Groups Seek Nationwide Ban on Traditional Lead Ammunition By Petitioning EPA

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

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. ) 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.

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.

"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.....

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

Click to expand...

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.

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



Az

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

Click to expand...

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.

Email sent to the two EPA people named in the original post.

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.

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?

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

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.