Site Notices
10/30/2014 3:55:04 PM
Author
Message
nova96
Offline
Posts: 352
Feedback: 0% (0)
Posted: 9/24/2008 11:49:20 AM
After doing some reading about some movements in less free states such as CA and WA to ban lead bullets under the guise of enviromentalism I started to wonder how this could impact all firearms.

It seems like with the existing federal restrictions on "AP" handgun ammuntion, the addition of restrictions on lead ammunition would essentially shut down the use of all handgun calibers and quite a few rifle calibers including .223.

Furthermore, just glancing at the clean air and clean water act, it seems like the EPA has all the statutory authority they need to institute restrictions on lead ammunition without any congressional action.

The AP ammo restrictions have a "sporting purposes" clause which in theory provides some protection but in reality we all know it doesn't.

I just have this nightmare about a Democrat administration instructing the EPA to instititue such restrictions to "protect the enviromnment" and a lot of people running with it because they don't know the consequences...

Am I on the right track with this line of thought and if so, what are we going to do about it?
olwen
Member
Offline
Posts: 1237
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 9/27/2008 1:04:30 AM
[Last Edit: 9/27/2008 1:08:11 AM by olwen]
bullet/ ammo manufacturers are already working on this.

barnes makes solid copper bullets, and lead free "varmint grenades".

tti does lead free ammo

nosler and federal have or are coming out with lead free projos

the regs just mean the cost goes up.

nosler

federal varmint
Rogue-Sasquatch
Online
Posts: 1540
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 9/27/2008 1:56:10 AM

Originally Posted By olwen:
bullet/ ammo manufacturers are already working on this.

barnes makes solid copper bullets, and lead free "varmint grenades".

tti does lead free ammo

nosler and federal have or are coming out with lead free projos

the regs just mean the cost goes up.

nosler

federal varmint


That does nothing for those of us that shoot foreign ammo in any kind of volume.

There's never going to be domestic production of lead-free 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 7.92x57, 7.5x55, 5.45x39, 7.62 Tokarev, 9x18 Makarov, or basically anything else like that. Volume calibers, non-domestic calibers, obsolete calibers, and C&R calibers would be completely out of reach for anybody who couldn't afford custom ammo or a whole reloading setup including the non-lead bullets.

The only non-'sporting' calibers that would survive a lead ammo ban are 30.06, .308, .223 and maybe 7.62x39 (although I doubt it).
olwen
Member
Offline
Posts: 1240
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 9/28/2008 1:33:07 AM

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By olwen:
bullet/ ammo manufacturers are already working on this.

barnes makes solid copper bullets, and lead free "varmint grenades".

tti does lead free ammo

nosler and federal have or are coming out with lead free projos

the regs just mean the cost goes up.

nosler

federal varmint


That does nothing for those of us that shoot foreign ammo in any kind of volume.

There's never going to be domestic production of lead-free 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 7.92x57, 7.5x55, 5.45x39, 7.62 Tokarev, 9x18 Makarov, or basically anything else like that. Volume calibers, non-domestic calibers, obsolete calibers, and C&R calibers would be completely out of reach for anybody who couldn't afford custom ammo or a whole reloading setup including the non-lead bullets.

The only non-'sporting' calibers that would survive a lead ammo ban are 30.06, .308, .223 and maybe 7.62x39 (although I doubt it).


so get another hobby when a ban comes down.
Rogue-Sasquatch
Online
Posts: 1545
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 9/29/2008 5:20:12 PM
[Last Edit: 9/29/2008 5:20:50 PM by Rogue-Sasquatch]

Originally Posted By olwen:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By olwen:
bullet/ ammo manufacturers are already working on this.

barnes makes solid copper bullets, and lead free "varmint grenades".

tti does lead free ammo

nosler and federal have or are coming out with lead free projos

the regs just mean the cost goes up.

nosler

federal varmint


That does nothing for those of us that shoot foreign ammo in any kind of volume.

There's never going to be domestic production of lead-free 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 7.92x57, 7.5x55, 5.45x39, 7.62 Tokarev, 9x18 Makarov, or basically anything else like that. Volume calibers, non-domestic calibers, obsolete calibers, and C&R calibers would be completely out of reach for anybody who couldn't afford custom ammo or a whole reloading setup including the non-lead bullets.

The only non-'sporting' calibers that would survive a lead ammo ban are 30.06, .308, .223 and maybe 7.62x39 (although I doubt it).


so get another hobby when a ban comes down.


You know, you don't actually need to hunt. And most of those lead-free sporting calibers you linked to? Made with lighter, harder metals than lead. Longer range with that lighter composition, and less deformation against hard materials like armor. We should probably ban those long-range armor-piercing sniper cartridges and the guns that go with them before we bother with lead ammo - that's just an environmental issue.

Like how that feels, Elmer?
nova96
Offline
Posts: 370
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 9/30/2008 1:56:06 PM
[Last Edit: 9/30/2008 1:58:33 PM by nova96]

Originally Posted By olwen:
bullet/ ammo manufacturers are already working on this.

barnes makes solid copper bullets, and lead free "varmint grenades".

tti does lead free ammo

nosler and federal have or are coming out with lead free projos

the regs just mean the cost goes up.

nosler

federal varmint


First I don't think you understand my point with this. Its not the lead restrictions, its how the lead restrictions would play against AP restrictions that I'm worried about. If things were explicitly written out such that if lead was banned we could get tungsten carbide, steel or copper rounds I would be far less worried.

Second, how does that work within the law, especially the solid copper projectiles.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=921


(B) The term "armor piercing ammunition" means -
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a
handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence
of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of
tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or
depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber
designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a
weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the
projectile.


And yes I know its handgun ammo but we all know exactly how BATFE determines if a cartidge is a "handgun" cartidge. They ask if there is a handgun somewhere in the world that chambers the cartidge and if the answer is yes the statute is applied sucking up a lot of rifle cartidges in addition to handgun specific rounds...

Are we eventually going to come to the point that the only "handgun" rounds available are frangibles because of lead and AP restrictions???
olwen
Member
Offline
Posts: 1243
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 9/30/2008 7:22:34 PM

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By olwen:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By olwen:
bullet/ ammo manufacturers are already working on this.

barnes makes solid copper bullets, and lead free "varmint grenades".

tti does lead free ammo

nosler and federal have or are coming out with lead free projos

the regs just mean the cost goes up.

nosler

federal varmint


That does nothing for those of us that shoot foreign ammo in any kind of volume.

There's never going to be domestic production of lead-free 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 7.92x57, 7.5x55, 5.45x39, 7.62 Tokarev, 9x18 Makarov, or basically anything else like that. Volume calibers, non-domestic calibers, obsolete calibers, and C&R calibers would be completely out of reach for anybody who couldn't afford custom ammo or a whole reloading setup including the non-lead bullets.

The only non-'sporting' calibers that would survive a lead ammo ban are 30.06, .308, .223 and maybe 7.62x39 (although I doubt it).


so get another hobby when a ban comes down.


You know, you don't actually need to hunt. And most of those lead-free sporting calibers you linked to? Made with lighter, harder metals than lead. Longer range with that lighter composition, and less deformation against hard materials like armor. We should probably ban those long-range armor-piercing sniper cartridges and the guns that go with them before we bother with lead ammo - that's just an environmental issue.

Like how that feels, Elmer?


ha ha. it has nothing to do with fudding or anyother non 2nd amendment stuff, which is what your foreign ammo bulk MG shooting is, non- 2nd amendment.

what MG's do you have and practice with?

just so you know i'm not talking like i don't know, i've got a FA uzi, mini-uzi, and use my brothers m16 several times a year.

olwen
Member
Offline
Posts: 1244
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 9/30/2008 7:25:35 PM
[Last Edit: 9/30/2008 7:26:21 PM by olwen]

Originally Posted By nova96:
After doing some reading about some movements in less free states such as CA and WA to ban lead bullets under the guise of enviromentalism I started to wonder how this could impact all firearms.

It seems like with the existing federal restrictions on "AP" handgun ammuntion, the addition of restrictions on lead ammunition would essentially shut down the use of all handgun calibers and quite a few rifle calibers including .223.

Furthermore, just glancing at the clean air and clean water act, it seems like the EPA has all the statutory authority they need to institute restrictions on lead ammunition without any congressional action.

The AP ammo restrictions have a "sporting purposes" clause which in theory provides some protection but in reality we all know it doesn't.

I just have this nightmare about a Democrat administration instructing the EPA to instititue such restrictions to "protect the enviromnment" and a lot of people running with it because they don't know the consequences...

Am I on the right track with this line of thought and if so, what are we going to do about it?


maybe a better response by me should have been

"what are YOU going to do about it?"

maybe you should move to WA or CA and bring a lawsuit based on 2nd amendment violations if you think that is what is happening, and you have millions to burn.

otherwise i think there are better battles to fight at this time.

nova96
Offline
Posts: 372
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/1/2008 12:26:27 PM
[Last Edit: 10/1/2008 12:27:19 PM by nova96]

Originally Posted By olwen:

maybe a better response by me should have been

"what are YOU going to do about it?"

maybe you should move to WA or CA and bring a lawsuit based on 2nd amendment violations if you think that is what is happening, and you have millions to burn.

otherwise i think there are better battles to fight at this time.



Are you trying to be obtuse, just aren't reading what I'm writing or what? I'm not talking about WA and CA other than the actions in those states starting my mind on this train of thought.

I'm talking about the possibility of a similar effort on the federal level. Hence my original post mentioning the clean air and clean water acts.

Let me spell it out a little better...

A. There are existing restrictions on "AP" handgun ammo.

B. Those restrictions have been applied and will continue to be applied to certain rifle rounds including the .223, .308 and others.

C. The US Environmental Protection Agency seems to have the statutory authority under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to restrict the use of lead in all applications including ammuntion without action by Congress.

That leads to conclusion

D. An anti-2nd amendment administration could instruct the EPA to severely limit the use of lead in ammunition basically leaving us with no ammo other than frangibles.

Now to repeat the question again more clearly,

Legally speaking, on the FEDERAL level, is this possible and if it is possible what sorts of steps should we, and this is the "we" of firearms owners and enthusiasts all over the country, do to prepare for and preempt such an attack?
olwen
Member
Offline
Posts: 1245
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:55:16 PM
[Last Edit: 10/2/2008 12:56:21 PM by olwen]

Originally Posted By nova96:

Originally Posted By olwen:

maybe a better response by me should have been

"what are YOU going to do about it?"

maybe you should move to WA or CA and bring a lawsuit based on 2nd amendment violations if you think that is what is happening, and you have millions to burn.

otherwise i think there are better battles to fight at this time.



Are you trying to be obtuse, just aren't reading what I'm writing or what? I'm not talking about WA and CA other than the actions in those states starting my mind on this train of thought.

I'm talking about the possibility of a similar effort on the federal level. Hence my original post mentioning the clean air and clean water acts.

Let me spell it out a little better...

A. There are existing restrictions on "AP" handgun ammo.

B. Those restrictions have been applied and will continue to be applied to certain rifle rounds including the .223, .308 and others.

C. The US Environmental Protection Agency seems to have the statutory authority under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to restrict the use of lead in all applications including ammuntion without action by Congress.

That leads to conclusion

D. An anti-2nd amendment administration could instruct the EPA to severely limit the use of lead in ammunition basically leaving us with no ammo other than frangibles.

Now to repeat the question again more clearly,

Legally speaking, on the FEDERAL level, is this possible and if it is possible what sorts of steps should we, and this is the "we" of firearms owners and enthusiasts all over the country, do to prepare for and preempt such an attack?


if your premises are true, why wasn't any of that enacted during the clintons admin? they had the desire to restrict gun ownership in any way possible, and did quite a few anti gun legislation/ tomfoolery. I think they would have done this if it was possible, hence I do not think epa has the authority or otherwise to enact such regulations.

for example, only during hunting is non toxic lead shot required. If you want to go shoot clay pigeons over a waterway with lead shot, i do not think there is any restriction to do so.



edit- ps, a 2nd amendment objection to CA or WA restrictions WOULD be a federal level case.

nova96
Offline
Posts: 379
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/8/2008 4:39:04 PM

Originally Posted By olwen:
if your premises are true, why wasn't any of that enacted during the clintons admin? they had the desire to restrict gun ownership in any way possible, and did quite a few anti gun legislation/ tomfoolery. I think they would have done this if it was possible, hence I do not think epa has the authority or otherwise to enact such regulations.

for example, only during hunting is non toxic lead shot required. If you want to go shoot clay pigeons over a waterway with lead shot, i do not think there is any restriction to do so.

edit- ps, a 2nd amendment objection to CA or WA restrictions WOULD be a federal level case.



I don't know why they wouldn't have done it. I'd probably be a rich man if I understood exactly what goes on between the ears of liberals. Maybe, pre-heller, they thought they had us by the balls already and didn't need to take that route. As with any battle the tactics and strategy evolve based on the situation at hand and it may have evolved to this.

Yes, currently lead shot restrictions are only for hunting, but as far as I know, thats because the restriction is implemented under migratory bird controls through the fish and wildlife service so there is some statutory limit to their authority, limits that wouldn't apply to the EPA

I understand challenging CA or WA restrictions would be a federal level case. Again, I'm more concerned with action on the federal level by the EPA since there is existing case law that already allows them to squash the rights of individuals with environmental regulation.

If you know something I don't, please come forth with it. I'm asking to try and get opinions and information but all it seems like I can get is a "well it doesn't matter."
FREEFALLE7
Ranger
Offline
Posts: 6573
Feedback: 100% (164)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/8/2008 5:06:11 PM
So... go to hell


Originally Posted By olwen:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By olwen:
bullet/ ammo manufacturers are already working on this.

barnes makes solid copper bullets, and lead free "varmint grenades".

tti does lead free ammo

nosler and federal have or are coming out with lead free projos

the regs just mean the cost goes up.

nosler

federal varmint


That does nothing for those of us that shoot foreign ammo in any kind of volume.

There's never going to be domestic production of lead-free 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 7.92x57, 7.5x55, 5.45x39, 7.62 Tokarev, 9x18 Makarov, or basically anything else like that. Volume calibers, non-domestic calibers, obsolete calibers, and C&R calibers would be completely out of reach for anybody who couldn't afford custom ammo or a whole reloading setup including the non-lead bullets.

The only non-'sporting' calibers that would survive a lead ammo ban are 30.06, .308, .223 and maybe 7.62x39 (although I doubt it).


so get another hobby when a ban comes down.
If it is possible, it has been done. If its impossible, we will do it.

Come election day, there are many ways to vote for Obama...but only one way to vote for McCain.

Senator McCain, the only choice for gun owners and true Americans!!!
&#
olwen
Member
Offline
Posts: 1265
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:40:22 PM

Originally Posted By FREEFALLE7:
So... go to hell


Originally Posted By olwen:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By olwen:
bullet/ ammo manufacturers are already working on this.

barnes makes solid copper bullets, and lead free "varmint grenades".

tti does lead free ammo

nosler and federal have or are coming out with lead free projos

the regs just mean the cost goes up.

nosler

federal varmint


That does nothing for those of us that shoot foreign ammo in any kind of volume.

There's never going to be domestic production of lead-free 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 7.92x57, 7.5x55, 5.45x39, 7.62 Tokarev, 9x18 Makarov, or basically anything else like that. Volume calibers, non-domestic calibers, obsolete calibers, and C&R calibers would be completely out of reach for anybody who couldn't afford custom ammo or a whole reloading setup including the non-lead bullets.

The only non-'sporting' calibers that would survive a lead ammo ban are 30.06, .308, .223 and maybe 7.62x39 (although I doubt it).


so get another hobby when a ban comes down.


no really

Devildog1068A1
Offline
Posts: 163
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/8/2008 10:01:56 PM
Environmental Protection Agency seems to have the statutory authority under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to restrict the use of lead in all applications including ammuntion without action by Congress.

They are an agency; they have no enforcement power by themselves, without taking someone to court...