Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EPA considering ban on lead ammo
The EPA ^

Posted on 08/26/2010 3:38:45 PM PDT by agee

The following is the opening paragraph in favor of rules that would outlaw lead in bullets & sinkers. This is directly from the EPA web site. "As provided in the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), Petitioners American Bird Conservancy, Association of Avian Veterinarians, Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Project Gutpile request that the EPA adopt regulations prohibiting the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead shot, lead bullets, lead fishing sinkers, and other lead-containing fishing gear, pursuant to TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2605(a)(2)(A)(i)). Such regulations are needed to protect vulnerable wildlife species from the ongoing threat of lead poisoning, as well as to safeguard human health."

Considering this the opening shot from the left to start the march to restricting ammunition for US shooters. The recent low crime statistics coupled with high firearm sales numbers have blown a whole in the entire gun control mythos. Couple that fact with recent Supreme Court decisions and it's clear that restrictions on firearm sales are going nowhere fast. If they can't get the guns, then they come for the ammunition. Notice that this is an EPA request, no congressional vote required to hogtie US shooters. When Obama says that he isn't coming for your guns, what he really means, he's coming for your ammunition. An empty firearm is useless.

Founding Ideals


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: banglist; epa; gunban; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: Dick Bachert

Libs say what Jefferson said doesn’t matter today. I actually had a relative say that to me. I’ve stopped speaking to him and won’t ever speak to him again. He is the enemy.


21 posted on 08/26/2010 4:04:06 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: agee
Øbama is Banning the Bullets. Look who is behind it and what you can do about it ... we really need a lot of folks signing this GOVERNMENT petition and commenting against this move. Thanks.
22 posted on 08/26/2010 4:04:30 PM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag (If you aren't at Obama's Table, you are probably on the MENU! - The Patriot's Flag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu

Really. The time may be coming when it will become necessary for us to sacrifice a few of them for the greater good of all, especially the children. I mean, who could be against the children?


23 posted on 08/26/2010 4:09:26 PM PDT by Gargantua (Imam Hussein O'Bunga, The Maricone Mecca Macacque)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I have a nice supply. I can deliver it rapidly if necessary. It wouldn’t be by UPS or the postal service.


24 posted on 08/26/2010 4:10:47 PM PDT by shankbear (Al-Qaeda grew while Monica blew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu
They are worried about lead entering the environment? Where do they think lead comes from in the first place?

Probably few of them know that metallic lead (used in shot and bullets; more bioavailable and poses threat even from non-ingestion exposure routes) comes from lead ores like galena (lead sulfide), where the lead is bound up and not as bioavailable.

So what is your point? Are you suggesting that anyone who shoots has to go collect any lead he shoots and complex it, or provide chelating agents to wildlife? ;-)

25 posted on 08/26/2010 4:11:40 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: agee

The institutionalization of “the regulated society” constitutes, and becomes more clearly now, as an assault on “representative government” as the only legitimate vehicle for making law.

We can and we should end this.

How?

1. Reduce every federal agency’s regulation writing powers to mere advice and recommendation to Congress.

2. Require each such advice and recommendation be limited to a single point, and be made as specific, unambiguous and detailed as possible, leaving no gray area as to what the idea would mean when enforced as law.

3. Require Congress to hold Committee hearings and public hearings before the advice is formalized as prospective legislation.

4. Require Congress to hold Committee hearings and public hearings on the formal legislation once it is drafted and before a Committee votes to send it out to the floor.

5. Require 2/3 majority votes, in both houses, to make any such recommendations from such agencies the law.

6. Move all “enforcement” powers to separate divisions of the Justice Department (since it is clearly defined law and not a “regulatory” gray area).

That would make outfits like the EPA, FDA, SEC, IRS etc., “advisory” bodies to Congress and the President but with no power to affect law themselves.

Right now, Congress has delegated YOUR RIGHT to legislation through representative government, in many areas, to “regulatory agencies” (IRS, EPA, etc., etc.) who only need “do there own thing” (their own process of reviews and hearings, write their own legislation [regulation] and then publish it in the Federal Register) where it becomes LAW not by Congressional action, but by default, by Congress simply doing nothing. Yes, Congress can change it, after the fact, or even (more rarely) by making it clear before hand that they will block the regulation.

The problem is that Congressional action IS after the fact and NOT pro-active, intense, complete and concise BEFORE HAND.

Your REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT rights are INTENTIONALLY removed from the process of creating law by regulatory fiat, because REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT denies that the elites know better than everyone else, and it’s messy and it’s full of political debate and it requires compromise and it’s not a sure thing.

Well, in THIS Republic isn’t that what it’s supposed to be in order for something to become law???


26 posted on 08/26/2010 4:12:00 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

Not a true ban but an effective one, based on tax incentives, right?


27 posted on 08/26/2010 4:12:20 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: agee
The recent low crime statistics coupled with high firearm sales numbers have blown a whole in the entire gun control mythos.

Liberals were WRONG about welfare reform, WRONG about gun control ( it's MORE guns, LESS crime that's the truth) wrong about education, WRONG about the economy -- and everything else. Who's left stupid enough to vote for them?

28 posted on 08/26/2010 4:14:33 PM PDT by GOPJ (TIME Magazine - - a conserve-a-phobe publication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agee
The recent low crime statistics coupled with high firearm sales numbers have blown a whole in the entire gun control mythos.

Liberals were WRONG about welfare reform, WRONG about gun control ( the truth? MORE guns equals LESS crime...) wrong about education, WRONG about the economy -- and everything else. Who's left stupid enough to vote for them?

29 posted on 08/26/2010 4:15:34 PM PDT by GOPJ (TIME Magazine - - a conserve-a-phobe publication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

We need to finally get a congress that will end governance by bureaucratic decree. The power to make these decisions should remain with the peoples representatives who are elected.
This amount of power over our freedom, commerce and property should not be delegated to nameless bureaucrats.


30 posted on 08/26/2010 4:16:32 PM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
...non-ingestion exposure routes.

Like, passing through the body at high speed?

So what is your point?

Environmentalists are idiots, and the EPA needs to be abolished.

31 posted on 08/26/2010 4:22:50 PM PDT by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All

The link provided is to the EPA’s docket where you can read the request for yourself.

Other Links:
NRA’s Response
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6004

NSSF’s Response
http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/

AP Article
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCramAIeFnoLFi0z49hPQAC6CrPQD9HC84U80


32 posted on 08/26/2010 4:26:19 PM PDT by agee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat
We need to finally get a congress that will end governance by bureaucratic decree. The power to make these decisions should remain with the peoples representatives who are elected.

The People have elected representatives who have granted that power. You are exactly right in focusing on the representation of the people...which is the responsibility of the electorate. We need to stop focusing on politicians and focus on the electorate.

33 posted on 08/26/2010 4:29:50 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: agee

Pretty soon, only government and criminals will have lead bullets. How will we be able to tell them apart?


34 posted on 08/26/2010 4:33:15 PM PDT by 353FMG (ISLAM - America's inevitable road to destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agee

From another site:

ammunition is explicitly excluded from the EPA’s ability to regulate via 15 USC Section 2602

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/15/2602.html

As used in this chapter:

(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term “chemical substance” means any organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular identity...
(B) Such term does not include -

(v) any article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 {26 U.S.C. 4181} (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by section 4182 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code)

And 26 U.S.C. 4181 refers to: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/D/32/D/III/4181

There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer,
producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:
Articles taxable at 10 percent -
Pistols.
Revolvers.
Articles taxable at 11 percent -
Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
Shells, and cartridges.


35 posted on 08/26/2010 4:33:19 PM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist idiot with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

Agree with you 100%, but it’s gonna take hell to get there. Gonna be a lot of pain both physical and mental before this nonsense gets refined into something worthy.


36 posted on 08/26/2010 4:40:07 PM PDT by Rebelbase (Political correctness in America today is a Rip Van Winkle acid trip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Wuli, you’re forgetting that Congress likes thing this way—rule by bureaucrats and judges imposes de facto laws that they don’t have to take responsibility for voting on.

By abdicating their authority, they can expand the power of the state without suffering the electoral consequences.


37 posted on 08/26/2010 4:41:14 PM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Forgive me, I’m getting ahead of myself. According to the script, the lawsuit will come a bit later.


38 posted on 08/26/2010 4:43:02 PM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: agee

This crap could be stopped right now if the Republicans in congress would inform the EPA that each and every time they try some b.s. like this, they are going to lose 5% of their annual budget when next the Republicans are in charge.

So, 5% for trying to ban lead bullets. 5% for trying to dictate the use of carbon. 5% for being generally obnoxious. 5% for harming American business, based on bad science.

They currently are requesting about $10b for FY 2011. It’s easy to calculate what 20% of that would be. So how about $2b less, EPA? And if you go whining to the press, how about losing another 5%?


39 posted on 08/26/2010 5:25:16 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinanju

Democrats are only now talking about overturning Carol Browner’s decision that hydrofracturing for oil/gas isn’t regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.


40 posted on 08/26/2010 5:32:20 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson