EPA Considering a Petition to Ban Lead Ammunition

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has sent a peti­tion to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) request­ing that they ban

all tra­di­tional ammu­ni­tion under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition

This ban would elim­i­nate any ammu­ni­tion with lead in it, from your RNL bul­lets, FMJ, and HP. As steel core bul­lets are con­sid­ered armor pierc­ing and ille­gal, this would lit­er­ally leave nowhere to turn for most shoot­ers. Some bird hunters, who already use steel shot, would prob­a­bly be unaffected.

I wouldn’t get too excited yet. It is only a peti­tion and the EPA might reject it. They have 30 days to make a deci­sion. However, it is not to early to start con­tact­ing your rep­re­sen­ta­tives now. If you are not sure who that is, click the firearm/​liberty tab above and go to “Get Involved”. You can find links to both state and federal.

It is sim­plis­tic to assume that the courts will pro­tect us sim­ply because of our Second Amendment rights. Denying us the abil­ity to make/​purchase/​shoot ammu­ni­tion would vio­late our abil­ity to exer­cise those rights, but we are in new territory.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has more infor­ma­tion about this and a link to com­ment to the EPA directly.

* 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 Service 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.

On top of all that, we already have a strug­gling econ­omy. This ban would put a num­ber of peo­ple out work, close sev­eral domes­tic fac­to­ries, and pull a huge amount of dol­lars out of eco­nomic cof­fers. Ammunition mak­ers and dis­trib­u­tors, ranges, com­pe­ti­tions. This would in turn decrease the demand for firearms and bring down another seg­ment of the indus­try, firearm man­u­fac­tur­ers and their dis­trib­u­tors, caus­ing even more unemployment.

The NSSF esti­mates¹ that for the year 2009 there were 183,000 jobs in the indus­try. This accounted for $8.2 bil­lion in wages and $27.8 bil­lion in eco­nomic activ­ity. This also amounted to $1.9 bil­lion in tax rev­enues from the indus­try and it’s employ­ees. For Ohio, this would cost about 4000 jobs. Read their impact report and you do the math.

The NRA has already writ­ten a won­der­ful let­ter on why the EPA does not have the author­ity to decide.

You can share this story on most every social site and via email by click in on the share but­ton below. I urge you to get the word out to your friends and fam­ily today. This may turn into noth­ing, but it would behoove all of us to leap into action.

FOOTNOTES
1. 2010 Industry Economic Impact Data↑

If you liked this post, per­haps these may also please you:

1. EPA Denies Lead Ammunition Ban
2. National Ammo Day
3. Federal Ammunition
4. Ammo Recall
5. Could You Spare Something For Our Warriors?