Ammo For Sale

« « More on the Brady Fundraiser | Home | No Shows » »

EPA considering banning ammo

NSSF:

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.

17 Responses to “EPA considering banning ammo”

  1. TexMax Says:

    To all the people who are against lead ammo, I just have one question I would like them to answer. With all the wars in Europe since the invention of the firearms, with the last world war where the entire European continent was blasted by millions of solders, by the machine gun and automatic rifle fire. That place has got to be covered by millions of tons of lead from all those wars and all that ammo shot. Are there any studies showing lead poisoning problems in Europe? Anything? That’s what I would like to know.

  2. Robert Slaughter Says:

    “Lisa Jackson and the EPA is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a **law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.**”

    So //exactly how// will this work? If the petition is approved, how can the EPA ban ammunition under this law, when this law //specifically// excludes ammunition? It will take a judge about 30 seconds (metaphorically) to slap Ms. Jackson upside the head if they try.

  3. mariner Says:

    Robert,

    Unfortunately most judges view themselves as part ofd the government rather than a check on it.

    It will take a judge about 30 seconds to rule that the law didn’t really mean what it plainly says.

  4. Captain Holly Says:

    Robert and mariner

    Two words: Supreme Court.

    The more I read about this the more I think the EPA is just pandering to the animal rights crowd and will not actually do anything.

  5. Bubblehead Les Says:

    Captain Holly, don’t be so sure it’s just pandering. I am paying an extra $5 a month on my Sewer Bill because the EPA said our city has to run a test on our treatment plant, even though it passed last year, but this time the EPA won’t pay for their own damn test! Since our city is broke, and we have cut down to the bone, there was little we could do. And this is just one small bedroom suburb. Ever since SCOTUS ruled a couple of years ago that Bush could not tell the EPA what to do, they have been overrun by the Enviromentalists Treehuggers, and will do whatever they damn well please! Can’t pass Cap+Trade through Congress? Not a Problem, EPA will just issue a decree. Disobey the Decree? DOJ sends out the Federales! The only way that the EPA can be reigned in is if Congress takes away their authority, and do you really think Barry, Nancy and Harry are going to do that?

  6. FightinBluHen51 Says:

    Ahhhh, yes, the administrative judges. Above the law, and beyond our control.

    Not to mention that several studies, reports, and other news articles have show that non-lead alternatives are WORSE in toxicity. Info and links from this blog post.

    http://wherespatton.blogspot.com/2010/08/now-they-come-for-our-lead-based-ammo.html

  7. FightinBluHen51 Says:

    Ahh yes, the lead ammo band crowd is at it again. See my blog (http://wherespatton.blogspot.com/2010/08/now-they-come-for-our-lead-based-ammo.html) for more info on how non-lead projectiles are sometimes more toxic than lead!

    Gotta love the administrative judges that are above our laws and beyond our control.

    If this ends up being a double post, sorry.

  8. SPQR Says:

    As the scale of administrative agencies go, from “Sane” to “Insane”, the EPA ranks at “Wearing the Strait Jacket as a fashion statement”.

    So don’t hope for any real rationality.

  9. Lawrence Person Says:

    Between this and they’re willful non-enforcement of immigration laws, it’s almost like Obama and his minions want to lose control of congress.

    “So which independents haven’t we alienated enough yet? Gun-owners? Hey, I’ve got a great idea…”

  10. DirtCrashr Says:

    The Centric of Bio-Dickheadedness just lost this battle in California, so now they’re doing an end-run and taking it to the top.

  11. Karl Says:

    Introducing lead to the environment is bad. It should remain, undisturbed, from where it came from!

    This is easy! I should have been a hippie!

  12. mikee Says:

    As noted above, it isn’t the lead, it is the hunting that the EPA is trying to stop.

    Mission creep is one way to describe this situation. Another is overbearing nanny-statism. A third would be tyrannical administrative leftists.

  13. Cybrludite Says:

    Do they realize that if they do actually try to do this, folks will turn their lead ammunition over to the EPA bureaucrats one round at a time?

  14. Bruce MacMahon Says:

    Every year, New Hampshire hunters donate thousands of pounds of meat to the New Hampshire Food Bank, which then distributes it to more than 350 food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and group homes statewide.

    This back-handed ammo ban would destroy the country’s sport shooting and hunting industries.

    Why would the Obama administration want to take food away from homeless men, women, and children?

  15. GrumpyUnk Says:

    +1 to Cybrludite

  16. Captain Holly Says:

    I am paying an extra $5 a month on my Sewer Bill because the EPA said our city has to run a test on our treatment plant, even though it passed last year, but this time the EPA wont pay for their own damn test!

    Bubblehead, the key difference between these two situations is that EPA has the authority to regulate waste treatment plant discharges under the Clean Water Act.

    If the NSSF is correct, the EPA has NO authority to regulate ammunition under TSCA — Congress specifically exempted it.

    If the EPA goes ahead with this I can almost guarantee a massive smackdown in the courts. In addition, the EPA will have dozens of irate pro-gun congressmen on their back — not just because their constituents are angry, but because the EPA intentionally ignored a law Congress passed.

  17. benEzra Says:

    “As noted above, it isnt the lead, it is the hunting that the EPA is trying to stop.”

    Not really; 99.9 percent of lead ammunition expended each year is expended in pursuits other than hunting, and the petitionerwaste asking EPA to ban it all. They are not asking the EPA to prohibit using lead ammo while hunting; they want to ban target ammo, plinking ammo, defensive ammo, every bit of it.