Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control Reform Activism
In reply to the discussion: Zeroing In on Lead in Hunters’ Bullets [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)26. The law is federal, so from Congress.
I looked, I cannot find the 'effing thing anywhere, only references to it, most of which are broken links. Might have to read the congressional register for the period of 91-92 to actually find the stinking thing. It has to be somewhere in Title 50, Part 20, buried in there somewhere.
That said, your suspicion was correct, it bans a lot less than that poster suggested. It bans it's use for WATERFOWL only, or upland birds where waterfowl are also present. It does not ban it for all birds, and there are a lot of uses besides that introduce it to the environment.
Eliminating it for all purposes, even target loads, seems a sensible step.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Any suggestion on what to use for non-shotguns, that isn't copper-jacketed lead?
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2013
#3
can you cite the regulation that bans it as you say, so that everyone can look at the regulation?
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#15
wait, you're talking about a regulation and you don't know what it's called or how to find it?
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#17
you can't quote the regulation, but you trust a right wing source that is against the minimum wage?
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#21
You make good points, though a regulation is from a gov't agency, not congress
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#27
thank you for coming back to post here that there's no need to do anything else about lead shot
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#33
apparently not enough is recovered or there wouldn't be the pollution problems would there?
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#9
Cigarettes, used condums, plastic, oil, balloons, fishing line, empty beer cans.
Remmah2
Mar 2013
#10
right, so since litter on the beaches is illegal, sounds like you're saying this should also be
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#12
there are plenty of solutions, just more opposition to actually doing the solutions
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#37
A significant portion of ammunition is designed for self-defense rather than hunting
Peter cotton
Mar 2013
#42
If it has polluted the environment and has the potential to pollute again, it needs to be regulated
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#43
Sure such bullets have polluted the environment....but so has the lead in #2 pencils.
Peter cotton
Mar 2013
#45
hey, #2 pencils aren't lead, they are graphite, stop posting BS to downplay environmental problems
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#48
OMG: you aren't helping your cause with this. #2 pencils (or any pencils) have never contained lead
hlthe2b
Mar 2013
#49
the thing to know about NRA and pro-gun propaganda is they'll use a lie if it works for them
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#50
by the way, you need to leave the group if you are going to post here to discourage gun control
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#44
telling us that an article about lead pollution from bullets is not something to control
CreekDog
Mar 2013
#47