Pay attention to this one guys and gals

[maddmike]

i would post something here but my right to free speech would probably land me in jail.

[CalFireGuy]

Freedom of speech just watch what you say....

i would post something here but my right to free speech would probably land me in jail.

[Kodiak Spirit]

no more lead bullets in california boy and girls! now a box of .22 ammo is gonna cost y'all $100- ! it's time to move!

[Shadly1]

no more lead bullets in california boy and girls! now a box of .22 ammo is gonna cost y'all $100- ! it's time to move!

For a .22? A half teaspoon of powder and a broken off pencil eraser and you can load your own!

[sarah]

no more lead bullets in california boy and girls! now a box of .22 ammo is gonna cost y'all $100- ! it's time to move!

what? do you have a link?

[Shadly1]

what? do you have a link?

Something about poisoning condors. It was shot down(pardon the pun) last year. I didn't hear anything about it coming back. Did it?

[Kodiak Spirit]

the "condor" bill passed to ban lead bullets for game hunting in California, and then the California legislators attached whatever they had to to include Varmint hunting as well, so if say, you like to shoot rabbits for dinner, you need to get non-lead .22 bullets to do so. I will look for the link, but I am not at work, so I don't have so much time...

5 solid copper .270 bullets, so you can hand load... $36.00





heres something http://www.nrapublications.org/tah/unleaded.asp

this one's from the governators desk... http://venturacountystar.com/news/20...ad-bullet-ban/

[sarah]

Thanks Jesse for the info. That's probably just hype tho, right?

[Shadly1]

probably just hype tho, right?

I'm never going to live that down, am I?


I guess the ban just goes for .22 and shotgun. The lead was replaced with a copper alloy. I haven't bought ammo in 2 years so I didn't know that became a reality. I can't find any info other than the introduction of that bill. I do see the potential for positive effects on wildlife. Other than the price of a box of ammo, are there any negative side effects to this change as it stands? Does this harder metal hurt rifle barrels?

I guess other states have already done this. What scares me is that if the lead ban goes across the board, some entire calibers will become obsolete. That sucks!

[sarah]

I don't really care about any positive or negative effects on anything - the point of the matter is it's just one step closer to them limiting our right to own guns.

[Roger]

I don't really care about any positive or negative effects on anything - the point of the matter is it's just one step closer to them limiting our right to own guns.

Preach on sister!

[Shadly1]

I don't really care about any positive or negative effects on anything - the point of the matter is it's just one step closer to them limiting our right to own guns.

What do we do about it? The time to voice an opinion was last year. The way I see it, if using a different material than lead as a slug or shot means we can still use guns, then I would consider that a good thing. Lead itself has been on the chopping block for a long time. There hasn't been a suitable enough replacement for it as of yet. It looks like the .22 and shotgun will have a leg up on the rest when lead does become banned.

I think that the banning of lead and the banning of guns are two completely separate issues.

[Kodiak Spirit]

the banning of lead goes hand in hand with the taxing of each piece of ammunition, which California tried to do not too long ago. There are lead problems to be sure, and some states are using lead to close outdoor ranges and restrict shooting areas, types of ammo. The point is all the same, and has the same endgame: restrict the shooter's shooting. People that shoot need to practice to keep sharp, stay familiar and accurate with their carry weapons. Most of us have to qualify yearly or more often, and range time is a must. The more restrictions and cost you put on the individual, the more difficult you make it for shooters to go out and have a good time with the family shooting, the more you hurt the sport.

Think of this: instead of taking the family outdoors and having a picknik and shooting some cans, targets, trap on a nice sunny day with friends... you have to go to an indoor range, pay for a couple of lanes and targets, no food allowed, no drinks, some places don't allow under 18 for liability... how are you going to teach yer kids how to shoot? some ranges require you to purchase their ammo, so if you dont have the money, or they are out of your cartridge you are not shooting.

That's the bottom line: they want us to stop shooting.

[sarah]

Right on, Jesse.

What do we do about it? Write, call and fax your legislators. If you don't know who they are, use the links on the right from here: http://www.myjeeprocks.com/links/

[rick]

The idea that the SCOTUS would "interpret" the meaning of the 2nd A is absolutely ridiculous on the face of it. The mere fact that it is a question is all the knowledge you need to see how bad things could get. What precisely is there to interpret about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" The arguments about militia and all that nonsense applying to the govt are also patently false. How on earth can something specifically put in writing under the heading "Bill of Rights" alongside all the other specifically enumerated rights not to be messed with by the govt be interpreted to mean the "rights" of the govt??? Who do the idiots that make these arguments think they are?

Any restriction on the lawful use and ownership of firearms is in violation of the second amendment, including the ban on lead ammo. I forget the legal term for it, but there is plenty of precedent against banning some essential component of something for the purpose of banning the whole. This is akin to banning the sale and manufacture of tires and saying, "well, at least they didn't ban the automobile!"

If anyone cares for more in depth research on the relationship between crime rates and gun ownership (even the POSSIBILITY of gun ownership reduces crime), check out Guns, Crime, and Freedom by Wayne Lapierre.

EDIT: Guns, Crime, and Freedom was written by Wayne Lapierre, but he uses the research of Gary Kleck for support, to the point where you might get confused about who wrote it . Gary Kleck is a self-professed, card carrying, liberal who set out to "once and for all dispel" the "myths of gun ownership" in the hopes of ending the debate using the scientific method to actually prove that gun ownership increases crime. What he found when analyzing the data was the exact opposite - more gun owners (and more concealed carry in particular), less crime.