« Video on my brother in law | Main | Wisconsin Ct. of Apps. strikes down switchblade ban »
Bureaucracy and non-lead ammunition
The pitch for "nontoxic," i.e., non-lead ammunition has long been at odds with the pitch to ban "armor-piercing" ammunition. Under Federal law, AP ammo includes any ammo with "a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium." 18 U.S.C. ยง921(a)(17). In short, all bullets made of any likely useful metal OTHER than lead. The definition does have some exceptions, including "a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."
Here's some video from Attorney General Lynch testifying in House hearings, in which Rep. Ratcliff points out that ammo manufacturers have sent in 32 requests for exemption over the past four years, and so far none has been acted upon, or even gotten a responsive letter. (Ms. Lynch responds that she has never heard of the requests). Odds are pretty good that it's the same today. Somewhere there is a letter delegating the AG's power to someone else, and that someone else could care less, nor does the AG.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Lead in the environment is highly stable. If one worries about leaching, then the best treatment is to add phosphate fertilizer which will convert the dissolving lead to lead phosphate, a highly insoluble solid.
Barring that, take a look at the mini-balls and conicals from the war of northern aggression. Many still have teeth marks in them.
Next time there's a hurricane, rush down and buy yourself a scrap sailboat. Many have several thousand pounds of lead in their keel.
I digress. The real point is that regardless of the wrong decisions of the SC expanding the commerce clause the federal government has no authority to ban anything. The proof lies in the 18th amendment wherein the government had to be given permission to ban booze. If the commerce clause had any attached authority like is claimed today, the 18th was wholly an exercise in futility since it was unnecessary.
More so, the 1787 Convention proves that the commerce clause covered nothing but preventing the states from screwing with each other. Congress wasn't even given power to create the ICC or a federal DOT. You see, the Framers offered up to let Congress regulate "stages on the post roads". The conventioneers killed that addition to the Constitution leaving the Congress without the authority to even regulate vessels of commerce. But the good ol' SC screwed the people with that allowing the regulation of vessels, then later manufacturing, and today every freaking thing in the Universe.
BTW, the EPA states that lead levels of roughly 10 micrograms per deciliter MAY result in a depression of IQ by 4 points in an IQ test with a standard deviation of 15.
The truth is lead in many products provides better, more stable products such a lead based paints for automobiles.
And of course, nothing in the genetics of the test subjects would make the test subjects dumber to begin with.
It's "could not care less," not "could care less."
You must be from New England.
Ho-hum, just the next frontier in banning guns, move along, there's nothing to see here. It's simple really, ban lead, then don't allow any substitutes. If there's nothing to shoot, then a handgun is just a poorly designed hammer. The "science" supporting environmental contamination by lead projectiles is about as sound as the media's version of global warming.