- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Messages
- 789
EPA's Gun Control
An editorial from Investors.com
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545179/201008261900/EPAs-Gun-Control.htm
Regulation: The U.S. Supreme Court says Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The EPA says the bullets for those guns may be banned as an environmental hazard.
The endless power grabs by the federal leviathan know no boundaries of law, science or even common sense. The Environmental Protection Agency of Lisa Jackson is seriously considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity, a leading anti-hunting group, to ban all traditional lead ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.
If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components. Bullets made of material other than lead are often considered armor-piercing by law and are banned. So this amounts to gun control by stealth. Where permitted, it increases the cost of gun ownership and use.
The comment period on this proposed ban has just opened and will last until Oct. 31.
The EPA must accept or reject the petition by Nov. 1, the day before the midterm elections. As if Democrats don't have enough troubles, the Obama administration risks provoking all those townsfolk "bitterly clinging to their guns".
There are a couple of problems, the first being that when Congress passed the law it specifically exempted ammunition. So what the EPA proposes to do is illegal. The second is that there is no scientific basis for restricting lead ammunition on the basis of protecting the health of humans or wildlife.
In a letter to EPA Director Jackson, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox pointed out that the EPA was trying to circumvent the law and congressional intent by dividing ammunition into its constituent parts and then trying to ban the parts. Congress' intent was also that TSCA not be used as a vehicle for gun control.
Just about all shooting ranges are recycling their lead, if only because it's too valuable to leave in the ground. A 2008 study by the 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.
Wildlife preservation is supposed to be a function of the Fish and Wildlife Service, not the EPA. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on ammunition is a prime source of funding for wildlife preservation. The recovery of the American bald eagle is an example of the program's success, funded by hunters using traditional ammunition.
An editorial from Investors.com
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545179/201008261900/EPAs-Gun-Control.htm
Regulation: The U.S. Supreme Court says Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The EPA says the bullets for those guns may be banned as an environmental hazard.
The endless power grabs by the federal leviathan know no boundaries of law, science or even common sense. The Environmental Protection Agency of Lisa Jackson is seriously considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity, a leading anti-hunting group, to ban all traditional lead ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.
If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components. Bullets made of material other than lead are often considered armor-piercing by law and are banned. So this amounts to gun control by stealth. Where permitted, it increases the cost of gun ownership and use.
The comment period on this proposed ban has just opened and will last until Oct. 31.
The EPA must accept or reject the petition by Nov. 1, the day before the midterm elections. As if Democrats don't have enough troubles, the Obama administration risks provoking all those townsfolk "bitterly clinging to their guns".
There are a couple of problems, the first being that when Congress passed the law it specifically exempted ammunition. So what the EPA proposes to do is illegal. The second is that there is no scientific basis for restricting lead ammunition on the basis of protecting the health of humans or wildlife.
In a letter to EPA Director Jackson, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox pointed out that the EPA was trying to circumvent the law and congressional intent by dividing ammunition into its constituent parts and then trying to ban the parts. Congress' intent was also that TSCA not be used as a vehicle for gun control.
Just about all shooting ranges are recycling their lead, if only because it's too valuable to leave in the ground. A 2008 study by the 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.
Wildlife preservation is supposed to be a function of the Fish and Wildlife Service, not the EPA. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on ammunition is a prime source of funding for wildlife preservation. The recovery of the American bald eagle is an example of the program's success, funded by hunters using traditional ammunition.
