EPA Opens Comment Period On Lead Ammo Ban

[edstephan]

I would assume the NRA is already involved heavily?

You a funny man

Remember, It is not in the best interest of the NRA to have the issue of the 2nd Amendment settled as they would loose 10's of millions of dollars in revenue from the sheeple who think the NRA is standing up for their “Rights”

In 1981 we had urged the NRA to fight the Morton Grove handgun law and their response was half hearted at best and we were told there would be no nationwide escalation of restrictions. Since 1981 there have been thousands of handgun laws enacted. Morton Grove was an experiment to see how far the anti-gunners could go and how much they could get away with. The NRA refused to appeal the Illinois Supreme Court ruling to SCOTUS

When are people going to get it, You hand over money to the NRA for their long list of compromises that got us into the situation we are in. Your money would be better served with a memberships in the GOA, FOAC, or other organizations that are taking a no compromise approach.


An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

[GregorOneEye]

I try. They (NRA) do weird things and I was just curious, I don't follow them actively, they just sometimes have a political hammer they use and I was wondering if they were planning to bring it into play. I would have raised hell regardless, but 'thanks' for the remarks. I don't suckle at the NRA's teat.

[/dev/null]

While Im not the sharpest knife.... If my high school chemistry serves me (okay, organic and inorganic after high school as well) lead is an element... its naturally occurring! In fact, one doesn't have to do any chemical magic to derive it - smelting yes, but the shit is already in the ground and naturally occurring.

WTF are these ass-hats going to come up with next?

[Kramer]

While Im not the sharpest knife.... If my high school chemistry serves me (okay, organic and inorganic after high school as well) lead is an element... its naturally occurring! In fact, one doesn't have to do any chemical magic to derive it - smelting yes, but the shit is already in the ground and naturally occurring.

Bingo! You just got an A+ in Chemistry!

[God's Country]

The new tactic: if they can't ban the guns, ban the ammo.

Hardly new. It's been on the radar a long time.

[Ecclectic Collector]

Well, I just posted my negative comments on the Federal comments site.

Boy, talk about user unfriendly design!

I know that that EPA has gotten a bit too big for their britches lately since last year they came very close to banning most of the existing library books on the shelves of all our nation's libraries last year on the grounds the older books used lead in the color for pictures. The American Library Association spearheaded a drive to point out the economic and social consequences of taking about half of the books in our nation's libraries off the shelf.

End Result: EPA backed down.

Lets hope that these morons do the same once again when confronted with the reality of their absurd ideas.

PS: Anybody contacted our friendly legislators about this one?

[Brick]

Well, I just posted my negative comments on the Federal comments site.

snipped

PS: Anybody contacted our friendly legislators about this one?

Thanks for submitting your comments, the more the merrier.

And yes I sent a letter to Chris Carney.

And there is a sample letter that can be used at:
http://nssf.org/GovRel/news/traditio...ple-letter.cfm

[PA Traveler]

Also worth noting that the law the petitioners are relying on (the Toxic Substances Control Act 15 U.S.C. Section 2602) as the basis for their proposal specifically exempts various items taxed under the specific excise tax that is applied to ammunition. IOW under this act, ammunition is specifically exempt from regulation by the EPA.

So instead, they are attempting to say 'ban the lead bullet component' that is part of the ammunition.

Kind of like saying I'm not allowed to ban a cow.... so I want you to ban the skin that surrounds the cow.

[Philbert]

I would assume the NRA is already involved heavily?

They sent their comments opposing the petition and put out a press release on their opposition.

But as you say, whatever they are doing is no substitute for everyone helping out with focused, well-informed, reasoned comments written in correct English.

[5711-Marine]

My Letter to the EPA

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-4700

Fax: (202) 501-1450

Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov





I write today in opposition of the Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to ban all traditional lead based ammunition Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. Ammunition of this type has been in use on this continent for more than two hundred and thirty five years with no scientific evidence to support that the lawful use of such ammunition has an adverse impact on the environment or wildlife.







Reviewing the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) Section 2601 (c) "Intent of Congress" states that:



It is the intent of Congress that the Administrator shall carry out

this chapter in a reasonable and prudent manner, and that the

Administrator shall consider the environmental, economic, and social

impact of any action the Administrator takes or proposes to take under

this chapter.





Similarly Title 15 CHAPTER 105—PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS § 7901. Findings; purposes States that:



(a) Findings

Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.



(4) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act [26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.], and the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.].



(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation’s laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.





(b) Purposes

The purposes of this chapter are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

(2) To preserve a citizen’s access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3) To guarantee a citizen’s rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.





The proposed rules under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681 properly fall within the purview of State Game Commissions and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, not within the mandate of the Environmental Protection Agency.



Given the myriad of federal laws governing the sale, manufacture and transportation of firearms and ammunition, and the recent court decisions rejecting this administration's attempts to circumvent the intent of the Congress via over-reaching of departments within the Executive branch [1][2], I am concerned that any attempt by the EPA to implement such a ban with insufficient scientific findings, and contravening the intent of Congress will result in frivolous waste of tax dollars.





NAME
ADDRESS
CONTACT INFO




[1] Preliminary injunction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2009cv1575-44

[2] Denial of Motion to withdraw Yucca Mountain Application - http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/p...Motion0629.pdf