EPA on lead-ammunition ban: Never mind

posted at 9:30 pm on August 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Not that this was going anywhere anyway, but someone at the EPA must have gotten a few phone calls about their open comment period on this truly screwy idea from either the White House, Congressional leadership, or perhaps both.  Just two days ago, the EPA announced that they would take comments until the end of October as to whether they agreed that lead-based ammunition and fishing sinkers amounted to such a dire threat to the environment that the EPA should ban both.  Looks like they heard enough comments, at least on ammunition:

Responding to a grassroots outcry from gun owners, the Environmental Protection Agency today announced that it has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and other radical groups that had sought to ban the use of lead in ammunition.

Agreeing with the position of the NRA and the firearms industry, the agency explained in a news release that it “does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).”  Further crushing the hopes of anti-gun and anti-hunting activists, the release added: “nor is the agency seeking such authority.”

“It’s outrageous that this petition even went this far,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director.  “We applaud the EPA for its understanding of the law and its common sense in this situation — both of which were totally missing in the petition filed by these extreme anti-gun and anti-hunting groups.”

Because the EPA has no power to regulate ammunition, it will not move ahead with a public comment period on the petition.  However, a comment period will remain open until September 15 on the other part of the petition, which asks EPA to ban the use of lead in fishing sinkers.

Be sure to watch for more coverage of this important victory in next week’s Grassroots Alert and in NRA’s magazines.

It is an important victory, mainly from the EPA’s own admission that ammunition is outside their jurisdictional reach.  Otherwise, this just brings an issue to the end it inevitably faced sooner or later.  Had the EPA pursued this in this electoral cycle, they would have risked inspiring a bipartisan effort to defund the agency, which a Republican House may do anyway to stop enforcement of their ridiculous carbon-dioxide endangerment finding.

If the EPA actually thought this would make a great trial balloon, they found yet another use for lead.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

LOL I really wish they had tried this.

Can we still use this for November? Please say we can! :P

HondaV65 on August 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Full Metal Jackets!!

Support your local Steel Mills!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on August 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM

speaking of old school gals singing about balloons with four letter names…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14IRDDnEPR4
nena

ted c on August 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Good.

As for the sinkers, couldn’t they be encased in plastic? Would raise the cost but might be helpful — if in fact this is a real issue.

rbj on August 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Glad they felt the heat on this one.

Logically though, if they can’t regulate lead, how do they square the circle and determine they have the right to regulate CO2?

Vashta.Nerada on August 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM

The EPA is a perfect example of circumvention of the will of the American People. Government and legislation by fiat, unrepresentative, unresponsive (or somewhat) and an organization that needs a guy like Chris Christie to walk through the place and knock over the damn cubicles.

ted c on August 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM

It is an important victory, mainly from the EPA’s own admission that ammunition is outside their jurisdictional reach.
============

Interesting,so was Deepwater Horizon,oh wait,
different branch of the government!!

Nevermind!!

canopfor on August 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Simply testing the waters. They will be back on this issue.

tx2654 on August 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Had the EPA pursued this in this electoral cycle, they would have risked inspiring a bipartisan effort to defund the agency, which a Republican House may do anyway to stop enforcement of their ridiculous carbon-dioxide endangerment finding.

They had better defund or disband the EPA, else I want my contributions back.

Vashta.Nerada on August 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Good.

As for the sinkers, couldn’t they be encased in plastic? Would raise the cost but might be helpful — if in fact this is a real issue.

rbj on August 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

We use steel shot in shotguns. Could do the same with fishing sinkers.

Vince on August 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Forget about this stuff. Defund the EPA so businesses can create jobs without the EPA getting in the way. Maybe restore the funding someday when the country can afford it.

Kohath on August 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

today, lead, tomorrow other load material. Primers, brass etc. They already do this.

ted c on August 27, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Looks like the new Congress has a lot of defunding and defanging to do.

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Actually, a lead ban isn’t necessary to take ammo out of the marketplace. The feds are the single largest customer for ammo manufacturers and all it would take is a phone call to the companies’ CEOs to get them to drop the civilian market.

How’s that for a seriously paranoid conspiracy theory?

Heh.

trapeze on August 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

the agency explained in a news release that it “does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).”

And a later ‘news release’ can explain that the previous one was in error and in fact they do have such authority.

When they feel the time is right.

sharrukin on August 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Why did Bush create all of that toxic lead in the first place?

BDavis on August 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM

speaking of old school gals singing about balloons with four letter names…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14IRDDnEPR4
nena

ted c on August 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

ted c:I’ll raise you one,with The 5th Dimension!!:)
====================================================

The 5th Dimension – Up, Up and Away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC9yD8YqXYI

canopfor on August 27, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Simply testing the waters. They will be back on this issue.
tx2654 on August 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Yep. They’ll be back on it on Nov 3rd.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on August 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM

This is the kind of nonsense you get we people are placed in a job they can’t be fired from.

Tommy_G on August 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Is AP going out on dinner dates? What’s up with all these late night Ed posts (not that I mind)?

BadgerHawk on August 27, 2010 at 9:44 PM

It’s about time the EPA begins an open comment period on a PETITION TO BAN THE EPA.

GarandFan on August 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I say….I demand…that lead be taken out of the
Chevy Volt,alls fair in love and war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on August 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Just keep an old car battery around. You can always cut and make your own sinkers.

seven on August 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM

It’s about time the EPA begins an open comment period on a PETITION TO BAN THE EPA.

GarandFan on August 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM

GarandFan: Repeal the EPA,splendid idea,where do I join up,
er petition!!:)

canopfor on August 27, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Email and letters to the elected ones no doubt had a lot to due with this retreat,surrender.We burned the wires all day.
Our next project is Ken Salazar needing more family time. Drill Now,You Betcha.
Call em all out.

Col.John Wm. Reed on August 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

How’s that for a seriously paranoid conspiracy theory?

Heh.

trapeze on August 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

There are some associates I’d like to pass that on to, but I know I’m going to be challenged to produce documentation of this data.
I won’t hold that against them.

Can you provide some links or other sources?

listens2glenn on August 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

The EPA has talked about bans on milk, dust, co2, Non-EPA-Certified Wood Stoves, etc. The idea that lead replacements for bullets, or other items will stop these guys is naive.

sharrukin on August 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Wasn’t it the EPA that was trying to claim that bullets / rounds were explosives leading to the potential of companies like Wal Mart to stop selling them?

BowHuntingTexas on August 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM

However, a comment period will remain open until September 15 on the other part of the petition, which asks EPA to ban the use of lead in fishing sinkers.

They can have my split shots when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Mark1971 on August 27, 2010 at 9:54 PM

The EPA still needs a massive budget cut, pronto. Are you listening GOP?

Kjeil on August 27, 2010 at 9:55 PM

We use steel shot in shotguns. Could do the same with fishing sinkers.

Vince on August 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

You could, at the cost of millions or billions.

Holger on August 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM

trapeze on August 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

I have to disagree here. Government is a volume purchaser of low-end low-margin product (mainly FMJ lead bullets in the military). The high margin items are civilian and law enforcement. The competition and the number of new technologies coming out shows that there is a vibrant civilian market.

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Maybe they were a bit afraid of how it would be turned into them!

If that was already said, sorry I jumped straight to the bottom.

bluemarlin on August 27, 2010 at 10:00 PM

We use steel shot in shotguns. Could do the same with fishing sinkers.

Vince on August 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Steel shot and fresh or salt water-not a good mix. Lead is useful for fishing weights in part because it is soft and can be easily crimped onto fishing line. Much more difficult to do with a hard metal.

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 10:02 PM

I would think that Government would be the first to oppose a lead ban; the increased cost of non-lead bullets would be a budget item and availability might become an issue.

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Would anything but lead be able to penetrate these blockheads?

(I probably shouldn’t think out-loud on-line)

EZnSF on August 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM

If the EPA actually thought this would make a great trial balloon, they found yet another use for lead.

Nice turn of phrase, Allah.

marybel on August 27, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Don’t forget, lead is also used as weight in fishing lures. Buzzbaits, spinnerbaits, jigs, roostertails, spoons, and even some crankbaits. Those are going to be exposed to water more often than a disposable split-shot sinker.

Holger on August 27, 2010 at 10:05 PM

I would think that Government would be the first to oppose a lead ban; the increased cost of non-lead bullets would be a budget item and availability might become an issue.

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Well, I am sure they could get the same exemption they get for depleted uranium.

sharrukin on August 27, 2010 at 10:08 PM

The EPA is a perfect example of “mission creep”. Their original purpose has been accomplished, by-and-large, and their strong work ethic has got them casting about for something more to do. The agency should be gutted by at least 95% and the rump rolled into some other agency — possibly the FDA.

Of course, the FDA — themselves — is over twice as large as it should be….

cthulhu on August 27, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Have no fear…. an exec. order is on the way.

Cass Sunstein will not be denied……. What ?…… You think this petition to ban lead came from some uber-left environmental group to that that hack Salazar and the EPA on it’s own ?

Wake up and pay attention to the big picture.

You may have seen me mention these two organizations before:

ICLEI – http://www.iclei.org

The International Coalition For The Responsibility To Protect – http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org

ICLEI is the localization of a one-world-standard on every single aspect of existence via a ‘green’ mandate and total government control and ICR2P is the global approach to local government.

They’re thoroughly interconnected.

The UN Small Arms Treaty and The UN Convention On The Rights Of The Child are just two the results of these UN-backed groups….. I’ve been trying to raise awareness on these two orgs for quite a number of years.

Kenny Solomon
South Flori-duh
I carry a firearm because a police officer is too heavy.

E T Cartman on August 27, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Bet you guys don’t even know about the World War III that is going on now over formaldehyde. This EPA is TOTALLY out of control.

rockmom on August 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM

A shame, I was really hoping they would follow through.

MadDogF on August 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM

How about a little love for the NRA for staying on this issue and getting the EPA to back down?

InTheBellyoftheBeast on August 27, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I would think that Government would be the first to oppose a lead ban; the increased cost of non-lead bullets would be a budget item and availability might become an issue.

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Figure out what is the most available substitute for lead; then figure out how much George Soros or some other Democrat billionaire has invested in mining/manufacturing it.

rockmom on August 27, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Sharks bump before they attack, this was a bump

Conservative Voice on August 27, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Sharks bump before they attack, this was a bump

Conservative Voice on August 27, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Yep.

Holger on August 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM

We use steel shot in shotguns. Could do the same with fishing sinkers.

Vince on August 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

If they gotten away with it for shotguns, other rounds would be next.

That picture on the main page. It is a Desert Eagle, it needs a semi-jacketed lead bullet. The lead is a lubricant for the barrel.

cozmo on August 27, 2010 at 10:18 PM

If there’s any agency in the Federal government that begs to have its entrails smeared on the pavement by the incoming GOP Congress, it’s the EPA.

Okay, maybe the DOJ’s excrescences come first, but then they have to get the piano wire around Lisa Jackson’s neck.

JEM on August 27, 2010 at 10:20 PM

If the EPA actually thought this would make a great trial balloon, they found yet another use for lead.

+1

dentalque on August 27, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Bet you guys don’t even know about the World War III that is going on now over formaldehyde. This EPA is TOTALLY out of control.

rockmom on August 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM

These are environuts staffing this agency, what do you expect?
BTW, I have no problem with the proper and safe use of formaldehyde (and formaldehyde donor products). Some of the substitutes have severe safe handling hazards as well as being more costly and less effective.

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 10:25 PM

We use steel shot in shotguns. Could do the same with fishing sinkers.

Vince on August 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Can’t use steel shot with full chokes, sometimes not even with modified. You also can’t use steel in fixed choke guns that are full or modified. You can use bismuth, which is four times the cost, and doesn’t pattern the same. For every shot I take at a duck, I take 50 at doves and pheasants with lead, and 500 at clay pigeons with lead. That is where the moronic nature of this idea really shows – this would hit target shooters far harder than hunters, based on shooting volume, and target shooting is the one area where lead can be recovered from the environment.

Vashta.Nerada on August 27, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Sharks bump before they attack, this was a bump

Conservative Voice on August 27, 2010 at 10:15 PM

That’s about the most clear and concise statement on the administration I’ve seen since the one-word ‘Sunstein-ism’ – “Nudge”.

Cheers CV !

E T Cartman on August 27, 2010 at 10:29 PM

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM

The Army is already looking at lead-free rounds.

BadgerHawk on August 27, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Sharks bump before they attack, this was a bump

Conservative Voice on August 27, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Beautiful equation from my standpoint.

bluemarlin on August 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM

As for the sinkers, couldn’t they be encased in plastic? Would raise the cost but might be helpful — if in fact this is a real issue.

rbj on August 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

They could, but the best alternative I’ve seen is the bismuth-tin alloys. Work just like the old stuff and you don’t have to worry about poisoning yourself, the fish, or the water.

I’ve also seen some limestone sinkers. Haven’t tried them myself but they look like they’d work dandy.

Dark-Star on August 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM

As for the sinkers, couldn’t they be encased in plastic? Would raise the cost but might be helpful — if in fact this is a real issue.

rbj on August 27, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Except when you crush a splitshot with your teeth or a pair of pliers to attach to your line. Then they’d be bitching about the plastic fragments. Someone suggested steel – like buckshot. A steel splitshot would be pretty hard to crimp as well. But, I’m sure some smart guy could engineer one that would work.

BacaDog on August 27, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Ok I just saw this and am LMFAO. This falls in to the Barney Fife world of “Ready….Fire….aim” Gimme the bullet Barney. LOL

simkeith on August 27, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Lead sinkers are pliable and flexible and easy to bend to attach them to the line.
That, and they are heavy too. That’s why there are lead sinkers.

Plastic or bixmuth-tin alloys are just not the same.

But I am rather sorry they didn’t try to ban lead ammunition before the election.

But this is not the end of attempts at back door gun control. Count on it.

Dhuka on August 27, 2010 at 10:46 PM

The Army is already looking at lead-free rounds.

BadgerHawk on August 27, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Obama has a head start. Bow.

Electrongod on August 27, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Actually, a lead ban isn’t necessary to take ammo out of the marketplace. The feds are the single largest customer for ammo manufacturers and all it would take is a phone call to the companies’ CEOs to get them to drop the civilian market.

How’s that for a seriously paranoid conspiracy theory?

Heh.

trapeze on August 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

have to disagree here. Government is a volume purchaser of low-end low-margin product (mainly FMJ lead bullets in the military). The high margin items are civilian and law enforcement. The competition and the number of new technologies coming out shows that there is a vibrant civilian market.

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Thanks for weighing in mad scientist.
That’s more like what I thought, but I couldn’t prove it and I’m not one to be contentious if I can’t back-up my beliefs with a with another source.

listens2glenn on August 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM

The Army is already looking at lead-free rounds.

BadgerHawk on August 27, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Thanks for the info. I looked it up: the army has been trying to perfect one for some time and is still unsuccessful. It seems the harder material they have chosen doesn’t work well at high temperatures (differential coefficient of expansion is a b!tch). The Marine Corps was dissatisfied with their results and adopted their own lead-based round. The new round is based on a hunting bullet design.

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 11:05 PM

So, they’re still going after fishing? It’s almost like the ammo thing was a cover to distract.

txhsmom on August 27, 2010 at 11:21 PM

The lead-free “green” rounds are already in combat and elsewhere.

Have been for a few months now.

The US Army is ordering literally hundreds of millions of these rounds from Lake City.

See if you remember this: http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/06/23/41283-army-begins-shipping-improved-556mm-cartridge

E T Cartman on August 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM

Save the trees. Ban CO2 now!

….uh….

Oh yeah.

Ummmmm.

Never mind.

Ms. Roseanne Rosannadanna at now o’clock.

hillbillyjim on August 27, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Screw lead.

Iran will be flush with depleted uranium before you know it.

HEAVY METAL, BABY.

hillbillyjim on August 27, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Aw darn! I was looking forward to seeing the army use plastic ammo.

What idiots these liberals are. They push a hot button issue that riles up their opposition two months before the mid term elections. It probably will cause them to lose two more senate seats and a dozen more in the house.

You can’t make stuff up like this.

Corky Boyd on August 27, 2010 at 11:56 PM

mad scientist on August 27, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Physics and chemistry is a cruel taskmaster at times isn’t it?

chemman on August 28, 2010 at 12:06 AM

The lead balloon.

hillbillyjim on August 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM

We already have enough foolishness without the EPA adding to it every day.

DEFUND IT, DISBAND IT, BURY IT…in a lead-lined coffin!!!

Send any EPA employees who won’t quit on their own to Iran, and let them screw that country up!!!

landlines on August 28, 2010 at 1:13 AM

Full Metal Jackass

DrAllecon on August 28, 2010 at 1:31 AM

all those lawyers on staff and they didn’t bother to notice that the Act specifically exempts ammunition?

Not worth a spit. Or the sheepskin on their walls.

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 1:35 AM

Actually, a lead ban isn’t necessary to take ammo out of the marketplace. The feds are the single largest customer for ammo manufacturers and all it would take is a phone call to the companies’ CEOs to get them to drop the civilian market.

How’s that for a seriously paranoid conspiracy theory?

Heh.

trapeze on August 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM

It’s a stupid one, because it’s utterly wrong. The govt is by no means the largest customer. In fact there’s significantly more ammo in private hands, thanks to the #1 Gun Salesman in Chief.

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Wasn’t it the EPA that was trying to claim that bullets / rounds were explosives leading to the potential of companies like Wal Mart to stop selling them?

BowHuntingTexas on August 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Nope. That was OSHA.

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 1:40 AM

That picture on the main page. It is a Desert Eagle, it needs a semi-jacketed lead bullet. The lead is a lubricant for the barrel.

cozmo on August 27, 2010 at 10:18 PM

No. That’s nonsense. The higher velocities and heat / pressure of the .44mag smear soft lead proejctiles down the barrel. They need jacketed ammo to prevent this, or lubed lead bullets with gas checks. A ‘semi-jacketed’ bullet design like a hollowpoint or JSP has nothing but copper in contact with the barrel.

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 1:48 AM

The Army is already looking at lead-free rounds.

BadgerHawk on August 27, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Already bought and shipping them. Something about lead-containing bullets being dangerous to the people we’re killing with them.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/06/army_green_ammo_062310w/

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 1:50 AM

It’s a stupid one, because it’s utterly wrong. The govt is by no means the largest customer. In fact there’s significantly more ammo in private hands, thanks to the #1 Gun Salesman in Chief.

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Geez, lighten up dude and learn to take a joke. The “heh” wasn’t enough of a hint for ya? It’s a Friday night…go drink something.

trapeze on August 28, 2010 at 1:51 AM

I do not trust the EPA..They were just checking to see if there were weak links in the fence..:)

Dire Straits on August 28, 2010 at 1:53 AM

Thanks for weighing in mad scientist.
That’s more like what I thought, but I couldn’t prove it and I’m not one to be contentious if I can’t back-up my beliefs with a with another source.

listens2glenn on August 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Roughly 9 BILLION cartridges in 2002.

http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231i332992t.pdf

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 2:04 AM

Geez, lighten up dude and learn to take a joke. The “heh” wasn’t enough of a hint for ya? It’s a Friday night…go drink something.

trapeze on August 28, 2010 at 1:51 AM

Screw off, kid.

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 2:06 AM

Screw off, kid.

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 2:06 AM

Wow, how eloquent. What happened? Meds run out?

trapeze on August 28, 2010 at 2:08 AM

Actually, a lead ban isn’t necessary to take ammo out of the marketplace. The feds are the single largest customer for ammo manufacturers and all it would take is a phone call to the companies’ CEOs to get them to drop the civilian market.

How’s that for a seriously paranoid conspiracy theory?

Heh.

Heh indeed, although my ammo comes from Russian military suppliers anyhow. :)

alflauren on August 28, 2010 at 2:20 AM

Obama is now going after commercial fisheries.

The regulation of sports fisheries will be next. Lead sinker composes the first round, so to speak.

Dhuka on August 28, 2010 at 3:36 AM

I wish the NRA hunting types would have put the same kind of pressure on the ERA when they were about to regulate CO2 – a power that gives them authority over your own respiratory system.

keep the change on August 28, 2010 at 6:53 AM

It’s like they didn’t bother to read the enabling law passed by Congress or something, and just thought that if it felt ‘good’ to do then they should do it.

This bureaucratic structure in the federal government must go and be rolled back, far, far, back.

It is the enemy of our liberty. We can lead very good lives in our States without the ‘help’ of the federal government, TYVM.

ajacksonian on August 28, 2010 at 7:04 AM

Must have realized they didn’t have enough containers for all the ammo being sent back.

tarpon on August 28, 2010 at 7:55 AM

Keep in mind that this shows there are people in the Obama administration actively trying to find some back door to restrict/ban guns in the U.S.

albill on August 28, 2010 at 8:04 AM

HondaV65 on August 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Yes we can.

manwithblackhat on August 28, 2010 at 8:42 AM

Dark-Star-Limestone sinkers are not acceptable bcs introduction of CaCO3 into natural waters will change the pH, thereby killing the fish. /s

The EPA has talked about bans on milk, dust, co2, Non-EPA-Certified Wood Stoves, etc. The idea that lead replacements for bullets, or other items will stop these guys is naive.

sharrukin on August 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM

News flash- The EPA has already been given a go by the courts to regulate dust.
Agriculture groups took it to court & lost that fight.
So the EPA will start regulating dust now.
We in the country have been hearing about this.
It’s coming to us out here.Of course those in the urban & city areas will not notice this.
Here in the country there are lots of unpaved roads, farmed fields, etc.
Even though many farmers do no-till farming, during harvest there’s lots of dust.
I drive down the mile of my driveway & kick up lots of dust.
Semi trucks hauling agriculture products (grain, cattle, etc) make LOTS of dust when there’s been no rain.
Oil field trucks in W. ND are making LOTS of dust on the country roads.
Dust is a natural part of life out here.
But the EPA IS going to regulate it us soon.
I predict it will be through a permit process of some kind.
Feed lots & things similar will have to purchase ANOTHER permit to make up for their ‘dust pollution’.
Semi trucks will have to buy ANOTHER permit to haul from farms on dirt roads.
The possibilities are endless.
Counties may even be forced to close many farm roads bcs the govt could demand that a certain % of their roads be paved over (pavement is actually more dangerous in some areas not to mention expensive).
This is your EPA.

Badger40 on August 28, 2010 at 9:18 AM

rayra on August 28, 2010 at 1:48 AM

I’ll stick with what the owners manual says.

.357 158gr semi-jacketed is all that is allowed for that fire arm. Tried .125 once and the recoil was much higher. Lead is a lubricant in other gun barrels and recovered bullets from this one show that the lead contacts the barrel. That part is kind of odd though because non-jacketed bullets are not recommended. The gas tube could become clogged.

cozmo on August 28, 2010 at 9:35 AM

This administration continues to go out of it’s way to tick people off in the most clueless ways imaginable.

RadClown on August 28, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Good, but beware of head fakes.

petefrt on August 28, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 2