Reply With 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?
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 pe ioning 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 pe ion 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 pe ion sending Jackson a letter do enting 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?
It certainly seems to discriminate against gun owners when ammo gets to $5 a shot.
Yes it does.
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?
to control guns, control the ammo...I don't see where you get gun control out of that. Won't hunters and sportsmen just pay more for the alternative 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.
"We deal in bismuth, friend"
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.
If anything, they will just ensure rich whitey has all the firepower in the end.
The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a pe ion 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/
Don't you think this is going overboard?
It's all ready illegal to use lead shot in some locations.
Time to buy reloading equipment before they ban that too.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.
Did you read that they didn't ban lead, WC?
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.
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.
Lead ain't healthy for children and other living things. Cope.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.
OTOH, the change is merely recommended. The EPA may not act on it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
