EPA Surrenders to NRA on Gun Control Issue

[Apparition]

EPA rejects attempt to regulate lead in bullets after NRA protests

In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn't have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. 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.
Click here to find out more!

The EPA had planned to solicit public responses to the petition for two months, but this afternoon issued a statement rejecting a 100-page request from the Center for Biological Diversity, the American Bird Conservancy, and three other groups for a ban on lead bullets, shot, and fishing sinkers. The agency is still considering what to do about sinkers.

The decision was a huge victory for the National Rifle Association which just seven days ago asked that the EPA reject the petition, suggesting that it was a back door attempt to limit hunting and impose gun control. It also was a politically savvy move to take gun control off the table as the Democrats ready for a very difficult midterm election.

The NRA has spent two years tracking down rumors that the Obama administration wants to impose gun and ammo bans on the public, but hasn't found anything credible. While the lead ban was viewed initially as a substantial chance for the administration to move into challenging the Second Amendment, the swift rejection by the EPA settled concerns inside NRA headquarters today.

Here is what the EPA just sent Washington Whispers:

EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead Ammunition Ban

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today denied a petition calling for a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA sent a letter to the petitioners explaining the rejection – that letter can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/sect21.html

Steve Owens, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, issued the following statement on the agency's decision:

"EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – nor is the agency seeking such authority.

"This petition, which was submitted to EPA at the beginning of this month, is one of hundreds of petitions submitted to EPA by outside groups each year. This petition was filed under TSCA, which requires the agency to review and respond within 90 days.

"EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead; however, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife.

"As there are no similar jurisdictional issues relating to the agency's authority over fishing sinkers, EPA – as required by law – will continue formally reviewing a second part the petition related to lead fishing sinkers.

"Those wishing to comment specifically on the fishing tackle issue can do so by visiting http://www.regulations.gov. EPA will consider comments that are submitted by September 15."

Source: http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/epa-surrenders-to-nra-on-gun-control-issue-epa-rejects-attempt-to-regulate-lead-in-bullets-after-nra-protests.html

[Eyebone]

Thank you for posting this, thats good news.

I notice the article was hazy on who actually brought the petition to the EPA.

Well as we might have guessed it was a well funded group of left wing sociopaths called the Center for Biological Diversity.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/story/index.html

The Center’s special trick is to systematically and ambitiously use biological data, legal expertise, and the citizen petition provision of the powerful Endangered Species Act to obtain sweeping, legally binding new protections for animals, plants, and their habitat — first in New Mexico, then throughout the Southwest, next through all 11 western states and into other key areas across the country. With each passing year the Center has expanded its territory, which now extends to the protection of species throughout the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and international regions as remote as the North and South poles. As our range grew, and first tens, then hundreds of species gained protection as a result of our groundbreaking petitions, lawsuits, policy advocacy, and outreach to media, we went from living and working on a shoestring to having offices around the country — from relying on donated time from pro bono attorneys at large firms to building a full-time staff of 20 prominent environmental lawyers and 12 scientists who work exclusively on our campaigns.

Kierán Suckling (born 1964) is one of the founders of the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation group known for its innovative approach to the protection of endangered species and wilderness. The Center, which has secured protection for over 350 endangered species and 70,000,000 acres (280,000 km2) of habitat in the U.S., has an excellent reputation for its scientific, litigation and media work among those in favor of environmental protection. It regularly comes under fire from logging, mining, livestock and other industries. Suckling founded the Center for Biological Diversity in 1989 along with Peter Galvin, Robin Silver, and Todd Schulke. Suckling served as executive director from 1989 to 2004, policy director from 2005 to 2007, and became the executive director again in February 2008

Suckling has published numerous essays on the link between the loss of biological and cultural diversity and the essential relationship between environmentalism, the arts, and the rights of marginalized communities and people. He has infused the traditionally staid environmental litigation arena with an unusual degree of creative energy, leading the New Yorker to dub the Center “the most important radical environmental group in the country” and Suckling a “trickster, philosopher, publicity hound, master strategist, and unapologetic pain in the ass.” The LA Weekly calls the Center “pound for pound, dollar for dollar, the most effective conservation organization in the country,” and says of Suckling: “Rimbaud reinvented poetry. Kierán Suckling would do the same with environmentalism.”

I don't remember hearing about "Suckling" doing anything about the environmental damage done to our Arizona desert by illegals.

Even though he lives in Arizona.

A group of old hippies and collage "graduates" that don't feel like actually working for a living is much fun.

[Stop Making Cents]

I'm not an expert on ammo, but it does seem like a good idea to remove lead if it's going to wind up in our lakes and streams. What would the effect be on ammunition? Is there a metal that could easily replace lead without giving up any quality in the ammo? Any insights appreciated !

[Eyebone]

I'm not an expert on ammo, but it does seem like a good idea to remove lead if it's going to wind up in our lakes and streams. What would the effect be on ammunition? Is there a metal that could easily replace lead without giving up any quality in the ammo? Any insights appreciated !


We/they have already done that.

Lead shot is illegal for hunting ducks, which was the largest cause of lead poisoning in birds.

Birds like ducks and chickens have gizzards. they swallow tiny rocks and their stomachs use the rocks to grind up their food so they would swallow bird shot thinking it was pebbles.

No bird is going to swallow a .45 or 30 06.


No

[LuckyStrike]

Just perpetuating the myth of the NRA protecting gun rights.