Thursday, August 26, 2010

Red Flag Warning EPA Ammunition Ban

There is yet another assault on an individual’s God given right to bear arms; this one coming from of all places, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). First let me give a tip of the hat to Say Uncle and by extension the National Shooting Sports Foundation where I first learned of an underhanded attempt to ban traditional ammunition set in motion by an environmental group called the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).


“With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.”


Let that sink in for a moment, “the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components”; more than hunters and sports enthusiasts should be concerned the EPA could conceivably make it impossible to buy ammunition for almost any weapon, to include those used for self defense. I don’t know about you; but red flags began waving the moment I read that paragraph; something about the 2nd Amendment, or am I mistaken?


I looked up the Center for Biological Diversity and was impressed with their staff’s credentials; unfortunately I’d have to classify the entire group of well educated individuals as extremists who actually believe they’ve earned the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. These folk’s agenda supposedly is saving the earth while ignoring individual God given rights protected by our constitution; an interesting paradox.


I remember seeing an explanation, the difference between a conservative’s take on issues compared with a progressive’s take. Say for instance, if a conservative doesn’t like hunting he simply doesn’t hunt while a progressive who doesn’t like hunting will do his level best to make sure nobody else can go hunting.


Never mind, “There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations”; environmental progressives really don’t give a hoot (I couldn’t resist; my apologies), really don’t give a hoot about facts as long as their agenda moves forward.


The CBD lists it primary mission on its website and expects the broad natured statement to exempt it from criticism due to the lofty expression of purpose.


“At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive.”


If this were Saturday Night Live I’d be looking for Church Lady to use her favorite line, “Well isn’t that special”. I particularly like their inclusion of “creative media”. Creative media, that’s where feelings and good intentions outweigh facts and individual rights; no different than the EPA’s claim that CO2 is a hazardous gas which must be regulated regardless of whether or not Congress acts on Cap & Trade legislation.


Never mind, “A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk”. The EPA isn’t interested in facts which run contrary to their agenda; in this particular case they want to outlaw traditional ammunition, purportedly to save the environment.


I’ll be the first to admit lead ammunition is dangerous; standing on the wrong side of the ‘bang switch’ is often fatal. I read an autopsy report, written with a certain amount of sarcasm, in which a gunshot victim reportedly died of lead poisoning.


One more point from the article posted on the National Shooting Sports Foundation site, “Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies”. What in thunder does the EPA have to do with regulating ammunition unless, once more for effect; Unless (let that word elongate and extend musically), Unless the EPA has an ulterior motive for wanting traditional ammunition banned?


The Obama administration has shown its displeasure with our constitutionally protected God given right to own and bear arms. They have expressed this displeasure by preparing to have Congress approve the UN Gun Treaty which would get around the 2nd Amendment by turning gun control over to the United Nations.


“Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.”


The EPA’s involvement in banning traditional ammunition is yet another aspect of running our nation into the ground. The EPA and other so called environmental organizations, specifically the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) have shown contempt for property rights, which are inseparable from our God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The EPA would put the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in a plastic garbage bag and bury them in a land fill rather than individual citizens have ammunition for their guns.


Please direct your letters of opposition directly:


Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4700
Fax: (202) 501-1450
Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov


I recommend finding a way to ban the EPA, either through cutting its funding or some other means of removing their influence. They represent a threat to traditional American individuals much the same as they claim humans threaten the environment; their existence alone represents the threat to our way of life. When you hear the EPA is involved in almost anything, red flags should start waving.


This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

6 comments:

MK said...

It's seems the gun-hating scum are reverting to old tactics, if they can ban guns no problem, they'll push to make it too expensive and/or too difficult to acquire one legally.

Would it surprise you to find out that some if not most in this Center for Biological Diversity probably believe in some sort of human culling program, to you know, maintain the Biological Diversity of the planet.

Jahn said...

I say we do the only patriotic thing there is to do: We'll just have to turn in all our ammunition to the government.

One bullet at a time.

Starsplash said...

“At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction.


Souncds kindof like the "living off and with the land" attitude that native americans had, still have I guess.

HuckleberryBob said...

Petitioner's contention that 15 U.S.C. § 2605(a)(2)(A)(i) bestows upon the EPA the authority to regulate lead ammunition like any other "chemical substance" is misplaced.

By statutory enactment, 15 U.S.C. § 2602(2)(B)(v) specifically states that the term "chemical substance" does not include "any article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [1986] [26 U.S.C. § 4181] (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by section 4182 or 4221 [26 USCS § 4182 or 4221] or any other provision of such Code)".

26 U.S.C. § 4181 states:
"There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:
Articles taxable at 10 percent--
Pistols.
Revolvers.
Articles taxable at 11 percent--
Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
Shells, and cartridges."

Because "Shells, and cartridges" which contain "lead shot" or "lead bullets" are an "article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code", it follows that the EPA is without authority to ban "lead shot" or "lead bullets" because such articles are statutorily excluded from being regulated as a "chemical substance."

T. F. Stern said...

MK, Ron, and Jahn; Thanks for stopping by on this one.

HuckleberryBob gets the award for dotting the I and crossing the T with the detailed reason why the EPA has no business being involved with this. You get one atta boy and a gold star on the class roster.

T. F. Stern said...

This just in:

"The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition filed by environmental activists seeking to ban lead in ammunition and fishing tackle, saying such regulation is beyond the agency's authority.

The agency's decision, announced Friday shortly after FoxNews.com published its report on the issue, sided with hunters and fishermen who had argued that the such regulations weren't allowed under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/epa-rejects-calls-ban-lead-ammo-fishing-tackle/?test=latestnews

My guess would be the EPA got plenty of input from folks in the last 24 hours letting them know this particular game had been exposed from the shadows.