Court ruling against lead opposition

[AKBEE]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews

At least it is a start!

[redale]

Now if we could just get back to lead shot for migratory birds, ie ducks and geese.

[kasilofchrisn]

That is great news!

Though according to some forum members you can't trust what you read on fox (faux)news.
Also did you not know that endangered Alaskan condors injest lead in dead animals and are now facing extinction?
You need to find it on a more credibal unbiased news source such as MSNBC.
All kidding aside that is great news!

[iofthetaiga]

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/421BCEB1FE2C191285257DB70054D62E/$file/13-5228-1528839.pdf

[ADfields]

Well this tidbit is very interesting . . .

"The Toxic Substances Control Act exempts cartridges and shells from regulation"

[iofthetaiga]

Well this tidbit is very interesting . . .

"The Toxic Substances Control Act exempts cartridges and shells from regulation"

Well, it's incorrect and misleading to state that it "exempts" them; the fact is that it doesn't have anything to do with them one way or another. The TSCA <LINK> is pretty specific in scope, and it only really deals with lead in the context of lead based paint.

[Smitty of the North]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews

At least it is a start!

I know it sounds encouraging, but when you consider what else was said in the article, (See Below) it doesn't mean much. **************************************************
"Lead is a carcinogen with significant health effects on people. EPA banned lead-based paint and lead-based paint products in 1978.

In 1991, the government adopted a nationwide ban on lead shot in migratory waterfowl hunting after biologists estimated 2 million ducks died each year from ingesting spent lead pellets."

************************************************** ***********
OK, so it's delayed right now, but the "Premise" for doing it is STILL THERE. And, it ain't goin away as long as Junk Science prevails.

(2 Million Ducks??? How many ducks are killed by hunters each year?)

SOTN

[Smitty of the North]

Well, it's incorrect and misleading to state that it "exempts" them; the fact is that it doesn't have anything to do with them one way or another. The TSCA <LINK> is pretty specific in scope, and it only really deals with lead in the context of lead based paint.

Yeah right, no-one is interested in banning lead for bullets, and sinkers for fishing.

No-one had, or will have, reason to believe that the EPA wants and will one day regulate/ban lead bullets.

It's all just a huge misunderstanding. Thanks for setting us straight. AS USUAL.

You are soooo predictable.

SOTN

[GrassLakeRon]

Ok, but the last major lead plant has shut down. So they are exempt, but no lead production means ship from overseas or no lead bullets. Ruling or not....

[kasilofchrisn]

I believe this passed. Thats why the judge ruled the way he did. Hopefully this holds them off for awhile on our lead ammo.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/congre...110000868.html

Bullets
When House Republican leadership held a press conference Wednesday morning, Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) could have chosen any number of elements of the omnibus to highlight. He opted for a provision preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from passing any rule “to regulate the lead content of ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act.” He said the threat of such a rule had made it so hard to buy ammo that people can’t even find it at Walmart.

[iofthetaiga]

Yeah right, no-one is interested in banning lead for bullets, and sinkers for fishing.

No-one had, or will have, reason to believe that the EPA wants and will one day regulate/ban lead bullets.

It's all just a huge misunderstanding. Thanks for setting us straight. AS USUAL.

You are soooo predictable.

SOTN

As are the likes of you, Smitty. Predictable, in your attempts at spin doctoring, putting words in others mouths, and reading things which aren't there. I did not state, nor imply that "no-one is interested in banning lead for bullets". I'm sure those people are out there, somewhere; maybe you're even one of them, who knows? One thing's prety sure tho, and that is the fact that no one is going use the TSCA to ban ammunition. At least not without changing it first. As far as the EPA goes, in the case in question here, they were arguing against the proposal that ammunition based lead could/should be regulated under the TSCA, and your beloved NRA was siding with them. I'm quite sure you're smart enough to know that was the case, so why the attempt to spin my post?

[iofthetaiga]

I believe this passed. Thats why the judge ruled the way he did. Hopefully this holds them off for awhile on our lead ammo.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/congre...110000868.html

Bullets
When House Republican leadership held a press conference Wednesday morning, Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) could have chosen any number of elements of the omnibus to highlight. He opted for a provision preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from passing any rule “to regulate the lead content of ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act.” He said the threat of such a rule had made it so hard to buy ammo that people can’t even find it at Walmart.

Again, Chris, this is feel-good Republican smoke and mirrors, without the smoke. The TSCA can't be used to ban lead based ammunition, the EPA wasn't attempting to (some environmental groups were proposing that they should, the EPA argued, correctly, that they shouldn't/couldn't); thus, the Repubs passing a (non-)funding bill "preventing" the EPA from doing something they weren't attempting to do in the first place is ridiculous on its face. And if you truly believe your statement "Thats why the judge ruled the way he did.", then you truly are gullible. The judges (there were three of them) ruled the way they did because of this wording in the TSCA:

(v) any article the sale of which is subject to the tax im-
posed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax
provided by section 4182 or 4221 or any other provision of such
Code), and

[ADfields]

Well, it's incorrect and misleading to state that it "exempts" them; the fact is that it doesn't have anything to do with them one way or another. The TSCA <LINK> is pretty specific in scope, and it only really deals with lead in the context of lead based paint.

From the first URL you posted.
Opinion for the Court filed by
Circuit Judge TATEL.

"EPA went on to explain that, even were it to consider the petition, it would deny it on the merits because another provision of TSCA, section 3(2)(B)(v), exempts cartridges and shells from the definition of "chemical substance."
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ‘‘chemical
substance’’ means any organic or inorganic substance of a particular
molecular identity, including—



(v) any article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed
by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax
provided by section 4182 or 4221 or any other provision of such
Code), and



looks to me like ammunition is exempt just as stated.

[ADfields]

From the first URL you posted.
Opinion for the Court filed by
Circuit Judge TATEL.

"EPA went on to explain that, even were it to consider the petition, it would deny it on the merits because another provision of TSCA, section 3(2)(B)(v), exempts cartridges and shells from the definition of "chemical substance."
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ‘‘chemical
substance’’ means any organic or inorganic substance of a particular
molecular identity, including—



(v) any article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed
by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax
provided by section 4182 or 4221 or any other provision of such
Code), and



looks to me like ammunition is exempt just as stated.

Here is section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code

26 U.S. Code § 4181 - Imposition of taxThere 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:
Pistols.
Revolvers.
Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
Shells, and cartridges.

Plain as day these things are 100% exempt from the TSCA just as was stated!
It isn't as you say "incorrect and misleading to state that it "exempts" them" as it in full fact does exempt them.

[iofthetaiga]

...looks to me like ammunition is exempt just as stated.

Yes, so are any number of other things. It would have been more correct of me to say it doesn't specifically exempt them... Nowhere in the act does it use the words "ammunition, bullets, cartridge, shells, shot", etc., let alone lead sinkers, or anything else of the sort. But they are, in fact, exempt, by virtue of the fact they fall into the category of items as described in 3(2)(B)(v). As I said, the act is pretty narrow in focus; it pretty much only deals with lead in the context of lead based paint. It was foolish of the environmental groups to think they could stretch the defined scope of the TSCA to include ammunition, and correct for the EPA to take the stance that it should remaining within the scope of its regulatory mandate. Kind of entertaining to watch a case in which the NRA testifies alongside the EPA, eh?