Obama's final shot: Ban on 'traditional ammo'

[Brian4Liberty]

Obama's final shot: Ban on 'traditional ammo'
By Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) • 1/23/17

In its final attack on gun owners, the Obama administration moved to ban traditional lead ammo on federal grounds and waterways on its last full day in office.

The ban, which includes cheap bullets and common fishing tackle, can be repealed by the Trump administration and was immediately condemned as an attack on outdoors people and rural life.

"This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

"The timing alone is suspect. This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this, and instead create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition."
...
More: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ob...rticle/2612647

[Origanalist]

That POS can't be gone soon enough.

[Schifference]

This is such a positive move for the ongoing lead concern. Thank god someone was man enough to stand up for our water and environment! This is what being proactive looks like. There is no need to wait for Science or studies to do what one knows is right.

[phill4paul]

How about banning the EPA from creating toxic spills in the waterways? And I don't say "federal" waterways because they are all "federal" waterways now.

Someone needs to get this to Trump so he can give a big "$#@! you" to Obama and also get gun owners behind him. Win/win and it might appeal to him. Unless he bought stock in stainless steel ammo corps.

[presence]

I'm usually first to get my panties in a wod over anything gun ban related, but this doesn't really rattle me.

I'm more offended by the government owning land than regulating lead usage on it for hunting/fishing purposes.

There is sound science behind acid rain + humic/fulvic + lead = soil contamination = waterway contamination = meat and water supply contamination; especially steel/copper jacketed lead bullets where galvanic corrosion potential exists.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rmizzo/fi...e.htm#mobility

There is also sound science behind hunting with lead = meat near entry and exit wound becomes tainted with lead particles.

There is obviously sound science behind lead in meat and water = $#@!ed up kids.

The #1 substance fedgov spends fednotes re-mediating from soil is lead; and $#@!ed up kids become $#@!ed up welfare queens... so there is also economics behind this.

Many states also have bans on lead bullet usage for various hunting activities especially waterfowl.

Although fedgov owning and regulating usage of land is an obvious affront to the broader notion of "liberty", I don't necessarily take this ban as an affront to 2nd amendment as it is not a ban on buying/selling/possessing lead bullets for the purpose of killing rouge government agents; just what and where you can use them for non 2nd amendment purposes.

should the government own land?
No.

since the government apparently does own land... should it prevent it from becoming a toxic mess prior to returning it to the market?
Meh. I'll run with it...

albeit I'd rather see a surgeon general's warning on lead ammo than an outright ban; people are more inclined to do the right thing if they understand WHY rather than to avoid an authoritarian consequence.

Should you voluntarily take self responsibility and avoid hunting with lead?

I choose to hunt with solid copper expanding non-fragmenting bullets.
I embrace a primitive lifestyle while recognizing that certain modern technologies should be embraced on ethical grounds.
I eat everything I shoot and prefer not to risk my family consuming highly toxic lead fragments from high velocity rounds.
You probably should too.

After hitting bone a lead bullet will lose 20-30% of its mass as small grain particles. If you do hunt with lead DO NOT eat bruised meat; especially if bone was shattered.

don't believe me?

google image keyword: xray lead fragmentation

https://www.google.com/search?q=x+ra...w=1440&bih=718

Fragmentation in modern lead rifle bullets is a result of their design, the intent being that the front portion of the bullet expands to almost twice its original diameter. However, one consequence of this expansion is that particles of lead - a soft metal - erode from the bullet's tip as it strikes and travels through its target. This is a concern for humans and animals eating any portion of an animal shot with lead because these fragments are often too small to notice during butchering and comsumption.

http://www.leadfreehunting.com/bullet-performance/

[oyarde]

I will continue to use lead shotgun shells , I do use steel for waterfowl but I do not currently hunt on " federal lands " . As a lifelong taxpayer , I take it federal means mine

[jllundqu]

I'm usually first to get my panties in a wod over anything gun ban related, but this doesn't really rattle me.

I'm more offended by the government owning land than regulating lead usage on it for hunting/fishing purposes.

There is sound science behind acid rain + humic/fulvic + lead = soil contamination = waterway contamination = meat and water supply contamination; especially steel/copper jacketed lead bullets where galvanic corrosion potential exists.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rmizzo/fi...e.htm#mobility

There is also sound science behind hunting with lead = meat near entry and exit wound becomes tainted with lead particles.

There is obviously sound science behind lead in meat and water = $#@!ed up kids.

The #1 substance fedgov spends fednotes re-mediating from soil is lead; and $#@!ed up kids become $#@!ed up welfare queens... so there is also economics behind this.

Many states also have bans on lead bullet usage for various hunting activities especially waterfowl.

Although fedgov owning and regulating usage of land is an obvious affront to the broader notion of "liberty", I don't necessarily take this ban as an affront to 2nd amendment as it is not a ban on buying/selling/possessing lead bullets for the purpose of killing rouge government agents; just what and where you can use them for non 2nd amendment purposes.

should the government own land?
No.

since the government apparently does own land... should it prevent it from becoming a toxic mess prior to returning it to the market?
Meh. I'll run with it...

albeit I'd rather see a surgeon general's warning on lead ammo than an outright ban; people are more inclined to do the right thing if they understand WHY rather than to avoid an authoritarian consequence.

Should you voluntarily take self responsibility and avoid hunting with lead?

I choose to hunt with solid copper expanding non-fragmenting bullets.
I embrace a primitive lifestyle while recognizing that certain modern technologies should be embraced on ethical grounds.
I eat everything I shoot and prefer not to risk my family consuming highly toxic lead fragments from high velocity rounds.
You probably should too.

After hitting bone a lead bullet will lose 20-30% of its mass as small grain particles. If you do hunt with lead DO NOT eat bruised meat; especially if bone was shattered.

don't believe me?

google image keyword: xray lead fragmentation

https://www.google.com/search?q=x+ra...w=1440&bih=718






http://www.leadfreehunting.com/bullet-performance/

I agree with this post.

I hunt with lead free .308 for this reason.... Lead is bad stuff and I feed my venison to my kids. Not exactly rocket science.

[GunnyFreedom]

My hunting round is full metal jacket so the lead inside of the copper jacket is not very relevant. My long distance round will expand, but it is not for hunting anything that I would ever eat. Therefore not really concerned about the disposition of the lead in my rounds.

[phill4paul]

Ah, Jeez. Hunting has gone "Whole Foods" now. SMDH. No, no, honestly, I see the point. But, just, damn. And come on, honestly, hunting has fallen to lows as Americans don't take their own game anymore. There is no way the amount of lead that is shot while hunting is impacting the environment in a significant manner. None.

And also, who doesn't cull bruised meat? Shock-trauma does not make for a good cut regardless of ammo. Unless you are subsistence hunting. Then every part is nutrition.

[presence]

[QUOTE=phill4paul;6403390]Ah, Jeez. Hunting has gone "Whole Foods" now. SMDH. No, no, honestly, I see the point. But, just, damn.[QUOTE]

For some people hunting is about drinking, shooting guns, and killing things. I get that.
For me its about subsistence; a damn good part of what I eat dies outside of a slaughter house.
Given the option of clean meat or potentially lead contaminated meat to feed my growing kid... choice is easy.
I've seen kids that grew up in lead contamination situations and results are ugly and sad.
Given the option of picking a bunch of little lead fragments out of game or one mushroomed piece of copper... copper wins on my butcher's block.

And come on, honestly, hunting has fallen to lows as Americans don't take their own game anymore. There is no way the amount of lead that is shot while hunting is impacting the environment in a significant manner. None.

I don't have stats in front of me but I recall there's like 3 million pounds of lead bullets on federal land annually for hunting purposes.

And also, who doesn't cull bruised meat? Shock-trauma does not make for a good cut regardless of ammo. Unless you are subsistence hunting. Then every part is nutrition.

If you're hunting with high velocity lead chances are lead particles extends beyond the obvious trauma and you're feeding lead to your family.
Why risk brain damage given the option to do right? The first time I saw the xrays of lead frag was my wake up call and I've been lead free since (except target).
When I hunt lead free, I feed bruise meat to my dog with clean conscience just as I would while bow hunting.

[phill4paul]

[QUOTE=presence;6403418][QUOTE=phill4paul;6403390]Ah, Jeez. Hunting has gone "Whole Foods" now. SMDH. No, no, honestly, I see the point. But, just, damn.

For some people hunting is about drinking, shooting guns, and killing things. I get that.
For me its about subsistence; a damn good part of what I eat dies outside of a slaughter house.
Given the option of clean meat or potentially lead contaminated meat to feed my growing kid... choice is easy.
I've seen kids that grew up in lead contamination situations and results are ugly and sad.
Given the option of picking a bunch of little lead fragments out of game or one mushroomed piece of copper... copper wins on my butcher's block.




I don't have stats in front of me but I recall there's like 3 million pounds of lead bullets on federal land annually for hunting purposes.



If you're hunting with high velocity lead chances are lead particles extends beyond the obvious trauma and you're feeding lead to your family.
Why risk brain damage given the option to do right? The first time I saw the xrays of lead frag was my wake up call and I've been lead free since (except target).
When I hunt lead free, I feed bruise meat to my dog with clean conscience just as I would while bow hunting.

I admitted that I get it. And I honestly do. And you've admitted that your gripe is about federal lands regulating something when they shouldn't be federal lands anyway. I'm honestly not disagreeing with you. Though it may have seemed so. Lead poisoning is well known. But there have been generations on my mothers side of the family that hunted with lead for sustenance and turned out fine. But, I agree that given the choice one should go with copper or S.S. Still, this seems an EPA much ado about nothing. To me at least.

[kcchiefs6465]

I would say poisoning the earth for billions of years through their usage of depleted uranium and the pollution from nuclear weapons research and dick waving has had a greater negative effect on the world than lead shot but hey, one's being used for obtaining food and the other for bombing funerals and weddings so I suppose I should know exactly where Obama stands on the issue.

[presence]

[pcosmar]

I hunted rabbits with a .22.. because I hate eating lead pellets.

but yet another law? no thanks.

Now if Mr. Trump really wanted to impress.. He would not only rescind this,,, but even more with a stroke of the same pen.

[Anti Federalist]

Everybody is missing the point.

The point is that yet another regulatory fatwa was issued that bans a specific thing, with no debate, no representation, no "democratic process".

Whether you agree with said fatwa or not, is not germane and to argue about it one way or the other does nothing but muddy the issue and lends credibility to the process.

[Brian4Liberty]

Everybody is missing the point.

The point is that yet another regulatory fatwa was issued that bans a specific thing, with no debate, no representation, no "democratic process".

Whether you agree with said fatwa or not, is not germane and to argue about it one way or the other does nothing but muddy the issue and lends credibility to the process.

Rule of law. We also have many people defending extensive Executive Orders. Hannity was just on the radio advocating that the Senate use the "nuclear option" on Supreme Court nominations. It's hard to call for restraint and rule of law when the deplorable leftists have no problem wielding the ring of power. Hard to stuff all that back into Pandora's (Marx/Alinsky's) box.

[Brian4Liberty]

As far as lead goes, yes, there are concerns. I'd also point out that a lot time people use federal land like an uncontrolled gun range, firing thousands of rounds.

[kcchiefs6465]

As far as lead goes, yes, there are concerns. I'd also point out that a lot time people use federal land like an uncontrolled gun range, firing thousands of rounds.

Of the 400 million acres of federal land, what percentage would you guestimate is being used "like an uncontrolled gun range"?

Their bomb ranges and actual firing ranges accounting for what percent?

It would seem to me that if they were concerned with the environment maybe they'd lead by example and quit being the largest polluters the world has ever seen.

[pcosmar]

Copper, still a good investment.

[phill4paul]

Of the 400 million acres of federal land, what percentage would you guestimate is being used "like an uncontrolled gun range"?

Their bomb ranges and actual firing ranges accounting for what percent?

It would seem to me that if they were concerned with the environment maybe they'd lead by example and quit being the largest polluters the world has ever seen.

Yup.

[presence]

Everybody is missing the point.

The point is that yet another regulatory fatwa was issued that bans a specific thing, with no debate, no representation, no "democratic process".

Whether you agree with said fatwa or not, is not germane and to argue about it one way or the other does nothing but muddy the issue and lends credibility to the process.

Just like muh roads, once we accept the notion of "public property" there exists then "public interest" and your presence upon such will be permitted and regulated. Its deeper than the process. The heart of the issue; the spawn of the process is the notion of sovereign state ownership. Don't fire lead bullets on federal land else thump on head with stick is no different than don't drive over 65mph on I-95 else thump on head with stick. Its more important from my perspective to rally against the source of regulation; "state property ownership"; than it is to get enraged about the specifics of how the supposed "owner" wishes to regulate and permit use of "its property". The spawn; the bare notion that the state even holds land and can enforce edicts such as these with the force of armed agents is a greater evil than the specifics of any particular "reasonable" regulation or the growing number thereof.



Keep him tied, it makes him well
He's getting better, can't you tell?

[osan]

The film I'd always hope Sound Of Music would have been; the film it SHOULD have been... <SIGH>

There is sound science behind acid rain + humic/fulvic + lead = soil contamination = waterway contamination = meat and water supply contamination; especially steel/copper jacketed lead bullets where galvanic corrosion potential exists.

Meh... lead forms a hugely durable oxide layer, rendering it chemically inert for all practical purposes.

There is also sound science behind hunting with lead = meat near entry and exit wound becomes tainted with lead particles.

Matter of individual choice and not government policy or law.

The #1 substance fedgov spends fednotes re-mediating from soil is lead; and $#@!ed up kids become $#@!ed up welfare queens... so there is also economics behind this.

A virtual non-issue.

Many states also have bans on lead bullet usage for various hunting activities especially waterfowl.

"lead poisons the water..." Bull$#@!. Lead and its oxides are insoluble in water. The only lead compounds I know of soluble in water are its acetate and carbonate. So far as I know, those will not form in any body of water, so all this lead-scare is baloney.

I choose to hunt with solid copper expanding non-fragmenting bullets.

But... but... copper toxicity...

No wait... global warming!

Erm, no... umm... evil corporations!

Gay dolphins?

Oh... $#@!...

Seriously, lead should not be taken lightly, but getting this up in the undies over it goes too far. Caution, sure. Panic? Not so much.

[pcosmar]

But... but... copper toxicity...

No wait... global warming!

Erm, no... umm... evil corporations!

Gay dolphins?

Oh... $#@!...

Seriously, lead should not be taken lightly, but getting this up in the undies over it goes too far. Caution, sure. Panic? Not so much.

I do love your posts.