EPA to consider banning lead in bullets?

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/epa-...an-led-bullets

Will Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson make a back door move to ban lead bullets the day before the November 2 elections?

Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here's the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition. A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55.

Although the EPA could have dismissed the request due to a lack of jurisdiction, it is obliging CBD. The EPA has asked for public comment on banning lead in ammunition, and an EPA notice was published seeking public comment that closes on October 31. Jackson would then make a decision to accept or reject the petition on November 1. You might say that even considering enacting what is effectively a new tax on hunters and gun owners--seemingly the only non-liberal group the Obama administration hasn't yet intentionally provoked--is less-than-perfect timing for the already beleagured Democrats as the midterm elections approach.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, has hit back against the petition sending Jackson a letter documenting why EPA has no jurisdiction and outlining the damage that banning lead ammunition would do to U.S. industry and jobs, conservation, and law enforcement. The NSSF estimates that more than 90 percent of hunters and sport shooters use traditional lead ammunition. If all hunters were forced to buy non-lead bullets that are made out of metals like tungsten, bismuth, and copper alloys, demand could easily begin to outstrip the supply and prices would go even higher.

Bill Clinton famously blamed the NRA and gun owners for sweeping Democrats from control of the House in 1994 after he pushed them to pass the Assault Weapons Ban. For Democrats, especially those in rural and conservative districts that are already facing voters’ wrath, gun control could once again be an issue that helps defeat them and swings control of the House and perhaps even the Senate to the GOP.

I don't see where you get gun control out of that. Won't hunters and sportsmen just pay more for the alternative ammo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I don't see where you get gun control out of that. Won't hunters and sportsmen just pay more for the alternative ammo?

---

It certainly seems to discriminate against gun owners when ammo gets to $5 a shot.

Yes it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

It certainly seems to discriminate against gun owners when ammo gets to $5 a shot.

---

how much will it cost fishermen per cast?

If the ammo manufacturers are incapable of ramping up production of bullets and shot with alternative materials, then the fear of expensive ammo could be justified. Somehow I think they might be able to do it.

Though pumping a bad guy full of bismuth doesn't flow that well.

I thought you weren't clinging to your guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

I thought you weren't clinging to your guns?

---

:lol

Quote:

---

I don't see where you get gun control out of that. Won't hunters and sportsmen just pay more for the alternative ammo?

---

to control guns, control the ammo...

After that, they'll start in on reloading components...

It's not really control if you can eventually get cheaper wolfram (oh, the marketing possibilities!) bullets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chump

Though pumping a bad guy full of bismuth doesn't flow that well.

---

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.ya...ad_dexter1.jpg

"We deal in bismuth, friend"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I don't see where you get gun control out of that. Won't hunters and sportsmen just pay more for the alternative ammo?

---

lol! Winehole, don't be so dull my man!

Government knows they cannot ban guns. Instead, Government will have to go at it the Government way...through the back door. Making ammunition, reloading, permits, etc more expensive IS a form of gun control.

If anything, they will just ensure rich whitey has all the firepower in the end. :hat

Quote:

---

If anything, they will just ensure rich whitey has all the firepower in the end.

---

:lmao:lmao:toast

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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ishing-tackle/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I don't see where you get gun control out of that. Won't hunters and sportsmen just pay more for the alternative ammo?

---

Don't you think this is going overboard?

It's all ready illegal to use lead shot in some locations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

lol! Winehole, don't be so dull my man!

Government knows they cannot ban guns. Instead, Government will have to go at it the Government way...through the back door. Making ammunition, reloading, permits, etc more expensive IS a form of gun control.

If anything, they will just ensure rich whitey has all the firepower in the end. :hat

---

Time to buy reloading equipment before they ban that too.

Did you read that they didn't ban lead, WC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

how much will it cost fishermen per cast?

---

pretty expensive actually...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Reckoning

pretty expensive actually...

---

discrimination!

Wait! Shouldn't all of you gunnies have like a million rounds saved up from January 2009 when you ALSO mistakenly said Obama was going to take your guns away??

Don't worry. I've got plenty of ammo left in my Y2K shelter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Will Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson make a back door move to ban lead bullets the day before the November 2 elections?

---

No. End thread!

EPA to consider a ban on bullets?

sure, I guess.


Will EPA impose such a ban?

No, of course not.


Will idiots like darrins and cosmic cowboy try to make a political issue out of the denied request?

Of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

lol! Winehole, don't be so dull my man!

Government knows they cannot ban guns. Instead, Government will have to go at it the Government way...through the back door. Making ammunition, reloading, permits, etc more expensive IS a form of gun control.

If anything, they will just ensure rich whitey has all the firepower in the end. :hat

---

Lead ain't healthy for children and other living things. Cope.

OTOH, the change is merely recommended. The EPA may not act on it.

As a technical matter does anyone know: is lead uniquely suited, as the OP suggests, for the purpose?

Or is it just the cheapest?

The EPA discovered they have no authority to regulate lead derived from ammunition.

Nevermind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

The EPA discovered they have no authority to regulate lead derived from ammunition.

Nevermind.

---

Thank God. Sneaky little bastards.

So if the point of banning lead for bullets is because lead is harmful to people
and wildlife, doesn't that sort of ignore the issue of "bullets made of ANYTHING for hunting are not going to be very good for whatever it is that is being hunted?"

I mean, really. If you are okay with shooting something, what the hell difference does it make if the bullet is made out of something that is harmful?

Bullets=harm, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

The EPA discovered they have no authority to regulate lead derived from ammunition.

Nevermind.

---

Still, the fact that those in the EPA are trying to exceede their mandate, is very disturbing.

I was all for the EPA until they condemned CO2 as a pollutant. This is when I noted them going astray.

Damn you guys love to get worked up about absolutely nothing.

lead is bad for you. but a bullet is worse.

Christ... Election year news is nothing if not tediously turgid with fear-mongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Damn you guys love to get worked up about absolutely nothing.

---

Damn YOU love thinking others are getting worked up over something.


I ain't even worked up. It is just common sense that going after the 2nd amendment will most likely go through this route. Just as the EPA is used for the enviroemos to control our beloved chariots of destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

Damn YOU love thinking others are getting worked up over something.


I ain't even worked up. It is just common sense that going after the 2nd amendment will most likely go through this route. Just as the EPA is used for the enviroemos to control our beloved chariots of destruction.

---

Yes, you ain't worked up at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

So if the point of banning lead for bullets is because lead is harmful to people
and wildlife, doesn't that sort of ignore the issue of "bullets made of ANYTHING for hunting are not going to be very good for whatever it is that is being hunted?"

I mean, really. If you are okay with shooting something, what the hell difference does it make if the bullet is made out of something that is harmful?

Bullets=harm, no?

---

Without reading anything on the subject other than this thread, my guess is that the concern is not over what the lead might do to the animal that was shot, but over what it could potentially do to the person(s) who later eats the meat from that animal.

Not only lead in the killed animal, but lead that could be pick up from the ground or water bottom.

Also, scavengers eating meat with meat from shot animals that escaped the shooter.

This seems to be a relatively minor problem, way down my personal list, compared to the much bigger pollution that EPA/USDA allows from oil/chemical/fracking/fertilizer companies, and to coal mining/burning, toxic coal ash. And of course the biggest polluter is US military, but they're untouchable.

Seriously people. At any given time there are special interest groups petitioning for the most absurd shit you've ever heard. The only time you hear about it is in election years, when the parties bring these wingnut ideas to your attention in an easily-digestible package meant to stoke your fears. This is no different than the "Obama's coming for your guns!!!" nonsense of two years ago. Just misdirection and manipulation to get you in the voting booth for the team that's pressing your buttons.

Car batteries put more lead into the environment than bullets could ever hope to and you can damn well be sure they won't be going anywhere.