EPA Opens Comment Period On Lead Ammo Ban

[Brick]

Read all about it:

But please be sure to go to http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-consider...ke-action-now/

and follow the links they provide to submit your written objection to the petition.

I believe it much better for us to fight hard now instead of waiting for EPA rulemaking forcing us to fight harder later.

Bear in mind the EPA can go forward with this ban with no further reference to Congress! Congress has already given them this authority.

EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition — Take Action Now
August 25, 2010 By Larry Keane

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry — urges you to submit comment to the EPA opposing any ban on traditional ammunition. Remember, your right to choose the ammunition you hunt and shoot with is at stake.

The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, please click here. In order to go directly to the ‘submit a comment’ page for this docket number, please click here.

NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition:

* There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

* Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies.

* A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.

* A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle’s recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition – the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.

* Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.

Steps to take:

1. Submit comment online to the EPA.

2. Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban:

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

3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here.

[Brick]

Just in case anyone needs help writing a letter here's my own poor attempt:

Feel free to use, edit or improve it. But whatever you do, don't ignore this issue. In case you're curious I posted this letter of objection through regulations.gov today.

I am writing to voice my objection to the Center for Biological Diversity et al petition to ban all lead and lead core firearms ammunition. Docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681.

Throughout the petition only the idea of lead’s effect on wildlife is considered. This is much too thin an argument for banning all ammunition containing lead. The argument fails to take into account all sporting and recreational, non-hunting, shooting sports and the important function of ammunition in personal defense and law enforcement.

Much is also made of the availability and the economy of non-lead ammunition. While they do tell the truth, it is most definitely not the whole truth. A review of California’s approved non-lead ammunition list will reveal that most of the brands cited rely on only one bullet manufacturer, Barnes Bullets. Some like Sinterfire, produce only frangible ammunition suitable only for practice use on indoor ranges, others offer only hunting calibers for use in rifles only. The few that offer handgun ammunition produce only magnum hunting calibers or so-called +P ammunition that might be dangerous to use in older firearms not rated for high pressure ammunition. Most notable is the fact that only Barnes offers non-lead bullets as a component for use by handloaders. Since when does having one source of a particular product become a market? I had always thought that was a monopoly, or is it now part of government’s function to ensure the profitability of Barnes Bullets?

Similarly, they gloss over the factor of cost. For example 1000 cast lead bullets for .38 Special caliber cost $72.00 (from my supplier). 1000 copper bullets in the same caliber from Barnes cost $732.50. As you can see that is more than a 10 times the cost. Please note I am comparing only the cost of the bullet as a component of a cartridge, not the cost of a loaded cartridge, which would be dramatically more. Few recreational shooters could afford such an increase in costs. Please note I speak of recreational shooters not hunters! A hunter, especially a “big-game” hunter in North America could very well make due with 50 rounds (or less) of ammunition for any particular game species per caliber per season. A dedicated recreational or competition shooter might shoot 100 rounds or many more per week merely in practice. I won’t even speculate what a 1000% increase in ammunition costs would mean for many municipalities and law enforcement agencies across the country.

I’m also unconvinced of their touted “hazard to human health” from consumption of lead contaminated game, considering a 2008 U.S. Center for Disease Control study of blood lead levels among North Dakota hunters, that showed no ill-effects. It is notable also that the x-ray studies of game animals showing lead fragments scattered through the carcass fail to mention that such bloodshot meat would not normally be used by hunters. It would be cut out and disposed.

Last, EPA could and should allow the several states to regulate not only the implements to be used for hunting but also the ammunition. Thus possibly sensitive ranges like the habitat of the California Condor can be controlled by those responsible for policing them. EPA can also allow market forces to control ammunition, shooters might gladly give up lead ammunition for a product of equal or superior quality at a similar cost when and if such exists.

[JoshIronshaft]

Direct link to where to submit a comment - http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...00006480b3974b

I emailed this to everyone I could think of. Hope it dies.

[ChamberedRound]

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

I encourage everyone to write a letter in opposition of this proposal, especially given that their justification for the ban is a law which expressly exempts ammunition from consideration.

The only thing we have going for us is that a lot of legislators are going to indirectly catch heat in the elections if this happens. Hopefully, said legislators will be putting pressure on the EPA to back off this proposal in the hopes of not becoming collateral damage.

[GregorOneEye]

If it does pass what happens, steel core handgun rounds? Solid copper rounds?

[ChamberedRound]

If it does pass what happens, steel core handgun rounds? Solid copper rounds?

Most likely solid copper, but they're WAAAAY more expensive than lead core. And eventually, I'm sure the EPA will find a way to ban those as well. Remember, this really isn't about the environment, it's about members of an environmental agency abusing the authority given to them by Congress to push an agenda. It needs to stop.

Not only should we be writing to the EPA, but we should also be contacting our legislators about this issue; they can potentially act to strip the EPA of this authority, or pass a law which would prevent them from banning ammunition on dubious environmental grounds, even thought there's already a law against it...

[GregorOneEye]

I would assume the NRA is already involved heavily?

[DonM55]

I'm certainly sending letters. However if congress passed a law excluding ammo what gives the EPA the right to change the law without congressional approval?

[WhiteFeather]

I would assume the NRA is already involved heavily?

You know about what happens when you use that word..


NSSF has been on the front lines of this for quite some time, warning about this coming as a back doorway to restrict your firearm use.

Like others have already mentioned IF you think ammo is expensive now wait to you see what lead free bullets cost. You will be in sticker shock!
Guess what they will say about use or possesion on all the rest of the ammo you already own. Then it will be copper is bad for you.. they never quit

You may have a 2nd amendment right, ammo is not consider part of that.

So all you will have is real expensive clubs when you don't have ammo to shoot out them.

Better get involved, make your voice heard loud and clear.....

[Brick]

I'm certainly sending letters. However if congress passed a law excluding ammo what gives the EPA the right to change the law without congressional approval?

The petition regards the lead bullet as a chemical component used to make ammunition. Thus in their (meaning Center for Biolical Diversity) interpretation it can be regulated. Of course we consider a bullet to be ammunition since it might or might not be used as part of a cartridge.

So far the only alternate ammo (that I'm aware of) is Barnes Bullets solid copper stuff and frangible stuff made by Sinterfire and others. Barnes' bullets might be suitable for hunting and self defense, but the frangible stuff is only good for punching paper.

The copper stuff offered by Barnes is made in rifle and pistol calibers but it is very expensive, About $36 for a box of 50 in .357 dia. for .38 Spec or .357 Magnum. I buy 1000 cast lead from Penn Bullets for $72 1000 Barnes bullets would cost $732.50. And Barnes as far as I know is the only supplier at least for the present time.