Thoughts
xcgates said:
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.
Azb said:
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!
hso said:
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.
hso said:
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.
hso said:
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.
hso said:
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.
oldreloader said:
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
Steel shot is the cheapest but is not an effective alternative to lead. 
"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.
