Didn’t they ban lead in shotgun shells a number of years ago? This is trying to ban lead in bullets!
Lead shot was banned for hunting migratory waterfowl in the late 70s or early 80s. With the ban many hunter’s shotguns, including mine became obsolete for hunting waterfowl and the effectiveness of the legal shells was less than lead and the cost jumped dramatically. I belive the real goal is to make ammunition, hunting and anything else having to do with firearms more expensive. Now they are even talking about no lead in ammunition that is used for traditional plinking and shooting sports, all the altertanatives are more expensive. Owning guns is a RIGHT and there should NO tax on firearms or ammunition and no regulations that would increase price or reduce effectiveness of ammunition. The intent of the Second Amendment is for the PEOPLE to be armed and this includes adequate supplies of ammunition. Cost of gasoline, food, and everything else going up and there are those trying to increase the cost of ammo to stop us from stockpiling. I believe President George Washington would approve of the PEOPLE stoclpiling arms and ammunition.
Yes and No
In 1976 EPA regulations that came about due to lead in paint. It was one of those protect the women and children things.
Ammunition (shotgun & rifle) was exempted, due to the fact that hunters and target shooters were organized against it. Lead used for fishing was not exempted. Fisher persons did not see the handwriting on the wall.
Now for the rest of the ammunition story or death by a thousand paper cuts started here in Missouri.
Only 4 years later The Swan Lake Zone was created. No lead shot for waterfowl. The same for the other waterfowl hunting areas controlled by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC).
Within a very few years it was expanded to statewide, no lead shot for waterfowl because ducks were diving down and digging the lead shot buried in mud and eating it . The same for geese, they could tell the difference between a ear of corn and a #2 lead bird shot . All this was done in the name of safety for the ducks and geese.(/s)
After the bans steel shot was the only choice for a number of years. After using lead shot, steel shot was like shooting ping pong balls at ducks and geese, due to the lower muzzle velocity and much lower sectional density of the steel pellets IMHO. More crippling and lost birds occurred.
About the year 2000 along came Bismuth and then HeavyShot loads. Duck and goose hunters now had the equivalent of lead shot at 3X to 5X the cost, but they did the job!
On to the next paper cut. About 5 years ago MDC said that hunters had to use steel or approved shot shells on 7 other areas they owned for doves, turkey etc. These were not waterfowl hunting areas. The number of MDC steel shot areas may have increased in the last 5 years.
Dove hunting with shot shells that cost 16 cents each vs shot shells that cost up to $1.25 each is a whole different ballgame for someone who shoots like I do.
Here in Missouri about 98% of the land used for hunting is privately owned. Will the next paper cut be no lead on private land?
On the subject of lead in rifle bullets. The MDC agrees with the studies make by the state of North Dakota that a deer harvested with bullets that contain some lead poise very little if any danger to those who eat the deer meat.
So far there have been no changes in the Missouri rifle regulations vs the wacko laws in a state like California.
No. Only the use of lead for hunting waterfowl. And that 3,000 pound figure is laughable. Works out to 48,000 one ounce loads. 3,000 tons, maybe. And places where waterfowl have tradionally been hunted are lousy with lead already.