TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering ... ction-now/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go to the link above for the whole release.

EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition

August 25, 2010 By Larry Keane

All Gun Owners, Hunters and Shooters:

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.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.

...

NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition:

[...Go to the NSSF link to get the stats...]

Steps to take:

1. Submit comment online to the EPA.

2. Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban:

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

3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here.

Who thinks the EPA is _really_ going to listen to us? Raise your hands.

Anyone? Anyone?

Didn't think so.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/201 ... ghanistan/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The new 5.56 ammo has no lead in it - a steel core with bismuth-tin alloy around it, in a copper jacket. Bismuth is 9.7 g/cc, lead is 11.3, and cheaper.

And no, I don't think the EPA will listen to us but I doubt it will step on the toes of businesses that sell a lot of ammunition to the government. Especially not in the middle of a recession. Or maybe I'm just "wishful thinking".

Certainly if you don't call or write or complain, they aren't going to listen. Silence is agreement when rules are proposed.

2. Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban:

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

3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here.

I posted this on another forum I hang out at, but I'll repeat it here. Contacting Lisa Jackson directly will be an absolute waste of time. You could cover her desk with snail mail and fill her voice-mail to overflowing and shut down the EPA mail-servers with messages ... but if it isn't in that docket, it isn't going to be considered. Use the docket link, or PM me and I'll help you walk through it.

Tracking, commenting on, and advocating through EPA and OSHA regulations is a good 20% of my job, if not more. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, so to speak. You go through the comment process and enter your comments in the docket, or they didn't happen.

Now, letters to your congress-persons might have more effect, particularly if your reps or senators are on the appropriate committees in their respective houses (Environment and Public Works, or Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate, Natural Resources in the House). A letter or call to them, urging them to push EPA to decline the petition, might help.

Also, please be aware that this is simply a petition for EPA to consider, it's not a rulemaking in and of itself, nor even a proposed rule.

Here is the petition and attachment:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 202010.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/P" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... chment.pdf

EPA acknowledged receiving the petition on August 18:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .18.10.pdf

Yankee Girl wrote:Here is the petition and attachment:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 202010.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/P" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... chment.pdf

EPA acknowledged receiving the petition on August 18:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .18.10.pdf

The links don't work.

We all knew it was just a matter of time. They hate us who shoot.

fannypacker wrote:We all knew it was just a matter of time. They hate us who shoot.

We shoot them who hate?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Yankee Girl wrote:Here is the petition and attachment:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 202010.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/P" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... chment.pdf

EPA acknowledged receiving the petition on August 18:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .18.10.pdf

The links don't work.

The link to submit a comment in my original post works, at least for me. It opens directly to a page to enter comments. With typical bureaucratic flair, it won't tell you what you are entering comments for other than the docket number, but if you click on that you can get to the documentation about the petition.

Here it is again: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 6480b3974b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course comments left on Lisa's email or phone do not go into the official file, but unless she has already made up her mind, I don't think getting a dumptruck of mail will be totally ignored. I am sure every organization does this so the individual comments will not matter so much as the volume, in negative sense. In otherwords, if they don't get a flood of comments from gun owners, but they do from others, then that sends a signal about how where support is and isn't. And of course, mail and phone calls from our senators and representatives are especially noteworthy.

The time to kill this is now, while it is in the petition stage. The farther it goes, the harder it will be to stop. Bureaucracies do not spend time doing the research and papershuffling required to publish an actual rule just to pull it at the end. They intend for it to go into effect. Modified perhaps, but in effect. And the EPA is not our friend.

Done. Thanks.

I e-mailed Kay Bailey Hutchison on this issue, asking if it was really an issue and letting her know that if it was I did not support it.

Elb,

You wrote: "Here it is again: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 6480b3974b "

Link worked, comment submitted (cribbed and edited from the NSSF page in your first post).

Regards,
Andrew

Soapbox-- (grrr!!!)

Somewhere long ago someone pointed out that the recently recovered CIVIL WAR lead minnie balls bullets did NOT desolve, instead they developed a 'coating' then just set there.

The lead has to be mined from the earth, and is a natural element. (Impossible to eliminate!)

So we refine lead, make bullets, then MOSTLY shoot at a range where the lead is RECLAIMED, and RECYCLED over and over. This uses far less energy overall than all the processes for the "fancy" bullets AND probably a bunch less pollution.

So Lead Bullets ARE ALREADY THE MOST 'GREEN' !!!


???ARE THE NEW BULLETS RECYCLEABLE??????, - Economically???? - Overall LESS pollution????
----------Sincerely doubtful.----



Regards,
Blue

This doesn't have anything to do with lead "poluting" the environment. I guarantee that they could care less about what lead does or doesn't do to the environment. If enviro-whackos really believed all this stuff, Al Gore would be living in a log cabin with a zero-emissions footprint.

This has everything to do with gun control. These folks want to eliminate our 2A rights, and this is just another avenue they are traversing to make it happen.

There are some environmental efforts that I do appreciate, such as vehicle emissions becoming far cleaner than they were in the 70's. But banning lead ammo?? I'm not buying their argument.

EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead Ammunition Ban

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.ns ... 8C00768006" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;