Environmental Protection Agency reviewing petition to ban lead bullets.

Will Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson make a back…

Will Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson make a back door move to ban lead bullets the day before the November 2 elections?

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.

Although the EPA could have dismissed the request due to a lack of jurisdiction, it is obliging CBD. The EPA has asked for public comment on banning lead in ammunition, and an EPA notice was published seeking public comment that closes on October 31. Jackson would then make a decision to accept or reject the petition on November 1. You might say that even considering enacting what is effectively a new tax on hunters and gun owners–seemingly the only non-liberal group the Obama administration hasn’t yet intentionally provoked–is less-than-perfect timing for the already beleagured Democrats as the midterm elections approach.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, has hit back against the petition sending Jackson a letter documenting why EPA has no jurisdiction and outlining the damage that banning lead ammunition would do to U.S. industry and jobs, conservation, and law enforcement. The NSSF estimates that more than 90 percent of hunters and sport shooters use traditional lead ammunition. If all hunters were forced to buy non-lead bullets that are made out of metals like tungsten, bismuth, and copper alloys, demand could easily begin to outstrip the supply and prices would go even higher.

Source: John McCormack for Weekly Standard.

Load Comments
  • Randy

    Correction: 20+ pounds average per battery….sorry, coffee hadn’t kicked in yet

  • Randy

    Don’t forget the average 6 POUNDS of lead under the hood in the battery of every car out there. Multiply that one!

  • Cody

    All of the vehicles in America will have to be destroyed, because they use a lead acid battery. This is all BS from the government, plain and simple.

  • Rich Beaudry

    This is just a liberal environmental group looking for another way to slow down hunting and fishing. In the past they have used the Endangered Species Act to try to close areas of public land to entry, ranching, etc.

    If they can get the lead out of bullets they will do more than drive up cost of bullets. The cost will drive many people away from target practice, hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities. This will hurt manufactures, mean layoffs of employees, and reduce the DJ and RP funds that result in Federal money used by Game and Fish Departments for wildlife management and support of shooting ranges and hunting and fishing education programs.

    The EPA should have never accepted this — but then liberal politics are driving many bad decisions currently.


  • Rich

    They’d have to ban manufacture, sale, and posession of bullet molds and casting equipment, and require places like tire shops to securely lock away lead “waste” like wheel-weights, in order to make this one stick – and that would be a virtual impossibility. Politics, politics, politics…

  • Bob

    My response to crap like this is always the same. The government goes first. All of the civilian shooters in the world put out a bare fraction of what the governments of the world do in terms of lead, or pollution, or anything else. Any exemption for government forces shows you that the legislation is not about the environment, but control.

  • Mike

    i don’t understand why lead would be banned. alternative materials are far too pricey, and besides if we extract lead from the environment then how the hell could it be damaging it?

  • Eric

    The EPA is far more concerned with politics than its stated mission, or they wouldn’t be wasting time with this. In fact, it can be argued, most of the serious environmental problems, they do very little about. There is also an article in this month’s WIRED (a computer/business affairs magazine), which covers a town destroyed by lead poisoning. Interestingly, there is a guy who opened a range in this abandoned town; the implication is he is an “odd ball.” WIRED is a generally Left of Center publication, politically, based out of Anti-Gun San Franciso (AGSF to some locals). The photo shows the range owner (looking like a “tough guy”) with a gun in his hand (“Oh, no!”), and his “buddy” in the background with an AR at battle-sight-zero (“Horrors!!!”). Given the publications pro-Environmentalist orientation (e.g., lots of North Face and Patagonia and Eco-Lable Levi’s), the anti-lead “timing” of the article with the EPA’s Lead-Bullet Ban petition lends credence to the possibility of “engineering public opinion,” but, of course, it’s not propaganda, that would just be paranoid… My hope is Tac Life readers will start to think about how the Mass Media attempts to control the Public’s perception of “Reality” and what consistutes “Reasonable Public Policy.” Mind Defense is the best immunity from Thought Control…