Reply																		
							Tue 31 Aug, 2010 10:23 pm
						
						
					
					
					
						THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Supreme Court's recent McDonald and Heller decisions have thus far 
thwarted the gun grabbers' best efforts by upholding the individual's right to own firearms. 
Late Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency added another victory to the list 
as it shot down an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment through 
the regulation of bullets. On Aug. 3, the American Bird Conservancy 
and groups like Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility petitioned 
the Environmental Protection Agency to ban traditional lead ammunition 
as a "health risk."
Obviously, the argument was not that recipients of a 45-caliber slug might suffer 
from lead poisoning. Instead, these activists asserted that bullets weighing 
less than half an ounce might hit the ground and somehow poison the planet. 
It just isn't true. The Clinton administration's EPA looked into the issue 
and found no cause for concern. The claim that "lead based ammunition 
is hazardous is in error," EPA senior science adviser William Marcus wrote 
in a Dec. 25, 1999, letter. Lead on the soil surface "does not break down," 
he explained. It "does not pose an environmental or human hazard. ... 
In water lead acts much the same as in soil."
Even eating an animal that has been shot by lead ammunition poses no risk 
to human health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted 
blood tests on 736 hunters and reported in 2008 that lead ammunition 
produced very small changes in lead exposure, with concentrations well below 
CDC benchmark levels of concern.
On the other hand, the proposed restrictions would have caused real harm. 
Ammunition containing lead, a dense and heavy metal, has significant 
advantages, such as greater stopping power and more accuracy. 
Lighter ammunition has less momentum and over a longer distance will be 
less accurate. Using nonlead ammunition in guns designed for lead causes 
them to wear out much more quickly, and the ammunition itself is generally 
twice as expensive.
This time, however, the EPA did not make its decision on the merits of the argument. 
The agency instead agreed with an Aug. 20 filing from the National Rifle Association 
that explained how Congress had specifically excluded ammunition from 
the Toxic Substances Control Act which governs potentially harmful materials 
such as lead. This failed attempt to harass law-abiding gun owners using 
an unelected bureaucracy underscores the importance of perpetual vigilance 
in preserving the most important of constitutional rights.
					
				 
				
						
														
					
													@OmSigDAVID,
												There is a special case in which lead can be toxic to water fowl, but it was addressed years ago. Ducks and geese swallow the stuff thinking it's gravel, so it slowly grinds away in their craws and probably is toxic.
Only somewhat related, the old clay pigeons they used to bust up were toxic to cattle. I don't know if they have changed the composition or not. I expect PETA to take a stand on clay pigeons any day.