-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
EPA considering petition for nationwide ban on lead-based sporting ammunition
- Thread starter shad0wfax
- Start date
Airilith
Regular Member
Shadow, thanks for posting all the links.
I heard about this proposed ban just this morning, and had been searching for all the info you've put in one place. It's greatly appreciated!
I just don't like the fact that most news places are spinning it as a sporting ammo ban. When really it's just a different way to ban the 2nd admendment. They won't take our guns so they take our ammo. How am I supposed to protect myself and my family? Should I throw my gun at them?
It really seems like the beginning of the end.
PS - If anyone comes across phone numbers those would be greatly appreciated as well.
PPS - I also read that the 'public comment period' runs from 8-25 until 10/31. How do we officially comment to the EPA?
I found it! http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/ Like 3rd paragraph from top you'll see links. The first is to the actual EPA docket, and the second is to comment on that docket.
I heard about this proposed ban just this morning, and had been searching for all the info you've put in one place. It's greatly appreciated!
I just don't like the fact that most news places are spinning it as a sporting ammo ban. When really it's just a different way to ban the 2nd admendment. They won't take our guns so they take our ammo. How am I supposed to protect myself and my family? Should I throw my gun at them?
It really seems like the beginning of the end.
PS - If anyone comes across phone numbers those would be greatly appreciated as well.
PPS - I also read that the 'public comment period' runs from 8-25 until 10/31. How do we officially comment to the EPA?
I found it! http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/ Like 3rd paragraph from top you'll see links. The first is to the actual EPA docket, and the second is to comment on that docket.
Last edited:
Ruger
Regular Member
Well, there's always Corbon's DPX cartridge...
...for self-defense. It utilizes the Barnex-X bullet & is all-copper. They boast 100% weight retention & very good penetration.... AND cost about $2 to $2.50 per cartridge - YIKES!
I will admit, I have 2 magazines of DPX in my mag pouch for my 1911 right now - 185gr +P
I shot a full mag through my Kimber a couple weeks ago (8+1)... I almost cried when I realized that I just shot $18 out my barrel in about 5 seconds... But at least now I know that they feed properly! :lol:
...for self-defense. It utilizes the Barnex-X bullet & is all-copper. They boast 100% weight retention & very good penetration.... AND cost about $2 to $2.50 per cartridge - YIKES!
I will admit, I have 2 magazines of DPX in my mag pouch for my 1911 right now - 185gr +P
I shot a full mag through my Kimber a couple weeks ago (8+1)... I almost cried when I realized that I just shot $18 out my barrel in about 5 seconds... But at least now I know that they feed properly! :lol:
eye95
Well-known member
If anyone knows a citation for this law, please post it. Thanks.
Airilith
Regular Member
Summary of the Toxic Substances Control ActCore Principles for Chemical Management
15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (1976)
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides.
TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon and lead-based paint.
Various sections of TSCA provide authority to:
Require, under Section 5, pre-manufacture notification for “new chemical substances” before manufacture
Require, under Section 4, testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where risks or exposures of concern are found
Issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), under Section 5, when it identifies a "significant new use" that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern.
Maintain the TSCA Inventory, under Section 8, which contains more than 83,000 chemicals. As new chemicals are commercially manufactured or imported, they are placed on the list.
Require those importing or exporting chemicals, under Sections 12(b) and 13, to comply with certification reporting and/or other requirements.
Require, under Section 8, reporting and recordkeeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce.
Require, under Section 8(e), that any person who manufactures (including imports), processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately informed of such information.
EPA screens all TSCA b§8(e) submissions as well as voluntary "For Your Information" (FYI) submissions. The latter are not required by law, but are submitted by industry and public interest groups for a variety of reasons.
For the past decade EPA has focused efforts on protecting citizens from existing chemicals by making basic screening-level toxicity information on them publicly available. In 2008 EPA expanded those efforts with the Chemical Assessment and Management Program, or “ChAMP.”
This was found at: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html
And I think this is the full text: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=15USCC53
15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (1976)
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides.
TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon and lead-based paint.
Various sections of TSCA provide authority to:
Require, under Section 5, pre-manufacture notification for “new chemical substances” before manufacture
Require, under Section 4, testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where risks or exposures of concern are found
Issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), under Section 5, when it identifies a "significant new use" that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern.
Maintain the TSCA Inventory, under Section 8, which contains more than 83,000 chemicals. As new chemicals are commercially manufactured or imported, they are placed on the list.
Require those importing or exporting chemicals, under Sections 12(b) and 13, to comply with certification reporting and/or other requirements.
Require, under Section 8, reporting and recordkeeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce.
Require, under Section 8(e), that any person who manufactures (including imports), processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately informed of such information.
EPA screens all TSCA b§8(e) submissions as well as voluntary "For Your Information" (FYI) submissions. The latter are not required by law, but are submitted by industry and public interest groups for a variety of reasons.
For the past decade EPA has focused efforts on protecting citizens from existing chemicals by making basic screening-level toxicity information on them publicly available. In 2008 EPA expanded those efforts with the Chemical Assessment and Management Program, or “ChAMP.”
This was found at: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html
And I think this is the full text: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=15USCC53
Airilith
Regular Member
Here's a link to check out: http://guntotinggirl.blogspot.com/
I'm trying to get all the important information put in one place. I thought it would make it easier to find things, and to pass on.
Let me know if you want anything added.
I'm trying to get all the important information put in one place. I thought it would make it easier to find things, and to pass on.
Let me know if you want anything added.
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
You've missed the point.
[highlight]So shoot 50-100 rounds every week at IDPA and tell me, does that feel prohibitively expensive? It's called infringement.[/highlight]
That is not the point....for self-defense. It utilizes the Barnex-X bullet & is all-copper. They boast 100% weight retention & very good penetration.... AND cost about $2 to $2.50 per cartridge - YIKES!
I will admit, I have 2 magazines of DPX in my mag pouch for my 1911 right now - 185gr +P
I shot a full mag through my Kimber a couple weeks ago (8+1)... [highlight]I almost cried when I realized that I just shot $18 out my barrel in about 5 seconds[/highlight]... But at least now I know that they feed properly! :lol:
[highlight]So shoot 50-100 rounds every week at IDPA and tell me, does that feel prohibitively expensive? It's called infringement.[/highlight]
Ruger
Regular Member
NO - I have NOT "Missed the point"
I was responding to Airilith's post. I was pointing out to him that there IS SD-ammo that is lead-free. He asked, and I quote:
So I put up my post about Corbon's DPX cartridge (a dang good cartridge, if you don't mind spending the extra $).
I agree with you in that the proposed ban is unnecessary infringement, and it is completely unacceptable. I take it that point was lost on you when, earlier in this thread, I gleefully quoted Mike Vanderboegh's recent remarks on the subject:
"Regarding the proposed ban on lead core ammunition, I think I speak on behalf of three percent of American gun owners when I say that should it be made into law, we will be happy to return it to the federal government one round at a time."
I was responding to Airilith's post. I was pointing out to him that there IS SD-ammo that is lead-free. He asked, and I quote:
So I put up my post about Corbon's DPX cartridge (a dang good cartridge, if you don't mind spending the extra $).
I agree with you in that the proposed ban is unnecessary infringement, and it is completely unacceptable. I take it that point was lost on you when, earlier in this thread, I gleefully quoted Mike Vanderboegh's recent remarks on the subject:
"Regarding the proposed ban on lead core ammunition, I think I speak on behalf of three percent of American gun owners when I say that should it be made into law, we will be happy to return it to the federal government one round at a time."
Last edited:
daddy4count
Regular Member
Shot down!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/epa-rejects-calls-ban-lead-ammo-fishing-tackle/
EPA Rejects Calls to Ban Lead in Ammo, Fishing Tackle
"EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead," the agency said in a written statement. "However, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/epa-rejects-calls-ban-lead-ammo-fishing-tackle/
EPA Rejects Calls to Ban Lead in Ammo, Fishing Tackle
"EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead," the agency said in a written statement. "However, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife."
Airilith
Regular Member
Well the docket is still up on the site, and the comment ability is still active. Letting them know how the public feels can't hurt any. Because to be honest, I don't really believe them.
Last edited:
Ruger
Regular Member
Yeah, Airilith - that was you
That was post #20 in this thread. Short memory, eh? LOL :lol:
Shadow, thanks for posting all the links.
I heard about this proposed ban just this morning, and had been searching for all the info you've put in one place. It's greatly appreciated!
I just don't like the fact that most news places are spinning it as a sporting ammo ban. When really it's just a different way to ban the 2nd admendment. They won't take our guns so they take our ammo. How am I supposed to protect myself and my family? Should I throw my gun at them?
It really seems like the beginning of the end.
PS - If anyone comes across phone numbers those would be greatly appreciated as well.
PPS - I also read that the 'public comment period' runs from 8-25 until 10/31. How do we officially comment to the EPA?
I found it! http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/ Like 3rd paragraph from top you'll see links. The first is to the actual EPA docket, and the second is to comment on that docket.
That was post #20 in this thread. Short memory, eh? LOL :lol:
Last edited:
Airilith
Regular Member
My bad. I misread. My apologies!
Airilith
Regular Member
I guess it really is over. Here's the rejection letter from the EPA : http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/Owens_Petition_Response.pdf
Ruby
Regular Member
Read the letter via the link in the latest post. They turned down the part of the petition dealing with ammunition because they do not have the authority to rule on it. We have Congress, back in 1976, I believe, who voted to exclude ammunition from that particular law to thank for that. Once in awhile, they do get something right. The EPA, according to the letter is going to rule on fishing weights separately.
Airilith
Regular Member
Lol! Yup, I posted that lastest post as soon as I found it. I'm glad they made the right call on this one!
Robin47
Regular Member
Yeah they have outlawed useing lead wheel weights in California already as of June or July of 2010.
So it will be coming to your state soon also !
What a Nightmare, no more bullet molding ?
Whats there legal "Alternitive" for Cap and Ball shooters, who mold there own ? !? !!!
"They will have to pry my wheel weights, out of my cold dead hands" ! Robin47