the pellets are very similar in size to the pebbles that certain birds swallow to aid in digestion. In their acidified stomachs, the lead is very harmful. I don't see how this is a problem with larger slugs at all.

However, I believe that a lead shortage is coming sometime in the next twenty years, as we are running out of wasteland suitable for starting new lead mining operations. I wonder if these restrictions are meant to reduce the amount of lead that is dispersed in such a way that it cannot be recycled. Recycled lead is going to be a hot commodity, and a lot of time and money will be spent making batteries using metal oxides other than lead. Unless the restrictions on what metals can be used for ammunition are lifted, ammunition is going to get a lot more expensive over the coming decades.

hso
August 10, 2010, 11:37 AM
I work in the energy and environment section of a large tech firm. The legislation is based a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Lead is recognized as a public health, occupational and environmental hazard. The problem is that some forms are more of a hazard than others and some are more of a hazard in certain environments. Not discriminating between those forms of lead and the conditions is the oversimplified approach that leads to unwarranted concerns on lead in hunting ammunition. Sometimes it's simply done because inadequate research has been done creating an incomplete picture of the problem, sometimes it's what I refer to as the "hysterical" response where any form just has to be hazardous and we've just not recognized it yet or that there's no deminimus quantities accepted and in very rare instances it's a conscious attempt to twist the facts for a separate agenda.

Buckeye Dan
August 10, 2010, 03:07 PM
Hso I think my second post was misunderstood. The rate in which we put the lead back as hunters in proportion to it's rate of decay is what makes lead ammunition used for hunting insignificant.

Typical estimates put US hunter numbers at roughly 20 million per year. That is all hunting for all animals. License sales in 2005 indicated 14.5 million hunters. Not everyone is required to purchase a license. Land owners, seniors, veterans etc are often exempt from license sales in some states. They say that hunting numbers have been in decline for at least that long. So for the purposes of this example I am going to assume 20 million hunters is an accurate representation for 2010.

I deer hunt. Last year I fired 4 rounds while hunting any game. I used 1 ounce sluggers. So in 2009-2010 hunting season I am responsible for 4 ounces of lead being reintroduced into the environment as a result of hunting. The rate of decay for that lead is so minor and so localized on such a grand scale it is insignificant. Assuming I hunt for 50 years and my results are the same each year I will have produced 12.5 pounds of lead contamination in my lifetime. That assumes I fire 4 rounds each year or even get to fire a round at all.

A single civil war battle did that in a matter of minutes. Those bullets are still virtually intact today. Those bullets are leeching so slowly it's going to take a 1000+ years for them to fully decompose. The lead that we return to the earth with it's typical decay rate is no more poisonous to the environment than naturally occurring poisons and disease.

A visit to Gettysburg will make my case conclusively. The wildlife is in full bloom. The lead flung during that conflict is in a highly localized area compared to hunting practices. 160,000 soldiers saturated the area for 3 days. How is the predatory bird wildlife there? See for yourself: http://www.gettysburgdaily.com/?p=1256

Bird watching and wildlife is alive and well in Normandy too. Normandy probably had 100x the lead flung than the Gettysburg battle. The pacific islands are alive and well too. We all know how delicate the island ecosystems are.

1 pelican swallowing 1 fish that swallowed one lead bullet or sinker and the science can be altered to show anything they want. Explain the predatory and scavenging wildlife that thrives on war torn battle fields please?

This ban is something else and it has nothing to do with the environment. We must give them nothing. Period.

Zoogster
August 10, 2010, 04:22 PM
I just gotta ask why? Is lead the perfect ballistic material or something? Would the alternatives be inferior or too expensive?


It is cheap, it is soft, and it is dense.

A large number of inexpensive alternative materials are banned under federal law as "armor piercing". This includes most that are hard and cheap.


Very few materials are as dense as lead. Most of those which are are either very rare, produced in small quantities, or more toxic than lead.


Many "lead substitutes" on the market contain a significant percentage of lead combined with something else.
Bismuth is primarily mined as a byproduct of lead, and the total amount mined and available in the world is very small. If people were forced to use it then the minimal supply would skyrocket in price, and as an example when it went up in price in 2007 it would have cost nearly 14-17 times as much per bullet as lead.

Density is very important in ammunition, a given weight for a given size. Performance rapidly drops off if you use lighter materials, as does accuracy, effects from crosswinds, drop over distance etc.
Pull up the periodic table of elements and take a look at anything nearly as heavy as lead.
Most of it is extremely toxic (as in deadly in trace amounts) or expensive. Lead is neither.

Finally lead is soft and malleable. This means it won't damage rifling, and it can be shaped very easily without much if any wear on tools.
Harder materials wear away whatever is being used to shape them, and cost more per round to produce even with cheap materials because of that additional wear.
In additional your common affordable hard materials are banned as "armor piercing handgun" rounds under federal law (even most rifle calibers.)
Harder materials are also more difficult for your typical hobby loader to manufacture rounds from.

Cosmoline
August 10, 2010, 05:07 PM
One important point--this is not seeking to regulate the use of lead for HUNTING on FEDERAL LAND. It is seeking a ban of all lead ammo. Including self defense ammo, target ammo and so on used or just stored on private land, state land or anywhere. That constitutes a ban on about 99% of the ammunition used for all purposes. And it's not reasonably related to the purpose of protecting wildlife. Ammunition expended at ranges is ALREADY subject to many local and federal cleanup standards. It is not being shot in habitat, but into berms. But this would see it banned regardless.

This is not a wildlife protection bill, but an attack on firearms.

hso
August 10, 2010, 08:40 PM
Cosmo is correct. Since the use of lead for hunting is a small percentage of the ammunition sold in the US it is NOT reasonable for this legislation to request a ban of lead bullets. A more reasonable, but not based on science, request would be to ban it from hunting like lead shot has been banned for waterfowling. The hunting angle is a red herring and a pale attempt to legitimize the ban.

Millwright
August 10, 2010, 11:13 PM
Interesting posts, folks !!

But let's not forget the sole purpose of the lead ban is to curtail hunting/fishing ! Check out its "endorsers" !

FWIW there's no credible scientific evidence/studies indicating lead from field shooting has any significant effects upon scavenger species. Not to say it isn't possible, but no controlled studies have revealed a link. IOW, the "evidence" is predominantly subjective, not scientific. IMHO if "environmental lead" from shooting were a factor in wildlife mortality we wouldn't be seeing so much game at shooting ranges where lead concentrations far exceed field levels.

Now while changing from lead to another material may only imperil a fisherman's dentistry, or some bottom-feeding fish, in the shooting world its entirely different ! But since the objective of the "objectors" is elimination of hunting/fishing/shooting, why should they be concerned about interior ballistics ? And that's "where its at" for most metallic substitutions in cartridge arms !

The "mere" change of bullet materials requires extensive redesign/retesting of bullet shapes, configuration, powder and primers for any given combination. IOW decades of patiently gathered experience and data with lead or gilded bullets ensuring user safety would be trashed by legislative whim !

Consider the humble/ubiquitous .2RF. It uses a "heeled" bullet where the "heel" expands to seal the bore from powder gases. The shape/compostion of these bullets is of critical importance in safe/accurate performance in a wide variety of rifles and handguns (as any serious .22RF shooter knows). What "safe" alloy/base metal is a viable/economic substitute ? Do we know the "downstream" consequences of introducing these substitutes into the environment ?

We have literally thousands of years' experience with lead. What do we know about the "substitutes" ? >MW

xcgates
August 11, 2010, 04:39 AM
The "dangerous materials" (or something very similar) act came up a year or two ago when some people managed to get motorycles/atvs aimed at children banned. Because it was bad for the little children to even be around anything that had any of these dangerous materials in them. I looked at my roommates when I read that, and asked if any of them went around licking cars/engines/exhausts when they were a kid. I am pretty certain that I didn't. (Though that *may* actually explain a few things. :evil:) I can tell you that any children I have will be around guns, cars, motorcycles, shop work, etc from a young age, because those are things I enjoy. I will supervise them appropriately, part of which is instilling proper safety behavior. It is called life. Grow up. Don't lick the exhaust, suck on ammo, drink cleaning chemicals, etc. :barf:

I see big problems with how powerful the EPA has gotten. This is not a gun issue, it is even bigger. The issue is how much power should government and it's agencies have.

atomd
August 11, 2010, 07:49 AM
"Center for Biological Diversity"....even their name makes me cringe. They seem to be a bunch of moonbats that are giving out condoms with endangered species on them (I'm not kidding) and blabbering on about climate change, etc. On their website they have news links that link to articles with their name on them and most of them are negative. Even worse is "project gutpile" who claim to be hunters. I could only find a blog most recently updated in 2008 and it looks like it was/is pretty much one guy who is obsessed with lead and condors. They are perfect for the token "I'm one of you...I'm on your side" argument.

I wonder where these groups get their funding from? I wonder if any companies that we might know donate to them.....

hso
August 11, 2010, 10:00 AM
BTW, if they've filed under TSCA, they've picked the wrong regulation to approach this with OR they're going to have a very difficult time pushing to have these forms of lead added to the scope of TSCA Subchapter IV without the support of the big environmental conservation groups (who aren't participating) to push Congress.

benEzra
August 11, 2010, 12:58 PM
But let's not forget the sole purpose of the lead ban is to curtail hunting/fishing ! Check out its "endorsers" !
If that were the *sole* purpose, they wouldn't be trying to ban the 99.99% of lead-core ammo that is used for purposes other than hunting, IMO. Unless they are just too ignorant to realize that most gun owners aren't hunters and most ammunition is expended in other pursuits.

IMO these groups may be mostly talking about hunting, but the mostly-nonhunting scope of their attempted ban is certainly...convenient.

Buckeye Dan
August 13, 2010, 04:34 AM
My biology and chemistry knowledge makes me a hack at best. I understand it and stuff but a scientist I aint. So here is the link to the NRA's involvement on this matter:

http://home.nra.org/#/home/VideoModule/Organization%20Seeks%20Nationwide%20Ban%20On%20Lead%20Ammo%20Worley.xml


Watch, learn, dial, mail, email your position on this matter to the powers that be.

Azb
August 13, 2010, 08:56 AM
Ok, but surely we can find something else to use for sinkers!

:)

Az

atomd
August 13, 2010, 09:19 AM
Ok, but surely we can find something else to use for sinkers!

In some states you can't use lead sinkers in fresh water already. Some types work better than others but a lot of the non-lead ones are really bulky and some of them are really expensive too. The bismuth ones in say a 4oz or so size pyramid sinker cost about 4 times as much as lead or so..sometimes more than that. The tungsten ones are even more money. Then there's the issue of different ones rusting, etc. For fresh water using smaller tackle it's not as big of a deal though I wouldn't think. I'm a salt water guy myself though.

hso
August 13, 2010, 10:28 AM
There are a studies that have shown some risk of lead exposure to people who consume game meat. The risk isn't high enough for CDC to suggest any restrictions, but ground meat tended to be higher in lead and certain bullets put more lead fragments into the meat producing higher lead levels than other types of lead bullets. A couple of state wildlife agencies have made recommendations to limit eating of game meats taken with lead bullets by small children and pregnant mothers due to their greater sensitivity to lead.

The short summary is that low levels of lead exposure from eating game meat can occur, it is influenced by whether the bullet highly fragments or retains most of it's mass, how much of the meat is discarded around the wound channel, AND that the blood lead levels were elevated for game meat users, but too low for the CDC to make a recommendation on human health effects. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/3E74BD4A-49D1-4116-B9AC-83CC6D27C67C/0/LeadExposureRecommendations.pdf

duns
August 13, 2010, 11:30 AM
Email sent to the two EPA people named in the original post.

Carl N. Brown
August 13, 2010, 11:34 AM
Ingestion of lead shot from shallow bodies of water may have been a serious problem for waterfowl, but ingestion of lead fragments from dead game by predatory raptor birds (eagles, hawks, buzzards)?

Waterfowl would scoop up gravel and lead shot that would stay in their gizzards to toxify the bird. I don't think lead bullet fragments from dead game collect in the hawks, buzzards, crows, ravens, etc. that feed on dead game animals.

hso
August 13, 2010, 11:57 AM
Carl,

What we think and what they think won't be the issue if there is data from valid studies showing that there is a real problem or that it's just a theory without data to back it up. EPA will weigh the economic impact against the environmental impact and based on that evaluation will make a ruling. Regardless of what they rule, there will be a lawsuit filed either pushing EPA to ban lead-based ammunition or by the NSSF and possibly some states as well as the NRA to not ban lead-based ammunition. Regardless, I think the minimum that we'll see is more study of wildlife to determine if lead exposure is occurring and if it's harmful.

Salty1
August 13, 2010, 12:30 PM
My concern is more on a Constitutional basis, at what point will the Fed's keep their hands out of what should be state rights and decisions? One activist judge can hurt every state with their one sided politically inspired view. If the EPA turns them down will they file a lawsuit next?

hso
August 13, 2010, 03:05 PM
Yes, but that's typical when the EPA turns down a request to have something included. It's also typical when something is added for industry to file a suit to block it. SOP

junk250
August 17, 2010, 02:50 AM
I agree with most here that lead bullets are not much of a threat to your environment, (unless you at the wrong end of the barrel), but you should use good hygiene when using it(wash hands, ventilation in ranges ect).

But I can tell you first hand that the EPA can and will create and enforce laws on a whim to appease "environmentalist" .

My first hand experience with the EPA's BS laws, a while back I had a garage I used to occasionally paint cars(I had a regular job auto painting, and used the commercial zoned garage to do a few after work).

I had "homemade" a paint booth in the garage that mimicked a "real" commercial paint booth(clean filtered air intake on one end, and wet filter material on the exhaust end to catch any over spray from exiting building and getting on things outside).

Well a body shop a few doors down didn't like my painting(made theirs look bad) so they sicked the EPA on me for not having an "approved/commercial" paint booth like they had.

They (the EPA)showed up in their white suits and clipboards(yea, 3 of them) to shut me down.

They informed me right away that I would have to cease painting cars there because I was violating the law regarding capturing VOC's (Volatal Organic Compounds) because I didn't have an "approved" paint booth.

Well I'm not a scientist, but I immediately told them to go pound sand and to come back with someone higher up the EPA foodchain because "approved/commercial" paint booths do not capture any VOC's because VOC's are a GAS !

There might be a way to separate one gas("VOC's") from another gas ("the air"), but I know paint booths don't do it !

I expected them to return in force, and just strong arm me(without any rightful reason) into shutting me down, but behold, they never returned !!!

The moral of the story is that the EPA unfortunately, CAN and WILL pass laws without real scientific evidence and attempt to enforce them on behalf of left wing tree huggers with an agenda.

Rant over.

Chris

30mag
August 20, 2010, 06:08 PM
What if tomorrow the EPA mandated that cars no longer could have steel in them. It's not that there aren't alternatives, it's that in such a short timeframe no one would be able to AFFORD the alternatives. It might be fine to make your car out of titanium, but do you want to pay for it? Are the costs of the new material worth the tradeoff?

"What if the EPA mandated that cars could no longer utilize internal combustion engines?" is a better analogy.

VPLthrneck
August 21, 2010, 02:15 AM
Besides contacting the 2 people listed in the original post make sure you also contact your Senators and Representative--both State and Federal. I'd place a safe bet that most of them have no clue to what the EPA is trying to do these days or gettign petitioned to do.

hso
August 21, 2010, 10:02 AM
People, EPA isn't trying to do anything. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the American Bird Conservancy are the ones petitioning the EPA to regulate hunting ammunition containing lead under TSCA. I've spent 18 years working in this field and we need to get this straight in our heads and not distract ourselves with red herrings and knee-jerk anti-government diatribes.

A group is going to petition EPA to ban all lead ammunition under the TSCA regulations. There's a specific process EPA has to go through to do this. It isn't arbitrary and it is formally laid out in the federal regulations. The time to stop this is at the beginning of the process so that the petition is rejected. The way to do this is contact your congresscritters to get it rejected. Explain that there petitioners do not have sound science behind their claims and that there are endless government range studies and government federal facilities wildlife studies that show no statistically significant direct lead exposure due to ingesting or even being shot, but not killed, at these ranges. Point out that the vast majority of lead is not used in hunting and that the economic impact would go far beyond the hunting use and would negatively impact law enforcement, military and sport shooters far outstripping any imaginary harm to wildlife.

Do NOT attack the EPA. Ask your congresscritters to investigate the petition to ban all lead based ammunition being submitted to the EPA and ask that they point out to the Administrator the problems outlined.

Animal Mother
August 21, 2010, 11:40 AM
Well, I've done my part and contacted my Representative and both my Senators. I just don't get it. You would think that if solid lead bullets were any sort of environmental issue, then the hundreds of battle sites during the Civil War, where thousands and thousands of unjacketed lead bullets were expended into the environment would have left those areas an environmental wasteland. Instead of being a toxic waste site, these areas have a thriving wildlife population and in many cases are beautiful areas of scenic and historical beauty. But of course these groups aren't really concerned about protecting the environment as much as they are concerned with pushing their agenda, and increasing their control and influence at the expense of your liberties.

Black Toe Knives
August 22, 2010, 04:25 AM
Banned lead bullets would effectively Ban Black Powder Shooting. It would end BP revolver shooting and any antique firearm shooting requiring lead bullets. Kinda hard to fire a sabot thou a Brown Bess. This would actually strips sport shooter of their firearms. I think this is dangerous trending on 2nd Amendment rights and It would be ruled unconstitutional as soon as it was signed into law. I don't think it will ever go that far.

LHRGunslinger
August 22, 2010, 08:28 AM
A ban on traditional ammunition would be kinda like prohibition. It'd be passed into law, so many people would break the law that they'd pretty much be forced to repeal the law.

hso
August 22, 2010, 11:04 AM
It'd be passed into law, so many people would break the law that they'd pretty much be forced to repeal the law.

Nope

The number of people that shoot in this country are a small minority. The people who consumed alcohol were in the majority. The demand won't be the same and the pressure to repeal wouldn't either.

We need to treat this seriously and we need to do so now so that we don't have to fight it during the comment period after the wording of the TSCA regulation has been changed.

John Parker
August 22, 2010, 11:23 AM
Looking at the problem being described as scavengers ingesting lead left in gut-piles, etc; then it would make sense for any such ban to apply to ammunition only used for hunting purposes, not that for target shooting. We don't use premium Federal soft-point hunting ammunition for target practice; we use regular lead FMJs. While I disagree with these group's reasoning, which is based on inconclusive studies, I don't think that it needs to be as damning as most assume that it would be. If we're already paying, say, a buck a round for hunting ammo, will the price really spike using copper, as California recently proposed or began doing?

pmec
August 22, 2010, 11:58 PM
I've been in the electronics industry for some 35 years and have dealt with 63% tin - 37% lead solder for all of that time. There were times that I have held the solder wire in my mouth, the component in one hand, and the soldering iron in the other hand to do a job. Neither I or the people I work for have seen a change in my performance over the years. We are shooting bullets, not eating bullets.... there is a big difference. The paint issue came about when kids were eating paint chips that contained lead is totally different then discharging a gun into a sand bank or into a deer. The deer meat will be separated from the lead in a very short time which will decrease the chance for the lead to leach into the meat.

DenaliPark
August 23, 2010, 12:24 AM
Why should lead ammo and tackle not be banned?

If your bullets and fishing weights are no longer made out of lead will it really affect anything?

All I'm seeing arguing against the ban is something like "If we can't shoot lead and use it in our tackle we will stop shooting and fishing; and stop donating to wildlife conservation efforts!"

I just gotta ask why? Is lead the perfect ballistic material or something? Would the alternatives be inferior or too expensive?
Because this is an effort at backdoor gun control, and really, nothing else. They intend to use the ADMINISTRATIVE might of the EPA(which recently, was amplified hugely by the SCOTUS)to virtually eliminate private access to ammunition. Banning lead "which the EPA can do instantly if it so desires," creates an immediate vacuum which will be extremely expensive to overcome, which as someone else has said, also likely creates an issue with AP regulations.
Make no mistake, this is an attempt to cut off the supply of ammunition to the privare sector, and its entirely within the realm of possibility that it succeeds!

oldreloader
August 23, 2010, 01:06 AM
Simply put , We have TOO much government now. All the scares they've thrown at us were usually built by erroneos information. Can you trust them? I don't!!!

MinnMooney
August 23, 2010, 02:21 PM
Why should lead ammo and tackle not be banned?

Using lead in ammo used for upland birds, deer, bear, antelope, elk, moose, rabbits, squirrels and a myriad of other game is so extremely dispersed that chances of it being of any harm to other animals, birds or the environment are negligible.
Using lead shot or lead-based ammo at estabolished shooting ranges is controled. the metals are all in small, confined dirt berms (in most cases) and can be mined to retrieve the lead. This is done at several ranges that I have shot at. The metal salvage price more than pays for the mining costs.
This is simply an attack by the anti's on any use of firearms for any purpose. They just want to harrass and divide us.


If your bullets and fishing weights are no longer made out of lead will it really affect anything?

Have you seen the price of ammo that is made from non-lead metals?!? :eek: Steel shot is the cheapest but is not an effective alternative to lead. :barf: "Heavier-than-lead" shot is extremely expensive. Non-lead rifle/handgun ammo is, likewise, very much more expensive than the traditional soft-core, bonded or HP jacketed lead+alloy bullets.

We need to stick together on this and hundreds of other issues that the anti's use in order to split us into arguing factions.

Wolfebyte
August 23, 2010, 03:02 PM
Has anyone come up with an award winning form letter that we can copy and paste to our congresscritters?

My writing communication skills suck like a new hoover..:what:

hso
August 23, 2010, 03:09 PM
Why should lead ammo and tackle not be banned?

I appreciate folks playing devils advocate.

The answer is that there's no science indicating that there's a significant environmental hazard. There's no need to make a regulatory change unless there's sound science behind it. Weighed against the economic impact (lead-free bullets are more expensive and their performance in the environment has lead to some surprises) the inclusion of bullets in TSCA makes no sense.

benEzra
August 23, 2010, 04:24 PM
Why should lead ammo and tackle not be banned?
Because banning lead-core target ammo would decimate much of the shooting sports in the United States, while providing little or no environmental benefit. Because banning lead-core defensive ammo for civilian and LEO use will make defensive firearms less effective, while providing no environmental benefit. And so on.

I don't hunt and I don't fish, but I do shoot, and a ban on lead-core ammo would probably make shooting prohibitively expensive for me, and for many people in my economic class. Which the cynical part of me suspects is the whole point, if you strip away the hunting-and-fishing facade.

This would be rather similar in some ways to banning rubber tires on bicycles/cars/motorcycles, or banning gasoline and diesel fuel for motor vehicles. Yes, there are substitutes, but the substitutes are nowhere near capable of supplying even a fraction of the normal demand.

hso
August 25, 2010, 08:29 PM
http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/

a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010

jrhines
August 25, 2010, 10:43 PM
can you give us a couple of citations on the lead-in-game-meat studies you mentioned. I will exercise my best Google-foo, but a hint from you would be terrific! I don't want to send off a letter citing "thousands of studies", I would rather have something I can point too.
Also, I can't believe the number of folks on the board that don't seem to get the point. This is not about birds or deer or trees or water. This is about eliminating the shooting of guns in the United States.

hso
August 26, 2010, 12:03 AM
If you follow the link in post #39 you'll be lead to the studies I referred to on lead in game meat.

pmec
August 26, 2010, 12:20 AM
Lead has been used in soldering copper water pipes for years ( solder = 60% tin, 40% lead). I've heard no issues concerning this. Why? Because it can only be ingested in very minute quantities. It's not like kids eating paint chips that contain lead.

In all my visits to the rifle range, I have yet to see children grazing at the embankment where the bullets hit and sucking on a bullet.

Owen Sparks
August 26, 2010, 01:11 AM
Lead is one of the basic elements and occurs naturaly. Where does it come from? They dig it up out of the ground. Shooters simply return it to nature.

This is nothing but a backdoor attempt at gun control. There are mountians in Arkinsas that are full of natural lead deposits and it does not hurt the surrounding enviroment at all.

Owen Sparks
August 26, 2010, 01:17 AM
Here is a link to an online book about the lead mining towns in Wisconsin.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dKE-8qoYXcUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=lead+mining+wisconsin&source=bl&ots=pP6W1Neu79&sig=gKVzCON-wptxv0RKBG9mm2dYM_k&hl=en&ei=tul1TKOIKcP98Absv6zSBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

quietman
August 26, 2010, 12:13 PM
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480b3974b

EPA has opened the petition for banning lead ammo to public comment. This petition would ban all lead ammo, even for target. For starters, you can kiss your bullet molds goodbye if this goes through. Even 22 ammo will become expensive.

MAKE SURE YOU COMMENT. The environmental activists will be sending their members there to comment. If we don't, we'll lose this one. If you think this is a hassle, you'll get what you deserve

If you think this doesn't stand a chance, you better look into the record of the EPA head who is an avowed anti-hunting politician.

You can ignore the information boxes asking for organization name and info and simply fill in your comments. That's the only required box

Things to keep in mind.

1. BE CIVIL

2. If you have facts, use them

3. Don't go off accusing the EPA head of being a socialist, anti freedom, anti-gun bureaucrat. The fact that she is one is irrelevant and your comments will be filed in the whacko category.

Facts you can quote are in these links:
http://web.extension.illinois.edu/state/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=12303
http://forum.gundigestmagazine.com/tm.aspx?m=210

Many of the petitioners are relying on a North Dakota study that said lead levels were higher in people eating animals killed with lead bullets.

There are 2 flaws in this study. From the first link:
1. In fact, in their study in North Dakota, they found that the average lead levels in hunters tested was actually less than the average American.

2. The ND study did not take into account whether the people were casting their own bullets and reloading without taking proper precautions. Someone casting bullets and reloading prior to hunting season would shift the results and make it seem eating venison was the issue. This was a flawed study.

TRguy
August 26, 2010, 12:50 PM
The Primary person behind this issue is Cass Sunstein. You can read about him here http://stopsunstein.com/

He is one of BHO closest advisers and seeks to enact many of these strangle holds on our economy and freedoms through policy and regulation without having congress pass a single law.

This is your enemy who wishes to remove lead ammunition. Which is in essence a back door destruction of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

He is an enemy of freedom.

jeepguy
August 26, 2010, 02:49 PM
does anyone have any new information on this? do we have any idea on what they will decide? can congress repeal this if we lose or can this get overturned through the scotus?

jrhines
August 26, 2010, 03:33 PM
hso.... post #39??? I hate to be thick, but no subject specific links there....
Regards,
JR

sonofodin
August 26, 2010, 03:37 PM
As a recently returned Veteran im not surprised that we are still arguing over this. Just cant reason with tree huggers. Did someone smell Hippie? My nose is tingling....Oh, Ive done a little reloading...and my favorite practice rounds for my .45 are lead. But im just a silly Veteran, I dident need lead to protect America from terrorists. :rolleyes:. May I have my pointed stick now??? :D

hso
August 26, 2010, 03:39 PM
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681

To submit a public comment to EPA on this specific issue - http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480b3974b

There is no point in submitting a rant. If you can't challenge the petition from a scientific basis you should challenge it from an economic one or policy basis. There is no conclusive evidence establishing a significant hazard to wildlife or the public. The impact would go far beyond hunting to the greater number of non-hunting recreational shooters, law enforcement and military consumers of ammunition. A policy change to include lead items under TSCA would result in challenges from shooting groups, Congress and, eventually, the SCOTUS.

hso
August 26, 2010, 03:44 PM
DOOHHH! Sorry, jrhines. #35

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/3E74BD4A-49D1-4116-B9AC-83CC6D27C67C/0/LeadExposureRecommendations.pdf

http://www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison/

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/lead/index.html

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts13.html

Matt 357
August 26, 2010, 04:30 PM
Steel bird shot makes sense for reasons previously stated both for hunting and for trap and skeet.

For hunting 4 legged critters, hardly any lead ends up in the environment unless you are using a full auto weapon.

So that leaves pistol and rifle target shooting.

Where do people do target practice. I thought I saw a poll in this forum asking where people shoot. Public range, private property, somewhere in the woods, etc.

I always shoot at a range.

At a public range, don't they recycle the lead? I assume at outdoor ranges, every year or so they bring in some front end loaders and scoop up the berms truck the dirt off to a recycler and replace with fresh dirt. If the lead is being reclaimed and recycled what is the problem?

hso
August 26, 2010, 10:09 PM
I assume at outdoor ranges, every year or so
Nope

ConstitutionCowboy
August 26, 2010, 10:45 PM
I see big problems with how powerful the EPA has gotten. This is not a gun issue, it is even bigger. The issue is how much power should government and it's agencies have.

I challenge anyone to come up with any legitimate constitutional provisions for nearly all Feral agencies.

Ok, but surely we can find something else to use for sinkers!

HEY! We can cast them out of concrete. It works pretty good for the mobsters!

There are a studies that have shown some risk of lead exposure to people who consume game meat. The risk isn't high enough for CDC to suggest any restrictions, but ground meat tended to be higher in lead and certain bullets put more lead fragments into the meat producing higher lead levels than other types of lead bullets. A couple of state wildlife agencies have made recommendations to limit eating of game meats taken with lead bullets by small children and pregnant mothers due to their greater sensitivity to lead.

Simple solution: Cut out the bullet track.

What we think and what they think won't be the issue if there is data from valid studies showing that there is a real problem or that it's just a theory without data to back it up. EPA will weigh the economic impact against the environmental impact and based on that evaluation will make a ruling. Regardless of what they rule, there will be a lawsuit filed either pushing EPA to ban lead-based ammunition or by the NSSF and possibly some states as well as the NRA to not ban lead-based ammunition. Regardless, I think the minimum that we'll see is more study of wildlife to determine if lead exposure is occurring and if it's harmful.

There is a law in the way of the EPA doing anything with cartridges and shells. I'll explain after the next quote from hso.

A group is going to petition EPA to ban all lead ammunition under the TSCA regulations. There's a specific process EPA has to go through to do this. It isn't arbitrary and it is formally laid out in the federal regulations. The time to stop this is at the beginning of the process so that the petition is rejected. The way to do this is contact your congress critters to get it rejected. Explain that there petitioners do not have sound science behind their claims and that there are endless government range studies and government federal facilities wildlife studies that show no statistically significant direct lead exposure due to ingesting or even being shot, but not killed, at these ranges. Point out that the vast majority of lead is not used in hunting and that the economic impact would go far beyond the hunting use and would negatively impact law enforcement, military and sport shooters far outstripping any imaginary harm to wildlife.

It is apparent that Petitioners would have the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), by using the following "logic", engage in misprision by overstepping the bounds the EPA must confine itself to as laid out in the law.

A. Authority to Regulate Lead Shot and Bullets

Lead used in shot, bullets and sinkers is a “chemical substance” falling within the scope
of the Act (15 U.S.C. § 2602(2)(A)).1 Although certain substances are excluded from the
definition of “chemical substances,” these exclusions do not apply to lead shot or bullets
(15 U.S.C. § 2602(B)). Section 2602(B)(v) excludes from Act regulation “any article the
sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.” Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code taxes firearms, shells, and
cartridges (26 U.S.C. § 4181). However, shot and bullets are not subject to this tax. In
fact, a 1968 Revenue Ruling states, “The manufacturers excise tax imposed upon sales of
shells and cartridges by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 does not
apply to sales of separate parts of ammunition such as cartridge cases, primers, bullets,
and powder” (Rev. Rul. 68-463, 1968-2 C.B. 507 (emphasis added)). This ruling has
been confirmed by subsequent administrative decisions (See, for example, Fed. Tax
Coordinator ¶ W-2911(2d.)). Because shot and bullets, as separate parts of ammunition,
exception of TSCA does not apply. Thus, lead shot and bullets are properly classified as
"chemical substances” subject to TSCA regulation.

The part I highlighted in bold is the pertinent law the EPA would have to violate to pass a regulation banning lead bullets(or sinkers). While an IRS ruling exempts the separate components of cartridges from the tax, those components are nonetheless used in the manufacture of cartridges(and shells) and would exempt those components from regulation by the EPA regardless of whether they are taxed or not.

Cartridges cannot be manufactured without bullets. The main ingredient of a cartridge IS the bullet. All the other components of a cartridge - the case, the powder charge, and the primer used to ignite the powder - are used to accelerate the bullet to its effective velocity. Some firearms(muzzle loaders) do basically the same thing without the use of a case, but the point is that it is the bullet that is the main component of a cartridge. You cannot have a cartridge without a bullet.

Admittedly, a cartridge can be manufactured with a bullet made of substances other than lead, but the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 4181 would cover any cartridge or shell regardless of the substances used in its construction because the law makes no exceptions.

This is in no small way analogous to the Second Amendment to the Constitution (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) in that some argue that if some arms are prohibited, a person can still exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms with other, non-prohibited arms. The ignored truth in such arguments is that the Second Amendment is a prohibition upon government to prohibit any arms. It's not about the people exercising their right, its that government cannot interfere with any aspect of the exercise of that right. So it is with Petitioner's desire that the EPA ignore or twist the clear text of the law the EPA must abide. It's not that cartridges and shells can be manufactured with other substances, it's that the EPA may not regulate cartridges and shells regardless of what they are made out of.

Let us not forget that bullets are as much an arm as any other arm such as arrows, spears, clubs, firearms, and etc. The keeping and bearing of ALL these things are protected from government infringement by the Second Amendment.


We need to treat this seriously and we need to do so now so that we don't have to fight it during the comment period after the wording of the TSCA regulation has been changed.

While I'd certainly do as advised by hso, I'd also point out to the EPA and certainly our congress critters that even with a change in the wording of the TSCA, that 26 U.S.C. § 4181 would still prohibit the EPA from "deleading" ammo. The EPA may end up banning lead sinkers, but banning lead bullets is a whole 'nuther matter.

Simply put , We have TOO much government now. All the scares they've thrown at us were usually built by erroneos information. Can you trust them? I don't!!!

And therein lies the problem. The Feral Government has simply outgrown its corset. I don't trust them either. If they want my trust back, they'll have to abide the Constitution.

Woody

lbmii
August 27, 2010, 12:50 PM
Understand that they might not ban lead bullets; they'll make the production of lead bullets very expensive. They will regulate, lawsuit and otherwise gum up the mining, processing, transportation, storing, smelting, melting, forging, worker exposure, labeling, zoning, insurance, legacy liability, and whatever else they can come up with...

But they won't actually ban lead bullets. They will destroy the lead bullet industry (just like they have done to most US heavy industry).

Politicians are lawyers and for lawyers the laws are written.

mm1ut1
August 27, 2010, 01:03 PM
This administration is a lame duck and they know it. Problem is it may take years to right the wrongs it does.

jeepguy
August 27, 2010, 01:32 PM
also what does the law enforcement community have to say about this? it seems they have as much to lose as we do. how would this affect our military would they also have to switch over to non lead ammunition as well? what happens to the ammunition we have already? as you can tell, this reeally concerns me.

Jason_W
August 27, 2010, 02:03 PM
While troublesome in its intent, I'm not yet overly concerned about this petition. The reason being that big industry has a lot of power in this country. Banning lead ammo would severely hurt the bottom lines of the big ammo companies, who are in some cases subsidiaries of powerful mega-corporation. In the US, the mega-corporations get their way. This is the one time I can think of where this fact works for us regular folk.

hso
August 27, 2010, 03:16 PM
Constitution Cowboy has done an excellent job of explaining the barrier to a change under TSCA to ban lead based ammunition.

That doesn't mean the EPA might not decide to attempt this. If they made that mistake (and the law is so clear and will be clearly pointed out), that would be challenged in court immediately and they would loose.

Ultimately the only way to ban lead based ammunition is for Congress to pass an amendment to TSCA removing the 3 (2)(A)v opening taxed ammunition to inclusion. I do not think that we can expect such a change in legislation.

We should continue to comment, pointing out that accepting the petition position amounts to usurping Congress's authority wrt to making or amending legislation, ignores a preponderance of scientific data showing lead ammunition represents an insignificant hazard to the environment and public health and would represent an excessive economic harm to the producers of lead based ammunition, hunters and recreational shooters, law enforcement and the military because of the expense of alternatives to lead based ammunition (none of which have been found to be cost effective).

Red Cent
August 27, 2010, 07:03 PM
They rejected the petition to ban lead ammunition.

hso
August 27, 2010, 07:14 PM
RC,

Thanks!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/epa-rejects-calls-ban-lead-ammo-fishing-tackle/

The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition filed by environmental activists seeking to ban lead in ammunition and fishing tackle, saying such regulation is beyond the agency's authority.

The agency's decision, announced Friday shortly after FoxNews.com published its report on the issue, sided with hunters and fishermen who had argued that the such regulations weren't allowed under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

"EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead," the agency said in a written statement. "However, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife."

Petition rejected 3 days after submittal! That was quick.

armoredman
August 27, 2010, 07:36 PM
3 days, that means it was a political decision, not a policy one.

1911Tuner
August 27, 2010, 07:49 PM
It doesn't mean that the groups who presented the petition will cease and desist. They'll keep trying.

CombatArmsUSAF
August 27, 2010, 08:01 PM
It doesn't mean that the groups who presented the petition will cease and desist. They'll keep trying.

That's right, we definitely need to stay on top of things. We've done pretty well in the last decade, as far as gun rights go, but we still have a long way to fight uphill.

hso
August 27, 2010, 08:41 PM
armoredman,

I can't agree. Considering that it would require Congress to amend TSCA it wouldn't take much for EPA to realize that there was no way for them to make a rule change (with people pointing out the fact as well) on this. Kinda like, It doesn't matter how much your kid wants that new pair of useless shoes, there's no need to discuss it once you find out you don't have the money to get them.

I'd like to hope that the EPA simply decided there wasn't any regulatory or technical merit, but the simplest answer is that they decided that there was no way they could make a change and it took 3 days (and a bunch of comments) for the machinery to crank.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 27, 2010, 10:00 PM
Constitution Cowboy has done an excellent job of explaining the barrier to a change under TSCA to ban lead based ammunition.

Thanks, hso.

:evil: Now that the EPA has rejected the petition, I've got the big-head! :cool:

Your humble servant, Woody

Buckeye Dan
August 27, 2010, 11:26 PM
Hurray! Ban scare is over!

Another news source:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/48d939b5009411038525778c00768006!OpenDocument

1858
August 27, 2010, 11:43 PM
Deleted

Kentucky_Rifleman
August 27, 2010, 11:46 PM
Save the planet; eat an environmentalist.

Disclaimer: This is hyperbole, i.e. literary wit, also known as sarcasm, and is not intended to be taken seriously. If you find the remark offensive, abrasive, off-puting, or otherwise distasteful, it's time you grew a spine and joined us vertebrates.

KR

Kentucky_Rifleman
August 27, 2010, 11:49 PM
“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.”

EPA ditched the ammo part, but is still considering the fishing tackle ban. We need to buck up on this one too; I like my lead sinkers.

KR

gun guy
August 28, 2010, 12:39 AM
In cases where someone is shot, and the bullet, or pellets not removed, the body encapsulates the foriegn object. New studies are showing degeneration of vital organs such as the liver, kidneys, and brain, due to lead toxicities caused by bullets, pellets left in patients. You can try to muddle the issue by insisting bullets are alloys, or whatever, but the simple fact is, lead, in any form, alloy or amount is a toxic heavy metal. I am no fan of the EPA, in fact many of their ideals are unrealistic, but at least be honest about the issues concerning lead,(in many or any of its forms). It is a cheap metal, that makes it expediant, but perhaps not the best.

If you enjoyed reading about "Groups Seek Nationwide Ban on Traditional Lead Ammunition By Petitioning EPA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!