Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Nordyke ready to go | Main | BATFE hierarchy largely empty »

Win for shooting ranges under RCRA

Posted by David Hardy · 24 August 2009 09:34 AM

Metacon Gun Club in Connecticut was sued by homeowners in the area (who probably bought houses next to a shooting range and then became upset that a shooting was next to their houses) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA applies to "discarded" material that is classified as hazardous waste. Plaintiffs' theory was that this applied to lead bullets and shot on the ground and in the backstops.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court, which agreed with the EPA that the discharge of projectiles is part of their normal use, and firing them does not "discard" them within meaning of the law. It also affirmed a finding that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a case under the Clean Water Act.

Hat tip to reader William Taggart....

· shooting

3 Comments | Leave a comment

D.Laden | August 24, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply

Notice that one of the plaintiff's amici was the National Wildlife Federation.
Your gun club may be members of, or support organizations that are affiliated with them.
Until recently, here in Pa., the largest statewide group, Pa. Fed. of Sportsmens Clubs, was an affiliate of that organization.
You have to be careful where your money goes.

deadcenter | August 24, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply

interesting. where i work, we've been interpreting rcra that way for the 10 years i've been here and the state has never disagreed with that interpretation.

Joe Mama | August 25, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply

I lifted this from a PDF somewhere:

Connecticut Coastal Fishermen’s
Association v. Remington Arms Company, et
al.

The court concluded that lead shot and
clay targets meet the statutory definition of solid waste because these materials were “discarded (i.e. abandoned)” and “left to accumulate long after they have served their intended purpose.”

Further, the court concluded that based upon
toxicity testing and evidence of lead
contamination, the lead shot was a hazardous
waste subject to RCRA.

The important point to consider here is that if
lead shot and clay target debris are discarded
(i.e. abandoned), these materials are considered
a solid waste as defined in the statute and the
facility may be subject to governmental or citizen
suits.

If, on the other hand, the discharged lead shot is
recovered or reclaimed on a regular basis, no
statutory solid waste (or hazardous waste)
would be present and imminent hazard suits
would be avoided.

Leave a comment