• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 Ban on Traditional Ammunition

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
[FONT=verdana,arial]Having trouble viewing this alert? Click here.
[/FONT]

alert.jpg
EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition: ACT NOW!!


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
All Gun Owners, Hunters and Shooters:
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) - a leading anti-hunting organization - to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010. [/FONT]
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry -- urges you to submit comment to the EPA opposing any ban on traditional ammunition. Remember, your right to choose the ammunition you hunt and shoot with is at stake.



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, please click here. In order to go directly to the 'submit a comment' page for this docket number, please click here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition: [/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
    [*]There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.
    [*]Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the 50 state wildlife agencies.
    [*]A 2008 study by the U.S. 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.
    [*]A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle's recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition - the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.


    [*]Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.
    [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Steps to take:
[/FONT]

    1. [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
      [*]Submit comment online to the EPA.
      [*]Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban:
      [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4700
Fax: (202) 501-1450
Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] 3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]


[/FONT]





Forward email

Please Update Your Profile. This link is used to make changes to your email address and other contact information.

Click Unsubscribe to remove yourself from this email list or to stop all future email communication from NSSF.

Please do not reply to this email. Replies to this email will not be responded to or read. If you have any comments or questions please email us at onlinesubscriptions@nssf.org

This communication is distributed by NSSF using Constant Contact email marketing solutions.
Your privacy is important to us. Click here for NSSF's Privacy Policy.
Click here for Constant Contact's Privacy Policy.


National Shooting Sports Foundation | 11 Mile Hill Rd | Newtown | CT | 06470
on.jsp
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
The Battle Heats Up Again

NRA has been predicting this would come. Those in power, particularly our "Beloved Leader" know that it is political suicide to attack guns directly, so why not go at it from the side. A firearm is pretty much useless if there is no ammunition for said firearm. The PC liberals will start with hunting ammo and then ask, why not all ammo?

Lead is cheap. Alternates can be used, but may drive up the costs associated with ammunition.

I have a question though. If congress exempted ammunition in TOSCA, no "Agency" can remove that exemption until and unless Congress allows them to by amending the TOSCA Act. So, my question is, is this a tempest in a teapot, or has a Federal Agency just announced its' intention to break the law?
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
Good luck

How could they ever think of banning something someone could make in their garage? Another idiot proposal by the people at the EPA.

Someone should ban those jacka55es
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
And such a ruling or law might just ban all war and hostile actions using firearms. I guess I'll need to starting making my own arrows. Maybe they'll try to ban wood, fiberglass and whatever else can be used as a projectile.

And what am I going to do with a half of ton of lead (Pb) in my garage? Oh, I could sell it and invest the money in a 1 MW laser. That should cook the "target", and I wouldn't have to compensate for wind or gravity.

So many questions.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
The law is a wondrous thing!

Many quibble about § 167.31 but few, I am sure, have read Chapter 167, Safeguards of Persons and Property. It starts out regulating (strike-anywhere) matches, even to the number of matches to a shipping container (25 gross boxes, each box <50 matches).

Corn shredders. Farm machinery storage.

Oops - dinner. Maybe more later.

A brief mention of nitrogen triiodide NI[sub]3[/sub], Azides Pb(N[sub]3[/sub])[sub]2[/sub], and Picrates 2,4,6 trinitrophenol that used to be the stuff of after hours HS chemistry clubs - the geek nerds. No one will ever be taught such again!
 
Last edited:

cheezhed

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
70
Location
Sheboygan
I read the fox news article and did the math on the numbers given and it is 174,000,000 pounds a year in lead. When I have discussed shooting to people who are not shooters and give them facts like that and then tell them to multiply a number like that over say twenty years then I can usually convince them of the lies that environmental use to make a point.
 
Top