EPA Surrenders to NRA on Gun Control Issue

[Hickory]

EPA rejects attempt to regulate lead in bullets after NRA protests
By Paul Bedard

Posted: August 27, 2010
In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn't have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.

Full story below, click to read.


http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/epa-surrenders-to-nra-on-gun-control-issue-epa-rejects-attempt-to-regulate-lead-in-bullets-after-nra-protests.html

[sljacob]

that's good news........another example of our NRA dollars at work

[280Ackley]

Great news, but there's a good chance they will come back to it after Nov.

[parrott1969]

I am so sick of these LIB-TARDS! I wish they would take a long walk off a short pier or better still dress in fur and strap antlers to their heads during deer season!

[shootinxd]

I think we are all tired of their ****.REMEMBER 11/02/2010.

[shootinxd]

No better way to to your'e 100th post.

[Freightman]

VOTE or shut UP, if we do not vote against them we VOTE for them!!!!!! and deserve what we get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GabbyM]

Have no proof of course but my cynical view of politics in general from a lifetime of watching Illinois politicians at work. I am sure these moles at EPA received there cash payments from a few of our nemesis simply for suggesting such a ban. This is exactly how it woks I Illinois only it isn't even under the table in most cases. State Reps receive campaign donations from various gun ban organizations then after they are elected they introduce one of there far fetched gun ban bills which read like a propaganda flier not a bill of law. Couple years ago we had eighteen in one year. Like the one then state Rep from Chicago Barrack Obama voted for to tax ammo at some outrageous rate.

[mastercast.com]

Way to go NRA!

[ktw]

... I am sure these moles at EPA received there cash payments from a few of our nemesis simply for suggesting such a ban.

The EPA never suggested a ban on lead bullets. A third party petitioned the EPA to consider it. The EPA opened the issue up for comments as they are required to do after receiving such a petition.

The EPA responded to the petitioners that they had no authority under law to regulate ammunition. Neither the NRA or any flood of comments had anything to do with overturning any potential ban on ammunition. If was never even a possibility under the law.

All the hoopla over the issue is simply NRA/2nd ammendment organizations stirring up their bases for fund raising purposes.

-ktw

[fredj338]

VOTE or shut UP, if we do not vote against them we VOTE for them!!!!!! and deserve what we get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EXACTLY! We have what, 30% turnout at best. We are certainly getting the "change" that was promised. It's just the idiots that voted for PBO didn't understand that change can be good or bad, this has been pretty much all bad.
SO go vote in Nov. & take someone that doesn't nromally vote along with you. It's an uphill battle for conservatives, whether Dem, Rep or Ind, but not realizing who the bad guys are means you are voting blind. No politician is worried about the people, they worry about themselves first. The Dems are just a bit more loose w/ the facts & graft, they seem to feel it's owed them for their year of "service"! Spare me!:groner:

[littlejack]

Fred, I am in total agreement. I would join in on a total across the county revolution to the white house to kick out all, I mean ALL of there sorry a$$e$. Our so called leaders have ran this, (OUR) country into the ground. We will never recover in our lifetime and probably our childrens lifetime.
As was stated, They, our so called leaders, do not give a rats behind about doing anything for our well being. Their actions speak louder than their words. Hell, they haven't even made a definate effort to the Katrina victims. But, they will sure spend billion upon billions on the WARS. They can talk all they want. Thats all it is, just talk. The parties should be abolished. We need to put people in Washington who have had to work with their hands for a living and the sweat of their brow, Not someone who has been raised with the perverbial "silver spoon" in their mouth. Someone who has had to scratch a living out for him or herself. Someone who cares about his or her neighbor, and not how many illegal aliens they can bring in to take the jobs of the american people. These subject and a lot more could be beat on and rehashed forever. As a matter of fact they have. For Gods sake when will the American people get enough of ther BS of our leaders.
We will never see this, because we cannot get 100 ******** people to get off their a$$e$ to fix something, let alone get millions off of the unemployed cans to go and fight for what is right, and what they are ******** about. OK, I'm done for now. NEXT.
Jack

[imashooter2]

The EPA never suggested a ban on lead bullets. A third party petitioned the EPA to consider it. The EPA opened the issue up for comments as they are required to do after receiving such a petition.

The EPA responded to the petitioners that they had no authority under law to regulate ammunition. Neither the NRA or any flood of comments had anything to do with overturning any potential ban on ammunition. If was never even a possibility under the law.

All the hoopla over the issue is simply NRA/2nd ammendment organizations stirring up their bases for fund raising purposes.

-ktw

No sense in letting the facts get in the way of a good thread.

I heard that a certain anti gun billionaire sent the EPA management's wives to Hawaiian health spas and it was only after a midnight visit by the ghost of Neil Knox that they relented.

[atr]

we, my shooting friends an I were discussing this issue just yesterday....VERY glad to hear that EPA has backed off

[Heavy lead]

Of course they have no intent ever to mess with out lead boolits because of the second ammendment.

Bull, whomever believes that I have something to sell, wait until December when the elections are over. This isn't over, this is just their start people.

Wake up a smell the bacon, it's rancid.

[ktw]

Of course they have no intent ever to mess with out lead boolits because of the second ammendment.

The EPA has no intent to make rulings on lead bullets because they have no legal authority to do so. Small arms ammunition is specifically exempted in the Toxic Substances Control Act.

-ktw

[jr81452]

The EPA never suggested a ban on lead bullets. A third party petitioned the EPA to consider it. The EPA opened the issue up for comments as they are required to do after receiving such a petition.

The EPA responded to the petitioners that they had no authority under law to regulate ammunition. Neither the NRA or any flood of comments had anything to do with overturning any potential ban on ammunition. If was never even a possibility under the law.

All the hoopla over the issue is simply NRA/2nd ammendment organizations stirring up their bases for fund raising purposes.

-ktw


No sense in letting the facts get in the way of a good thread.

I heard that a certain anti gun billionaire sent the EPA management's wives to Hawaiian health spas and it was only after a midnight visit by the ghost of Neil Knox that they relented.


Glad I'm not the only person capable of researching an issue before I get riled up about it. Any of the rest of you ever consider that the ultimate goal here, may be to "prove" (over a long time-line) that firearms enthusiasts are "just a bunch of uninformed hillbillies" who "foam at the mouth over the smallest possibility" of "common sense" regulations? There's vigilance, then there's paranoia; our group seems to suffer from the later.

[Heavy lead]

The EPA has no intent to make rulings on lead bullets because they have no legal authority to do so. Small arms ammunition is specifically exempted in the Toxic Substances Control Act.

-ktw

You are correct, but they do in fact have jurisdiction to prevent the lead from the ammunition from being shot into the earth. That is fact.
Even though the bans from using lead bullets in some areas of California is really not related to the EPA, and also is really a hunting regulation, don't think for a moment they will not find a way to do this and skirt the constitutional law.
Watch what they do not what they say.

[Pertsev]

True,the EPA cannot ban lead ammo directly. They can,however,ban USING lead ammo on public owned land. This happened on state level in Kalifornia.
Third party my ass.
This latest was just a "feeler" from the hoplophobes in the government.The reaction was quick,not just the NRA either.
A Fed controled range I used to work at BANNED the use of lead ammunition on ranges for EVERYONE,including the military users.Only lead free ammo could be used. This happened during the Clinton regime.The EPA and F&W ignored studies that showed no impact on enviroment from the shooting ranges,in use since the Great War(WWI).They wanted to make it a 'green " range.
Fortunatly,most military and police units using the range ignore the rule.You cannot practice with inaccurate and semi reliable lead free ammo and expect it to hit to point of aim.But,users have to be careful,most keep boxes of lead free ammo in plain sight to please Fedral apparatchiks who wander by.
To write this off as a move by NRA and other pro gun groups to raise income is disingenious at best,treacherous at worst !:mad:
We have got to keep an eye on the anti's always.If you like your guns and ammo,donate some time or money to those that are looking out for gun rights. Get involved.
Join the NRA,join your State gun rights group.

[ktw]

True,the EPA cannot ban lead ammo directly. They can,however,ban USING lead ammo on public owned land. This happened on state level in Kalifornia.

The EPA did not ban the use of lead ammo on public land in California. The State of California banned the use of lead ammo for the taking of game, not on public land in general.

This wasn't an example of the federal government placing restrictions on lead ammo. Steel Shot for migratory waterfowl hunting (USF&WS authority) could be construed as such, but again that wasn't a banning of lead ammo in general, only for a set of limited circumstances within their jurisdiction.



A Fed controled range I used to work at BANNED the use of lead ammunition on ranges for EVERYONE,including the military users.Only lead free ammo could be used.

Private property issue, not a federal restriction on lead ammo issue. The owner/manager of property can restrict anything they choose. That doesn't make it an issue of lead ammo restrictions under federal law.

-ktw

[Pertsev]

It was not private property,it was a Federal Gov range. The EPA "experts" came in and worked w/ Fish and Wildlife to support a pre-ordained outcome.
They ignored a study of Civil War battlefields that showed no paticular increase in lead residue in soil after 100 years.If anyplace is contaminated with lead bullets it is these bloody grounds.
Perhaps KTW needs to study up on this.
Yes,banning lead ammo in Kali was a state law,but you had better belive the EPA and others had a hand in it.
Wonder if the "third party" this time got any money from G Soros ?
This was a case of the gun haters testing the waters.Am glad the NRA and others were on top of this.

[JIMinPHX]

The EPA responded to the petitioners that they had no authority under law to regulate ammunition. Neither the NRA or any flood of comments had anything to do with overturning any potential ban on ammunition. If was never even a possibility under the law.

All the hoopla over the issue is simply NRA/2nd ammendment organizations stirring up their bases for fund raising purposes.

-ktw
That's my take on it too.

[dominicfortune00]

With the regime in charge today, do you doubt that any way that they can use to ban something, ie. lead, that will in effect keep the majority of the people from using their firearms wouldn't be tried?

[home in oz]

Sounds ok to me.

[fredj338]

The EPA has no intent to make rulings on lead bullets because they have no legal authority to do so. Small arms ammunition is specifically exempted in the Toxic Substances Control Act.

-ktw
Not sure why you believe that. They banned lead bullets here in Kommifornia ujnder enviro reasons. It can be done. There aer no constitutional protections for ammo.

[imashooter2]

Not sure why you believe that. They banned lead bullets here in Kommifornia ujnder enviro reasons. It can be done. There aer no constitutional protections for ammo.

Perhaps he believes it because it's a fact.

Lead bullets aren't banned in California. They are restricted for use hunting in certain areas and the EPA had nothing to do with it.

[wallenba]

Would they ban then...car batteries? More harm from them than a few pellets.

[fredj338]

Perhaps he believes it because it's a fact.

Lead bullets aren't banned in California. They are restricted for use hunting in certain areas and the EPA had nothing to do with it.
Yes, lead bullets are banned, not restricted in certain areas for hunting. Yes EPA had nothing to do with it, but the govt can regulate use of whatever on govt land, from vehicles to guns to ammo. IMO, thinking one is safe behind the constitution on this is nieve.

[ktw]

Would they ban then...car batteries? More harm from them than a few pellets.

Lead-Acid automotive batteries, like lead ammunition, are legal to manufacture, own and use. What is regulated for each, at various federal and state levels, is methods of disposal into the environment.

If you have a gun that uses automotive batteries as a projectile, it would be illegal to use them for hunting migratory waterfowl. Then again, if you have a hunting gun that uses automotive batteries as a projectile you are more man than I am.



Yes, lead bullets are banned, not restricted in certain areas for hunting.

Restricted in the sense that they can't be used for hunting in those areas. Not banned in that they can still be used for non-hunting purposes in those same areas.



...the govt can regulate use of whatever on govt land, from vehicles to guns to ammo.

Can you name any fee landowner who doesn't have the same set of rights? That is a property rights issue, not a 'Federal legal restriction on the use of lead ammo' issue.

-ktw

[Baron von Trollwhack]

The epa didn't give in to the nra, anymore than bozo did not know he could not kill the 2ND without warfare. Epa simply decided to eat unorganized fishermen first. Like jamming bozocare down the majority's throat, because they had the power. You have to understand some of our lefties/commies/progressives/earth firsters/ animal liberation fiends, want oil use stopped, some want lead use stopped, coal stopped, meat stopped, some want individual rights stopped....................EASY to figure out!

BvT

[fredj338]

Lead-Acid automotive batteries, like lead ammunition, are legal to manufacture, own and use. What is regulated for each, at various federal and state levels, is methods of disposal into the environment.

If you have a gun that uses automotive batteries as a projectile, it would be illegal to use them for hunting migratory waterfowl. Then again, if you have a hunting gun that uses automotive batteries as a projectile you are more man than I am.




Restricted in the sense that they can't be used for hunting in those areas. Not banned in that they can still be used for non-hunting purposes in those same areas.




Can you name any fee landowner who doesn't have the same set of rights? That is a property rights issue, not a 'Federal legal restriction on the use of lead ammo' issue.-ktw

Meaning what? As to the ban or restriction, I guess it's semantics, as I don't know anynone that wants to test the issue w/ F&G here by shooting lead bulelts in banned/restricted areas. I know that you can't shoot lead shot in waterfowl areas, regardless of hunting or practice. I would imagine it can be enforced the same way by F&G. I am not going to test them.
It is a big issue when any govt agenct, Federal or State, can claim enviro reasons for banning/restricting a tpy eof bullet, gun or even vehicle. it is after all, land we as tax payers pay to be able to use & access. JMO, you have yours.