This is an interesting issue that could affect gun rights. It's being pushed statewide in California but if it passes there it's likely to be used elsewhere as another relentless attack on 2nd Amendment rights.
I don't know this issue at all beyond what I read here. I also don't know all the possible materials that could replace lead in bullets if this were to pass. Some of my first concerns as I read this were: a) it appears to be another end-around on 2nd Amendment rights - attack ammunition to make firearms useless, b) what alternatives are there to lead that would not lead to claims of armor piercing ammunition, already illegal for consumer use?
Because the proposal as written is limited to hunting it's not quite an all-out assault on gun rights. "...want California to become the first state to impose a statewide ban on the use of lead bullets for hunting." But that does leave the other issue in play:
"...gun advocates strongly oppose banning lead bullets throughout California, saying it is a slippery slope that would lead to gun controls and end hunting in the Golden State.
They argue that hunters who abandon lead and turn to harder bullets such as copper or tungsten could technically be in violation of federal regulations barring armor piercing ammunition."
I'm not a regular hunter but I wonder, if California passes this on the grounds that no amount of lead in the environment is acceptable because it COULD enter a human diet, will hunting survive in California, and if not then how long before hunting is under threat in other, more liberal, states?
There are some interesting statistics and points made in the article.
So what is this? Is it a bunch of well intending environmentalists like it appears on the surface? Or is it the latest creative attack on our 2nd Amendment rights? Or is it both - are environmentalists being supported and strengthened by gun control advocates as another of their attempts at an end around the 2nd Amendment? Unfortunately, environmentalists aren't known for being of the highest integrity. It's unfair to stereotype them, of course, but I've read a statement from an environmentalist that admitted they knowingly overstate the effects of their disaster predictions because if they were put in accurate terms of how far off the consequences really are, they know they'll never get the support they need to fund their initiatives today. Essentially they get paid to lie because lying pays.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/california-lawmakers-weigh-first-statewide-ban-on-lead-ammo/
===
May 17, 2013
"Legislation that would make California the first state to ban the use of lead ammunition in hunting has cleared the state Assembly." "The Assembly passed the bill Thursday on a largely party-line vote of 44-21. It now heads to the state Senate."
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/16/5426776/calif-assembly-advances-bill-to.html
===
May 25, 2013
And here's the evidence that environmental issues have, can and will be used in 2nd Amendment attacks beyond California.
I wasn't aware of the 2010 petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until I read this article. Their petition was denied by the EPA because the EPA does not have legal authority to act on it. But little things like rights, law and authority rarely quench anti-gun extremist thirst. They took it to federal court to try and force the EPA to consider their petition. Does that make sense - to try and have a federal judge force a federal organization without legal authority to make a nation-wide decision in support of a private group's principles? Even if their intentions where wholly good, their strategy is fundamentally flawed. They'd need to address the law that prevents the EPA from acting. Until that's done, approaching the EPA directly or indirectly is just wasting time and resources.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/5/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-to-ban-traditional-ammunition.aspx
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is probably concerned with the environment and is obviously willing to restrict the rights of all Americans in pursuit of their ideals. They also have a strong anti-gun, or anti-NRA, stance, as shown here.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/the-center-for-biological-diversitys-email-on-gun-control/
"After the horrific, gun-charged killings in Newtown — and seeing the NRA’s sickening refusal to take responsibility or support any gun violence reforms at all — I’ve decided that enough is enough!"
This statement is not factual. It goes on to associate the NRA with gun violence, as anti-gun groups so often do. Strange thing is that I don't recall ever hearing from the NRA that they endorse gun violence. I am aware that they HAVE supported education, training, gun safety, and legislation and other proposals that actually address the violence while not penalizing and infringing on the constitutional rights of millions of law abiding citizens for it.
===
June 2, 2013
Based upon the previous article on this topic, it's not a surprise that the federal court shot down the attempt to have the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban lead ammunition.
http://www.examiner.com/article/epa-ammunition-ban-blocked-by-federal-court
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
California Firearms Blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment