« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s EPA to Regulate Hunters and Fisherman

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  August 27th, 2010 at 05:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Obama Administration is considering using the vast power of the federal government to ban the sale of certain types of ammunition.  This administrative ban would increase cost for hunters and fisherman dramatically.  If implemented, this ban would go against the will of the American people.  Furthermore, this action is an inappropriate use of federal power.

U.S. News and World Report posted a story today indicating that President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a ban on lead bullets and sinkers in the name of protecting the environment.  This ban, if put into place, would dramatically increase the cost of ammunition for hunters and lead sinkers for anglers.  If gun owners needed any more evidence that the Obama Administration is looking for creative ways to take away the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, they need to look no further than this new proposed rule. 

This is an idea that would have absolutely no chance of passing in Congress, yet liberals in the Obama Administration clearly are looking for ways to implement a creative means to raise the prices of ammunition and infringe on hunter’s rights.  The American people reject gun control, yet the EPA does not care about the will of the American people.  Remember, this is the same Administration that nominated two anti-Second Amendment lawyers to the Supreme Court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 

From the story:

The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.

John McCormack of the Weekly Standard has an excellent piece where he explains that this creative means to regulate gun ownership through doubling the cost of ammunition for deer hunters.

Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here’s the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition.  A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Director Chris Cox has written a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the EPA to stand down, because the EPA does not have authority under existing law to ban a certain type of ammunition.

We are writing to urge you to reject a petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and others asking the EPA to ban lead shot and bullets under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Simply put, the Act does not grant the EPA the authority to regulate ammunition of any composition.

Hunters and fisherman need to keep a close eye on environmental bureaucrats to make sure that they don’t ban lead fishing sinkers and ammunition under the pre-text of protecting the environment.

UPDATE:  The Obama Administration has backed away from banning lead in bullets, but may allow a ban on lead fishing sinkers.  From U.S. News and World Report:

In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • indyjohn

    Liberals don’t have the courage to make a direct assault on our liberties. Instead they use bureacracies to regulate them away, bit by bit, as surreptitiously as possible.

  • rick554

    THIS is why we are stocking up on ammo. NOW let’s just see what the NRA and the Gun Owners of America are made of. Myself, I have 3 years worth of ammo , dont need no more. HEH

    • whiskey_sierra

      >I have 3 years worth of ammo , dont need no more.

      I don’t know. The coming revolution might take more than 3 years.

      • rick554

        I have all that my wife and I can carry :-)

    • rivahmitch

      Depends on how many feds come to the door;-)

  • Scope

    about driving up the cost of ammunition. It was at least a year ago, however, I can’t find anything on the web about his comments, or where they were made. Does anyone else remember that?

    Doing this kind of back door dealing is the same as telling Hunters and Fishermen, to their faces, that they will remain unemployed, and broke, and, they won’t be able to afford bullets, not even to hunt for food for their families. It’s like telling the country that NASCAR will no longer be able to pollute the country, with their races. This is getting better and better. Those that are now being affected are the last ones this government wants to mess with, period.

    Texas told the EPA to shove it with their new regulations of Greenhouse Gasses. I can’t even imagine what Perry will tell the EPA about the ammo decision. I have no doubt that should this happen, VA Atty Gen will file suit in a nanosecond, along with a majority of other states. I don’t see NY or Chicago being among them.

    I don’t know if there is enough popcorn available in the country to keep up with these anti-American, radical, Communists.

  • Brian Darling

    Would be for a state to produce lead ammo within state borders to be sold within the state. Then challenge the EPA’s right to regulate the ammo. I know that Montana has passed a bill (I don’t know if it is law) where guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana are exempt from federal gun laws. This is a law that may make it’s way to the Supreme Court.
    http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-10/news/17200004_1_gun-control-montana-big-sky-state

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      Way back in the day, if I recall correctly there was a precedent setting case where a farmer was nailed for selling at his own prices for goods sold locally and the interstate commerce clause was invoked successfully against the farmer because it “still affected the market across state boundaries” etc.

      I’m sure some of the legal eagles here can throw more on that abuse of the interstate commerce clause…

      • edintexas

        The FDR Administration’s Agricultural Adjustment Act was a Progressive idea to support the price of agricultural products by limiting the amount a farmer could produce and sel (the fact that some people were unable to pay the government inflated prices, and foreign sales were heavily impacted, was immaterial to taking over agriculture). Filburn grew enough wheat to sell the limit, and still retain wheat for his family’s use. The Secretary of Agriculture, Wickard, assessed a penalty against Filburn, which he refused to pay, claiming his actions did not fall under the Commerce Clause since the excess did not leave the farm and personal use. He won on appeal, but lost at the SCOTUS with a ruling which basically held that commerce doesn’t have to be directly involved for the Commerce Clause to justify government intervention and control.

        Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942)

        • davesinsanantonio

          nt

  • renny

    but supposedlu Holder and Emanuel told him it wouldn’t be legal.

    This is just another way to get to banning guns.

    Just as the EPA switch on permitting refineries and ordering 16 to shut down in TX for “greenhouse” gas pollution that they just invented is a way around cap and trade that Congress would never pass.

    It is not just enought to change Congress in Nov., but little o and minions will be busy issuring czarist editcts and exec. orders out the whazoo for another two years.

    Something needs to stop the wild exec. craziness. I doubt the Sup. Ct. would intervene. Then what are we going to do?

  • GenEarly

    How about a lead replacement costing less than lead?
    Outflank the enemy, out think the enemy, when all else fails, Charge the enemy! There will only be one way to collect the lead from ammunition.

    ?When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty.?
    Thomas Jefferson

    • bigmaude

      Uuummmm, errrrr, well THAT would be so messy GenE!

  • ywhyvon1
    • Locked and Loaded
      • ywhyvon1
  • renny

    on ending all lobstering and fishing from Maine to NC because of low yield?. It was to save the oceans?

    Ran into too much flack. This is just another way around that opposition.

  • izoneguy

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/epa-rejects-calls-ban-lead-ammo-fishing-tackle/?test=latestnews

    The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition filed by environmental activists seeking to ban lead in ammunition and fishing tackle, saying such regulation is beyond the agency’s authority.

    The agency’s decision, announced Friday shortly after FoxNews.com published its report on the issue, sided with hunters and fishermen who had argued that the such regulations weren’t allowed under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

    “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.”

    A coalition of conservation groups had filed its petition earlier this month arguing that the use of lead in ammo and tackle is poisoning the nation’s lakes, ponds and forests and asking the EPA to ban the “manufacture, processing and distribution” of lead shot, bullets and fishing.

    Poisoning the nation’s lakes, ponds and forests???
    Proof, where is the proof?

    But environmental activists like Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy told FoxNews.com that the petitioners waited to submit their request until nontoxic alternatives such as steel, copper and alloy became readily available.

    “Ammunition itself cannot be regulated [under the Act], but the components itself can be regulated,” Fry said in an interview before the EPA’s decision was announced. “In other words, you cannot ban ammunition, but you can require nontoxic ammunition. … We’re not trying to ban handgun ammunition. This is strictly a toxicity issue, with lead poisoning wildlife.”

    This is strictly a toxicity issue, with lead poisoning wildlife.

    – What a croc. Poisoning wildlife? When you shoot wildlife it becomes dead very quickly. When you fish – the fish suffocates within minutes. I am surprised Cass Sunstein did not file an injunction with all the wildlife lawyers to represent the “poisoned wildlife”.

    • edintexas

      Hunters are conservationists, they pay far more for conservation efforts than all the misnamed “conservation groups” combined*. Same goes for those who fish. These other groups are, at best, preservationist. They seek to preserve by banning the use of nature for any purpose other than looking at it. So deer overpopulate and cause damage to cars in deer/car wrecks, not to mention they starve due to a lack of hunters culling the herd. The preservationists don’t care – as long as the hunting is stopped. Etc.

      *Real conservation groups, like Ducks Unlimited, etc. excluded.

      • davesinsanantonio

        and their self-appointed “elite” status. In their minds they are doing the “right” thing, even if it is detrimental to the animals. Results be damned, it is the good intentions that count! What idiots, and not very useful at that!

  • rwtimm

    at http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/ and it is a dandy and SO true as the EPA is trying to ban trandional ammo.

    ?There is anecdotal evidence that the banning of traditional ammunition would have an adverse impact on government bureaucrat populations.?

  • rwtimm

    at http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/ and it is a dandy and SO true as the EPA is trying to ban trandional ammo.

    ?There is anecdotal evidence that the banning of traditional ammunition would have an adverse impact on government bureaucrat populations.?

  • http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

    by the EPA?

    • izoneguy

      Scroll up a few entries…..

      Yes – the EPA rejected it…..

      • edintexas

        Exactly the same thing. The original post clearly states that EPA refused to take the action petitioned.

  • charity101

    So, my husband & I (both NRA members) get emails about this and on the same day get emails that they have decided NOT to support Harry Reid. So, my husband calls the NRA and says “Hey …so where is your endorsement for Sharon Angle? Or the new Republican FL Governor nominee Rick Scott?” All he got was “errrr, ummm, dunno”. The NRA has been infiltrated by leftists PERIOD. Hope you hunters, fishermen and Pro-2nd Amendment guys will PUMMEL them with phone calls and emails. PLEASE.

    • soljerblue

      ?However, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife.?

      The so-called environmental groups had put forward very questionable science in support of their petition, “science” that could and would have been shredded at any formal hearing. But in addition, with a hugely important election looming in less than 100 days, Congress members — already worried about their NRA endorsements — would have quickly put a stop to this effort.

      Wasn’t going to happen.

      As for the Harry Reid non-endorsement, it was welcome indeed. But I think the backdraft from NRA members — such as myself — had as much to do with the decision as anything triggered by Erick and RedState.

      You may fulminate at the NRA until Hades freezes over, but they are not run by “leftists”, as one poster suggested, and they DO listen to their members. When those members speak, as they have in this case, they have a strong influence on the NRA leaders just as they do Congress and state lawmakers.
      It is we who fund them, and there are four million of us.

      Say what you like about NRA, all the other pro-2A groups out there together cannot come near its political, legal, and financial clout. The NRA isn’t always right, but those who criticize it should at least understand its key role in keeping the 2A alive and viable in this country.

  • Pingback: YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS !

  • Pingback: kizi