S. 4157 and HR405 - LEAD Act

xsn10s

WKR
Joined
May 3, 2022
Messages
387

Erict

WKR
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
606
Location
near Albany, NY
To be clear, the proposed legislation does NOT "ban lead ammunition". It bans the discharge of a firearm using such ammunition. This is different than waterfowl regulations, where one cannot even POSSESS "lead" ammo while hunting. If passed, many will still legally be able to possess lead ammo for their favorite handgun, carry a loaded shotgun with lead slugs/buckshot for bear defense, etc. Trappers would still be able to carry cheap rimfire ammo for dispatch. No violation until discharged. Oddly, no exemptions for self-defense or defense of others. Frankly, I think it's a terribly worded proposal. Unless an enforcement officer actually watched you discharge the firearm using lead ammo, or unless you don't understand your right to not answer questions, it would probably be hard to prove.

Sorry for the sidetrack, and thanks for the heads up. It may take 50 more years, but I think the FEDS and states will chip away at lead ammo and its manufacturers until it is no more.

PROPOSED TEXT:
"This bill directs the Department of the Interior to promulgate final regulations prohibiting the discharge of a firearm using ammunition other than nonlead ammunition included on the list established pursuant to this bill on all lands and waters under the jurisdiction and control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Interior shall establish and annually update a list of nonlead ammunition.

The prohibition shall not apply to (1) a government official or agent who is carrying out a statutory duty unrelated to the management of wildlife; (2) a state, local, tribal, or federal law enforcement officer, or the agent of such an officer, who is carrying out a statutory duty; or (3) an active member of the U.S. military who is carrying out official duties.

The regulations promulgated pursuant to this bill shall provide that any person that knowingly violates the prohibition may be assessed a civil penalty by Interior of (1) no more than $500 for the first violation, and (2) no less than $1,000 or more than $5,000 for each subsequent violation."
 
OP
H
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
2,069
Yes I had read s4157 and you're right is doesn't ban you from possessing it. But there is no exceptions except for that which you've listed. So, it doesn't include bear defense rounds.

I don't think this has a chance of passing. But, the USFWS proposal for nonlead ammunition in new wildlife refuge areas will set a bit more of a precedent than the woterfowl lead shot ban did, which is worrysome.
 

xsn10s

WKR
Joined
May 3, 2022
Messages
387
IMO it's okay if windmills kill birds. And if birds and other animals are set on fire due to solar plants that's okay too. But lead bullets are a big no no.
Edit: I phrased that wrong, I'm bad at multi tasking lol. They're telling us it's okay if windmills and solar plants kill birds and animals. But it's wrong if lead bullets do.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
1,450
As said it is not about the lead, it is another step to render the second adm. worthless. If you cannot find ammunition or cannot afford the non-lead subs. the gun is useless. If passed it is just a matter of time until the liberal states follow suit for those states who are not allready there.
 

xsn10s

WKR
Joined
May 3, 2022
Messages
387
If you cannot use lead ammunition on said lands then what is it? Sounds like a lead bullet ban. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be be Daffy.
 
Top