Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Good political news for a change!

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by joken, Apr 11, 2012.

  1. joken

    joken Corvallis Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    523
    EPA Doesn’t Ban Lead Ammunition. Again. Still.

    Press Release:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday denied yet another frivolous petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) — an established anti-hunting group — calling for a ban on the traditional ammunition (containing lead-core components) for hunting and shooting . . . .

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry, applauds the EPA’s latest decision and called upon Congress to immediately pass the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act (S.838/H.R.1558).

    In the House of Representatives, the bill is also included in the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012 (H.R. 4089), an important piece of legislation that combines three other legislative priorities for sportsmen. The bill (S.838/H.R.1558) amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to clarify that the Congress has excluded traditional ammunition from regulation by the EPA.

    The legislation is supported by more than 35 national conservation and sportsmen’s groups. The bill is even supported by the Fraternal Order of Police because a ban on traditional ammunition would apply to law enforcement and the U.S. military.

    NSSF opposed the petition, which was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other like-minded groups. This was the second attempt by the CBD to ban traditional ammunition since it first petitioned the EPA in August of 2010. In rejecting the CBD’s latest petition the EPA agreed with NSSF, telling the CBD that it did not have jurisdiction under TSCA to regulate ammunition.

    The CBD’s petition purported to narrow the scope of the ban sought, but the EPA concluded that this change was a “distinction without a substantive difference.” The EPA went on to say the new petition “contains no new information.”

    The CBD’s serial petitions erroneously claim that the use of traditional ammunition by hunters poses a danger to human health and wildlife, in particular raptor populations such as bald eagles. The truth is that wildlife populations, including raptor and bald eagle populations, are soaring. The myth of a human health risk has been thoroughly debunked by a 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that found the health of hunters consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition was not at risk.

    The excise taxes raised from hunters’ purchases of the very ammunition the CBD tries to demonize is a primary source of wildlife conservation in the United States. Restricting or banning traditional ammunition absent sound science will hurt wildlife conservation. “Hunters have done more for wildlife than the CBD ever will,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane.

    “These relentless and unfounded attacks against traditional ammunition by agenda-driven groups like the CBD are exactly why Congress must take immediate action and pass the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012.”

    Keane is referencing the federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent), which is dedicated to the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
    _________________________
     
  2. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,744
    If they had decided otherwise it would have been interesting to see how they justified banning a naturally occurring element from outdoor use. Maybe the would have used the argument that people shot in the head with lead bullets may later suffer brain damage from lead poisoning.
     
  3. drew

    drew OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    970
    I saw this earlier today. Welcome news. The people pushing for this just keep applying hoping for a different, more sympathetic ruling.
     
  4. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Does it naturally occur on the surface ?
     
  5. PlayboyPenguin

    PlayboyPenguin Pacific Northwest Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    4,833
    Likes Received:
    1,744
    Lead concentrations can be found in soil, water, etc at the surface level. The concentration is very low but it is there. Areas likely to be contaminated by lead are not likely to be farmed soil. It is also a matter of perspective. Does shooting lead bullet account for any measurable increase in surface lead concentrations outside of immediate ground fall areas? I think that would be very hard to show.
     
  6. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    So I assume the answer is no. Because you know, there are low concentrations of Uranium in various places, but we don't say that using Uranium munitions is okay since it's naturally occurring ;) Note that I'm not saying lead is good or bad, I am just picking on the "naturally occurring" argument.
     
  7. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,198
    Likes Received:
    4,402
    The EPA is still licking their wounds over the Sackett case. They may be quiet for a while.