California bans lead ammo?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AKElroy

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
3,425
Location
Past & Future Republic of Texas
Seriously?


99% of ammo will be banned

By Larry Keane
Published: September 11, 2013 2:19 PM

By Larry Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation

The recent opinion piece in the San Diego Union Tribune, “Lead poisoning a threat to wildlife” by the head of a national animal rights organization was the latest ploy in a propaganda campaign forged by those seeking to end hunting and fishing in the United States. In this piece, Wayne Pacelle of the anti-hunting Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) conveniently omits several key concerns with Assembly Bill 711 a bill to ban traditional lead ammunition that passed the California State Senate in a 27-15 vote on Monday. That bill now goes to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown.

This onerous legislation has united a coalition of hunting organizations, labor unions, manufacturers and taxpayer advocates in opposition. Can anyone seriously believe the HSUS will find hunting acceptable if hunters are forced to use alternative non-lead ammunition? What is AB 711 about really?

As the voice of America’s firearms and ammunition, hunting and sporting industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation supports the right of hunters to choose alternative ammunition, and manufacturers offer such products in response to consumer demand. Currently, alternative metal ammunition only accounts for just 1 percent of the ammunition market.

Alternative ammunition made with brass can be classified as armor piercing ammunition that is illegal to make, sell or possess unless the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) grants special permission. As HSUS knows, ATF refuses to grant manufacturers the needed waivers to produce and provide alternative ammunition. This is one key reason why every major hunting organization in California and nationwide understand that an enacted AB 711 would amount to ban on hunting.

Proponents misleadingly claim alternative hunting ammunition will be readily available. Even leaving aside the ATF issue, the fact is that alternative supplies will not be widely available to meet the needs of hunters in California if AB 711 becomes law. What will be available is substantially more expensive than traditional ammunition.

World commodity prices for alternative metals are very high and, when coupled with supply restrictions, will drive the consumer price up to 190% above traditional ammunition, and thereby effectively price many hunters out of the woods. California’s hunting license revenue will correspondingly plummet, a concern articulated by the California Department of Finance in its analysis of AB 711.

If signed by the governor, this bill will also cost California millions in lost revenue including federal wildlife conservation funding. Since 1937, the sale of ammunition and firearms used by hunters, sport shooters, and gun owners has been subject to an 11% federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax that is the primary source of wildlife conservation (both game and non-game) funding in the United States.

In 2012, California received more than $12 million in Pittman Robertson funds, ranking it one of the top five state beneficiaries. AB 711′s de facto hunting ban will drastically reduce California’s share of Pittman Robertson funds and critical revenues from hunting license sales as hunters are driven out of the woods or hunt in other states. The very ammunition the bill’s proponents demonize is what pays for wildlife and habitat conservation.

AB 711 proponents point approvingly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife regulation restricting the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting. But the USFWS regulation is based on scientific concerns of a specific wildlife population impact. Managing wildlife populations is the touchstone of wildlife management. California’s hunters know AB 711 is not based on sound science of an adverse population impact. Instead, it is designed to advance its supporters’ anti-hunting agenda. Wildlife management decisions should be made by the professionals in the fish and game agencies based on science, not the HSUS’s animal “rights” politics.

Next, junk science and anti-gun collaborators

Several years ago these same animal rights groups succeeded in enacting a ban on traditional ammunition in the California condor range based on “isotope” studies the validity of which has been called into serious question. Not surprisingly, despite nearly 100 percent hunter compliance with the ban, condors are still ingesting lead from paint chips, tire weights, car batteries and other items of urban trash, euphemistically called “microtrash”. These birds are still getting sick from other sources of lead.

Leaving aside the junk science underlying the condor range ban, proponents have failed to identify a single species population being adversely impacted outside the condor range. Instead they resorted to fabricated and utterly baseless claims of supposed human health risks posed by traditional ammunition. However, as HSUS knows, there has never been a single case anywhere in the United States of elevated lead levels due to consuming game harvested using traditional ammunition.

Mr. Pacelle represents a group with a clear anti-hunting agenda, and hiding behind a created issue to further his narrow cause. Hunting, sport shooting and traditional ammunition provide tremendous benefit to California’s economy and conservation funding. We are urging Governor Brown to veto this legislation.

Larry Keane is senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @lkeane.
 
The legislative goal for liberal Democrats in this state is to eventually eliminate all firearms ownership, one piece at a time. This is simply one more step in that direction. They are willing to loose some funding and tax payments in order to achieve this goal; it is very simple to make up for the reduced revenue in the form of higher taxes and fees imposed on the rest of the citizenry. Given enough time, and with sympathetic courts the goal will eventually be achieved.
 
Well there's always copper for centerfire pistol and rifle ammo, way more expensive as is the shotgun alternatives but what about Muzzle loader and rimfire?

The attacks just continue to come and I see this as more than a California issue.
 
I always thought that lead poisoning in waterfowl, and so I thought this bill was targeting shotgun hunters only- this bill sucks! I'm glad I don't live in Cali. What will happen if you use ammunition you've already purchased? Are you just stuck until you move to a better state?
 
Not to be the anti voice here, but isn't the ammo used for hunting really a small part of ammo sales? I don't see ammo sales really going down all that much because of this. It will suck for hunters of course, and I'm not supporting this, but I don't see the sales tax revenue dropping over this by any appreciable amount.
 
Not to be the anti voice here, but isn't the ammo used for hunting really a small part of ammo sales? I don't see ammo sales really going down all that much because of this. It will suck for hunters of course, and I'm not supporting this, but I don't see the sales tax revenue dropping over this by any appreciable amount.

This bill bans all lead ammo not just that ammo used in hunting. So all ammo sells will drop because of the lack of lead free ammo.
 
This bill bans all lead ammo not just that ammo used in hunting. So all ammo sells will drop because of the lack of lead free ammo.
Also, if the number of hunters in the field declines because of this, so will the sales of all hunting related merchandise, resulting in still further reduction in Pittman Robertson funds. It's not just bullets that generate these wildlife conservation funds, it includes nearly everything from the firearms and bows to the boots, blinds and backpacks.
 
Another goal is to ban all use of lead containing ammunition for target practice on any public owned lands. Going to the desert to enjoy some safe shooting at steel targets? With the high cost of lead-free ammunition, that will likely be gone, if they don't outright ban the discharge of all firearms on all public lands first. Federal land you say? Too bad, they will gladly prosecute you as a test case to see how far it can be pushed. You have limited funds to fight; they have untold millions to spend on your case.
 
Another goal is to ban all use of lead containing ammunition for target practice on any public owned lands. Going to the desert to enjoy some safe shooting at steel targets? With the high cost of lead-free ammunition, that will likely be gone, if they don't outright ban the discharge of all firearms on all public lands first. Federal land you say? Too bad, they will gladly prosecute you as a test case to see how far it can be pushed. You have limited funds to fight; they have untold millions to spend on your case.

From what I understand from reading the bill, only taking of game requires non-lead ammunition; target shooting with lead ammo is still okay.
 
^^^^True, at this time. If you follow the history of California gun legislation, however, it is not hard to extrapolate on the direction we are headed. First it was a lead ban in the condor areas. Soon it may be lead-free in all areas. Next likely stop is "no more lead shooting on public lands", followed by the same on private land as well.
The radical environmentalists have a very strong presence in California; just look at how much open land in the southern part of the state is now under the domains of various public agencies.
 
Riceman98 said:
This bill bans all lead ammo not just that ammo used in hunting. So all ammo sells will drop because of the lack of lead free ammo.
Not according to my reading of the law. Would you show me, where in the law it bans any ammo? All I see is banning the use of lead ammo for the taking of certain animals in certain areas.
 
Waterfowl aren't the only animals effected by lead. The major focus of this bill to require lead-free ammo for hunting is the California Condor. A hunter shoots a deer, guts it and leaves the gut pile. The gut pile is full of lead fragments from the bullet. The condor eats the gut pile and over time gets lead poisoning. All of the California Condors have radio collars. When one starts acting funny they go out and capture it and feed it in captivity until the lead levels in the Condor's blood gets back to normal levels. Then they release it back into the wild and the cycle repeats. It effects other scavengers too, but no one cares about buzzards and crows.

If you did live in California you could still use your lead ammo for target practice, just not for hunting.
 
Not to be the anti voice here, but isn't the ammo used for hunting really a small part of ammo sales? I don't see ammo sales really going down all that much because of this. It will suck for hunters of course, and I'm not supporting this, but I don't see the sales tax revenue dropping over this by any appreciable amount.
I asked some of the guys at the range (firearms instructors) who are avid hunters, and they tend to agree with you. They just wanted to know if & when the law would take effect, so they could change their hunting ammunition. They already have to pay for non-lead bird-hunting ammo, and weren't surprised this might be happening regarding center-fire hunting ammo.
 
This bill bans all lead ammo not just that ammo used in hunting. So all ammo sells will drop because of the lack of lead free ammo.
Read the amended bill's language. Here's a link to one version ... http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_711_bill_20130319_amended_asm_v98.htm

Notice it states This bill would revise and recast these provisions to require the use of nonlead ammunition for the taking of all wildlife, including game mammals, game birds, nongame birds, and nongame mammals, with any firearm.

They aren't "banning all lead ammunition."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top