EPA Reviewing Petition to Regulate Lead Ammunition

Earlier this week, the EPA agreed to formally review a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).  The petition requests that the EPA ban the use of lead in firearms ammunition by exercising powers granted to the EPA under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). Such a ban would cause the cost of ammunition to skyrocket because the cost of a replacement metal, like copper, is much more expensive. Copper is selling for $3.30 a pound on today’s spot market. Lead is only 91 cents a pound.

If you are saying to yourself, “Well, I don’t care. I don’t own any guns,” consider this. The ban of lead will also apply to fishing tackle that contains lead.  Your fishing sinkers would also be banned if the petition is granted.

Under current federal law, the EPA doesn’t have the authority to ban lead cartridges or shells. I won’t bore you with the legal details. It is sufficient to say that when the TSCA is combined with the tax code, the EPA has no authority to regulate lead contents in ammunition. To get around this exception that was obviously intended by congress, CBD’s petition claims the EPA has the right to regulate the parts that go into the making of ammunition. This would amount to a de facto value added tax (VAT), which is currently illegal under the federal tax code. (It is interesting to note that some Democrat politicians would like to levy a VAT tax.)

This isn’t the first time an attempt has been made to regulate ammunition through the EPA. In 1995, under the Clinton administration, the EPA conducted comprehensive studies to determine the effect of lead ammunition’s impact on the environment. The agency argued that if a negative impact could be proved, shells and cartridges would fall under its regulatory authority. If you aren’t convinced this was intended as a round-about way towards gun control, consider the words of former Senator Moynihan, Democrat from New York.  

“Guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people.” And when talking about ammunition, “tax them out of existence.” Moynihan wanted to use the power of the federal government as a way of getting around the 2^nd Amendment.

Republicans of the time fought the EPA’s attempt to regulate ammunition. Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO) wrote, “We believe this is clearly an issue that falls outside the purview of the EPA. More importantly … this proposal seriously infringes upon the right of American citizens afforded them in the Second Amendment. It is obvious to us that if lead ammunition is severely restricted or banned, then the EPA is effectively infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.”

Currently, the state of California has a limited ban on lead-based ammunition. The law prohibits the use of projectiles containing lead for hunting deer, bear, wild pig, elk, and pronghorn antelope in areas designated as a California condor range. Other states are or have previously considered a ban of lead-based ammunition.

If CBD’s petition is granted, your old lead-based ammunition may become illegal to use in hunting or at shooting ranges. Lead-based paint, even if manufactured before it was banned, can’t be used. A grandfather exception could be allowed, but don’t count on this from the Obama Administration. This bunch of leftwing loons needs to exact revenge on citizens to get even with the recent Supreme Court holdings that have upheld your 2^nd Amendment Rights.

So what can you do? You could sit on your ass and complain, or take steps to stop this Obamanation.  The EPA has to look at all petitions on the issue until it decides what to do on November 1 of this year. (Just a day before the 2010 federal election). You can write your own response to the CBD’s petition. The NRA’s response can be found on its website.

Our friends at AmmoLand suggests other things you can do. Send a letter to your Congressman and Senators. A sample letter is provided by AmmoLand. If you want, just copy the letter and mail it to those who represent you in Washington. But PLEASE, use the postal service. E-mails don’t carry much weight with politicians. But a physical letter that you have to pay for with a stamp is taken much more seriously than an electronic one. If you have the inclination, write a letter yourself, using your own words to express concerns. This is more influential than a bunch of form letters.

You can also call your representatives. Unless you are a big donor, you probably won’t talk directly to your politician, but the clerks will relay your concerns. Remember; be polite but firm with what you think of this issue.

Finally, educate those around you about what a ban on lead-based sporting equipment means to hunters, target shooters and anglers. And don’t forget to tell them to read FirearmsTruth every chance they get.

[Via Ammoland.com: EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammuntion]