- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,007
- Thread starter spectr17
- Start date
Rancho Loco
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 5,546
- Reaction score
- 3
bayedsolid
Forever Hunting
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 964
- Reaction score
- 0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I sure hope everyone does their follow-up stories on this next year. I don't like these bullets personally but I'm willing to change if Condors and Eagles and such are being poisoned. As long as all these claims of lead poisoning are being passed as fact....maybe it is, maybe it isn't.....we should see a population boom right? This won't take 20 years of studying. We should see the positive effects in the first year. We'll see, but I'd be willing to bet mortality rates stay the same, I'm now paying $70 per box for my shells, and we never get a single article saying "Sorry guys, I guess we were full of %&*#. We'll go ahead and change things back."
It only bans lead ammo in the condor range. But what really pisses me off here is that Mr. Roids doesn't listen to the proper department for facts.
"On Friday, the staff of the Fish and Game Commission recommended a ban be implemented, but suggested it apply to a smaller area than that which is covered by the new law.
"What's confusing is the governor's willingness to take a resource question out of the hands of the commission," Gaines said. "The Legislature doesn't have to make decisions based on science. The commission was the appropriate forum."
Commission President Richard Rogers of Carpinteria, who had written Schwarzenegger requesting a veto, said the governor's action renders moot "literally thousands of hours of work" conducted by the commission staff."
"On Friday, the staff of the Fish and Game Commission recommended a ban be implemented, but suggested it apply to a smaller area than that which is covered by the new law.
"What's confusing is the governor's willingness to take a resource question out of the hands of the commission," Gaines said. "The Legislature doesn't have to make decisions based on science. The commission was the appropriate forum."
Commission President Richard Rogers of Carpinteria, who had written Schwarzenegger requesting a veto, said the governor's action renders moot "literally thousands of hours of work" conducted by the commission staff."
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,007
GUN OWNERS, HUNTERS SLAPPED BY BILLS -- jim matthews column -- 17oct07
Governor signs pistol microstamping and lead ammunition ban legislation
By JIM MATTHEWS Outdoor News Service
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two pieces of legislation on Saturday that were direct slaps in the face to gun owners, hunters, and common sense. His supposed ties to the conservative community suggested Arnold would veto both of them. He didn't. The governor is looking more and more like Gray Davis every day, instead of Ronald Reagan.
The normally very mild-mannered Lawrence Keane, the senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said:
"Governor Schwarzenegger has now effectively banned more firearms than Senators [Ted] Kennedy, [Dianne] Feinstein and [Charles] Schumer combined. The governor has proven to gun owners and sportsmen that he is just another liberal, anti-gun Hollywood actor -- he just plays a moderate Republican on TV. Mr. Schwarzenegger has now exposed himself for what he really is, the most anti-gun and anti-sportsmen governor in America."
Whoa! What do you really think Larry? But he has reason to be hot.
AB1471: Beginning in 2010, AB1471 mandates all semiautomatic handguns sold in California must be able to imprint tiny markings onto the fired brass shell casing that will identify the gun from which they were fired. The idea is that casing found at crime scenes can be traced back to the owner who did the dirty deed. Never mind that over 90 percent of crimes committed with firearms are done with stolen firearms. Or that you or I can ruin a handguns' microstamping ability with an emery board from the wife's purse. Or that a marginally bright crook could collect shell casings from a shooting range and dump a handful out the window when he does his next driveby. That will send the police barking up wrong trees everywhere. Older guns without microstamping aren't banned, but I bet the attorney general's office will make it illegal to sell, trade, or even give them to family in your will. And I don't even want to think about what it will cost to manage this nightmare.
So I'll cover all bets that any crime solved after 2010 that uses a microstamped shell casing as evidence will still be solved if the microstamped case wasn't part of the evidence.
This is moronic legislation if you buy in to the stated purpose of the bill. It has nothing to do with solving crimes. It was never about solving crimes. What this legislation WILL do is dramatically reduce the volume and variety of semiautomatic handguns available for sale here, increase the cost of those that are sold, and effectively move toward eliminating a whole class of firearms in the state -- which is arguably exactly what the legislature wanted, even if it didn't have the courage to say this directly.
The bill will ban guns on a larger scale than any piece of legislation ever passed in this country. And it has done it in the most oblique way possible. It did it without saying it was a gun ban.
I have $100 that says the legislature will now try to pass similar legislation with "microstamping requirements for semi-automatic rifles, home defense shotguns (pump or semi-auto), and eventually all firearms. "The spent cases are like bread crumbs that lead right to the crooks," they will say over and over -- without a shred of evidence this is true.
Backtracking on this trail of politicians' words is like following bread crumbs to a pack of rats.
AB 821: The second bill the governor signed was AB 821, legislation that will ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting of big game and coyotes within the range of California condors.
Even the California Fish and Game Commission, the regulatory body that should handle such matters, wrote the governor to ask him to quash this bill. The Commission is -- or was (this is all kind of up-in-the-air and perhaps a moot point now) -- considering its own regulatory ban on lead big game and varmint ammunition ostensibly to protect condors. So why did they ask Arnold to veto the bill? Because the way the bill is written, it could effectively ban ALL ammunition and completely end big game hunting in condor range.
All it would take is an anti-hunting, whack job as attorney general, and, oh wait, we have former governor Moonbeam in that chair.
You see, there are trace amounts of lead in all of the solid copper bullets being touted as lead-free alternatives. All it would take is someone like Jerry Brown to say, "Nope, those Barnes X-bullets have itty, bitty amounts of lead. Banned lead."
We didn't help ourselves on this one. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and NSSF have been saying all along that lead was not a threat to condors. This is the quote you will read in press releases from both groups: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence that the birds are getting sick from ingesting ammunition fragments."
I can show you an X-ray of a dead condor with a perfectly mushroomed rifle bullet in its digestive tract. The necropsy proved the bird died from lead poisoning. It didn't die from lead picked up while breathing smoggy air, drinking tainted water, or eating paint chips off a wall in an old abandoned army depot. The lead slug killed it just as effectively as if it had been shot through the bird's skull.
What we should be saying is that there's only circumstantial and highly speculative evidence that condors are getting elevated lead levels, and occasional toxic levels, from hunter lead. We know there are occasional, rare incidents where condors have picked up lethal levels of lead from hunter's bullets. However, there's no proof the background lead in condor's blood is only from bullet lead.
Correlation is not causation, and any scientist who makes that leap doesn't deserve the title. The evidence is compelling that lead is problem, but certainly not conclusive. I've read nearly all the published scientific papers, and some of the authors should be ashamed of the leaps, the conclusions, they've made from the limited data.
Now, there's apparently even some evidence coming to light that some of these people have selectively used data to make their points. That is shameful. In Arizona, it even looks like field "data" was introduced to make hunter lead seem like a bigger culprit than it might be in reality. That is criminal.
Yet, for the NRA and NSSF to say "there's no conclusive evidence" is as grievous a mistake. This kind of rhetoric doesn't help our image as the nation's leading conservationists. In fact, it makes us look stupid, raving even. We all know lead is a toxin and that it has killed condors, including some lead from hunters' ammunition. We can admit that and still point out that a ban is absolutely the wrong direction to go.
The passage of both of these bills is frustrating for the average California gun owner and hunter. We deserve better from our elected officials.
Governor signs pistol microstamping and lead ammunition ban legislation
By JIM MATTHEWS Outdoor News Service
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two pieces of legislation on Saturday that were direct slaps in the face to gun owners, hunters, and common sense. His supposed ties to the conservative community suggested Arnold would veto both of them. He didn't. The governor is looking more and more like Gray Davis every day, instead of Ronald Reagan.
The normally very mild-mannered Lawrence Keane, the senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said:
"Governor Schwarzenegger has now effectively banned more firearms than Senators [Ted] Kennedy, [Dianne] Feinstein and [Charles] Schumer combined. The governor has proven to gun owners and sportsmen that he is just another liberal, anti-gun Hollywood actor -- he just plays a moderate Republican on TV. Mr. Schwarzenegger has now exposed himself for what he really is, the most anti-gun and anti-sportsmen governor in America."
Whoa! What do you really think Larry? But he has reason to be hot.
AB1471: Beginning in 2010, AB1471 mandates all semiautomatic handguns sold in California must be able to imprint tiny markings onto the fired brass shell casing that will identify the gun from which they were fired. The idea is that casing found at crime scenes can be traced back to the owner who did the dirty deed. Never mind that over 90 percent of crimes committed with firearms are done with stolen firearms. Or that you or I can ruin a handguns' microstamping ability with an emery board from the wife's purse. Or that a marginally bright crook could collect shell casings from a shooting range and dump a handful out the window when he does his next driveby. That will send the police barking up wrong trees everywhere. Older guns without microstamping aren't banned, but I bet the attorney general's office will make it illegal to sell, trade, or even give them to family in your will. And I don't even want to think about what it will cost to manage this nightmare.
So I'll cover all bets that any crime solved after 2010 that uses a microstamped shell casing as evidence will still be solved if the microstamped case wasn't part of the evidence.
This is moronic legislation if you buy in to the stated purpose of the bill. It has nothing to do with solving crimes. It was never about solving crimes. What this legislation WILL do is dramatically reduce the volume and variety of semiautomatic handguns available for sale here, increase the cost of those that are sold, and effectively move toward eliminating a whole class of firearms in the state -- which is arguably exactly what the legislature wanted, even if it didn't have the courage to say this directly.
The bill will ban guns on a larger scale than any piece of legislation ever passed in this country. And it has done it in the most oblique way possible. It did it without saying it was a gun ban.
I have $100 that says the legislature will now try to pass similar legislation with "microstamping requirements for semi-automatic rifles, home defense shotguns (pump or semi-auto), and eventually all firearms. "The spent cases are like bread crumbs that lead right to the crooks," they will say over and over -- without a shred of evidence this is true.
Backtracking on this trail of politicians' words is like following bread crumbs to a pack of rats.
AB 821: The second bill the governor signed was AB 821, legislation that will ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting of big game and coyotes within the range of California condors.
Even the California Fish and Game Commission, the regulatory body that should handle such matters, wrote the governor to ask him to quash this bill. The Commission is -- or was (this is all kind of up-in-the-air and perhaps a moot point now) -- considering its own regulatory ban on lead big game and varmint ammunition ostensibly to protect condors. So why did they ask Arnold to veto the bill? Because the way the bill is written, it could effectively ban ALL ammunition and completely end big game hunting in condor range.
All it would take is an anti-hunting, whack job as attorney general, and, oh wait, we have former governor Moonbeam in that chair.
You see, there are trace amounts of lead in all of the solid copper bullets being touted as lead-free alternatives. All it would take is someone like Jerry Brown to say, "Nope, those Barnes X-bullets have itty, bitty amounts of lead. Banned lead."
We didn't help ourselves on this one. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and NSSF have been saying all along that lead was not a threat to condors. This is the quote you will read in press releases from both groups: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence that the birds are getting sick from ingesting ammunition fragments."
I can show you an X-ray of a dead condor with a perfectly mushroomed rifle bullet in its digestive tract. The necropsy proved the bird died from lead poisoning. It didn't die from lead picked up while breathing smoggy air, drinking tainted water, or eating paint chips off a wall in an old abandoned army depot. The lead slug killed it just as effectively as if it had been shot through the bird's skull.
What we should be saying is that there's only circumstantial and highly speculative evidence that condors are getting elevated lead levels, and occasional toxic levels, from hunter lead. We know there are occasional, rare incidents where condors have picked up lethal levels of lead from hunter's bullets. However, there's no proof the background lead in condor's blood is only from bullet lead.
Correlation is not causation, and any scientist who makes that leap doesn't deserve the title. The evidence is compelling that lead is problem, but certainly not conclusive. I've read nearly all the published scientific papers, and some of the authors should be ashamed of the leaps, the conclusions, they've made from the limited data.
Now, there's apparently even some evidence coming to light that some of these people have selectively used data to make their points. That is shameful. In Arizona, it even looks like field "data" was introduced to make hunter lead seem like a bigger culprit than it might be in reality. That is criminal.
Yet, for the NRA and NSSF to say "there's no conclusive evidence" is as grievous a mistake. This kind of rhetoric doesn't help our image as the nation's leading conservationists. In fact, it makes us look stupid, raving even. We all know lead is a toxin and that it has killed condors, including some lead from hunters' ammunition. We can admit that and still point out that a ban is absolutely the wrong direction to go.
The passage of both of these bills is frustrating for the average California gun owner and hunter. We deserve better from our elected officials.
easymoney
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 10,522
- Reaction score
- 101
Very good article Jim Mathews and thanks Jesse for posting this.
For those who have swallowed this all hook line and sinker, just wait, it's only the beginning...
And from Lawrence Keane,
"Governor Schwarzenegger has now effectively banned more firearms than Senators [Ted] Kennedy, [Dianne] Feinstein and [Charles] Schumer combined. The governor has proven to gun owners and sportsmen that he is just another liberal, anti-gun Hollywood actor -- he just plays a moderate Republican on TV. Mr. Schwarzenegger has now exposed himself for what he really is, the most anti-gun and anti-sportsmen governor in America."
Welcome to California, the land of fruits and nuts...
For those who have swallowed this all hook line and sinker, just wait, it's only the beginning...
And from Lawrence Keane,
"Governor Schwarzenegger has now effectively banned more firearms than Senators [Ted] Kennedy, [Dianne] Feinstein and [Charles] Schumer combined. The governor has proven to gun owners and sportsmen that he is just another liberal, anti-gun Hollywood actor -- he just plays a moderate Republican on TV. Mr. Schwarzenegger has now exposed himself for what he really is, the most anti-gun and anti-sportsmen governor in America."
Welcome to California, the land of fruits and nuts...
sfhoghunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 1
Although I'm not really happy with the lead bullet ban, it seems to me that there is enough evidence to justify the new law. It is easy to refuse to compromise on these types of issues, but the relatively minor inconvenience from banning lead bullets in that area is justified if it makes a difference in the survival of an entire species.
The only people to really be affected are those that can no longer hunt with their preferred firearms, because no pure copper ammo is available. I often shoot ammo loaded with barnes out of my 25-06, and it does an exceptional job at putting down hogs.
This might be an unpopular sentiment, but from a practical standpoint, what's the big deal?
The only people to really be affected are those that can no longer hunt with their preferred firearms, because no pure copper ammo is available. I often shoot ammo loaded with barnes out of my 25-06, and it does an exceptional job at putting down hogs.
This might be an unpopular sentiment, but from a practical standpoint, what's the big deal?
Speckmisser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 12,900
- Reaction score
- 27
SF, there's a much longer discussion about this topic in the Blacktail forum, as well as several previous threads. A lot of arguments have been made, pro and con... but it's getting to be too much to follow this topic in every thread it's been posted in.
BigCIM, I haven't read the microstamping law, but I'd lay real good odds that there's language prohibiting the removal of the microstamp. But that's not gonna matter to the criminals anyway... that's why they're criminals.
BigCIM, I haven't read the microstamping law, but I'd lay real good odds that there's language prohibiting the removal of the microstamp. But that's not gonna matter to the criminals anyway... that's why they're criminals.
sfhoghunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 1
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Speckmisser @ Oct 24 2007, 05:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Thanks for the tip Speckmisser . . . my question of what's the big deal was a serious question. I'll check out the discussion in the blacktail forum.
Thanks for the tip Speckmisser . . . my question of what's the big deal was a serious question. I'll check out the discussion in the blacktail forum.
Freedivr2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,858
- Reaction score
- 3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sfhoghunter @ Oct 23 2007, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Well, I'm happy that at least someone here thinks this is just fine. Course, those of us who hunt upland game a lot and reload our own shells feel a little different now having to also use steel shot for dove, rabbit and quail hunting. But what the heck, what's a few hundred bucks for a new reloader, new shot, wads, and oh yeah.......not being able to shoot 1/2 of my shotguns anymore, things like that, huh?
AND FOR THE RECORD; I shot two hogs this past weekend in Condor country (see the pig forum, "had fun").......I used Nosler partitions (incredible bullets) and in the first hog, recovered the bullet lodged in the bone of the front shoulder. In the 2nd hog, it was a clean pass thru. Yeah, condors are eating bullets from game animals.....you bet.....Not hardly. Just another nail in our coffin boys, that's what this is.
Both apathy and this governor really stink. Boy do I miss Ronald Reagan.......
Well, I'm happy that at least someone here thinks this is just fine. Course, those of us who hunt upland game a lot and reload our own shells feel a little different now having to also use steel shot for dove, rabbit and quail hunting. But what the heck, what's a few hundred bucks for a new reloader, new shot, wads, and oh yeah.......not being able to shoot 1/2 of my shotguns anymore, things like that, huh?
AND FOR THE RECORD; I shot two hogs this past weekend in Condor country (see the pig forum, "had fun").......I used Nosler partitions (incredible bullets) and in the first hog, recovered the bullet lodged in the bone of the front shoulder. In the 2nd hog, it was a clean pass thru. Yeah, condors are eating bullets from game animals.....you bet.....Not hardly. Just another nail in our coffin boys, that's what this is.
Both apathy and this governor really stink. Boy do I miss Ronald Reagan.......
Freedivr2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,858
- Reaction score
- 3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BIGCIM @ Oct 24 2007, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I hope you're right, but I don't know either. I figure a lead ban on bullets would include any lead projectile. I was just thinking that since birds ingest gravel to grind food, I would've thought that lead shot that's out there in the field was one of the arguments for this ban?
Anyone out there read the actual text of this bill?
I hope you're right, but I don't know either. I figure a lead ban on bullets would include any lead projectile. I was just thinking that since birds ingest gravel to grind food, I would've thought that lead shot that's out there in the field was one of the arguments for this ban?
Anyone out there read the actual text of this bill?
Speckmisser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 12,900
- Reaction score
- 27
Centerfire ammo for big game and coyotes only. The bill does not apply to shotshells or rimfire ammunition.
As written, it doesn't apply to centerfire for ground squirrels either, by the way.
Read it here
As written, it doesn't apply to centerfire for ground squirrels either, by the way.
Read it here
sfhoghunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 1
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Freedivr2 @ Oct 24 2007, 10:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Well, I'm happy that at least someone here thinks this is just fine.
[/b][/quote]
Didn't mean to imply that don't have any reservations about it. I was simply trying to figure out what the practical difficulties of compliance are. Barnes makes excellent all copper bullets that are being loaded in an increasing number of cartridge manufacturers; seems to me virtually all hog and deer hunters shouldn’t have much trouble finding ammo that works well for them. The notable exceptions, of course, are people who like to use their old firearms in somewhat uncommon calibers. They could be SOL. As noted by others, rimfire and shot shells are not included in this ban.
Believe me, I’m also frustrated with the state of affairs when it comes to recreational hunting and fishing. Too many of the new regulations are based on politics, not science. This one, however, sounds as if it is based on some actual research.
As you are perfectly aware, there are plenty of forces out there that would happily ban ALL hunting and fishing in the state. As much as we dislike it, the hard reality is that we will need to be willing and able to compromise. The impact of this particular regulation appears minimal (to me), and as such it is a fairly easy one to support.
Supporting decent regulations will help convince the powers that be that hunters are willing to get behind solid, science based regulations. This in turn will (hopefully) convince them to make sound regulatory decisions in the future that will benefit all of us without hurting the hunters and fishers too badly.
Feel free to call me an optimist if you feel charitable, or call me hopelessly naïve if you don’t. Either way, this is California: being categorically unwilling to compromise on conservation/environmental issues will only do us harm.
Well, I'm happy that at least someone here thinks this is just fine.
[/b][/quote]
Didn't mean to imply that don't have any reservations about it. I was simply trying to figure out what the practical difficulties of compliance are. Barnes makes excellent all copper bullets that are being loaded in an increasing number of cartridge manufacturers; seems to me virtually all hog and deer hunters shouldn’t have much trouble finding ammo that works well for them. The notable exceptions, of course, are people who like to use their old firearms in somewhat uncommon calibers. They could be SOL. As noted by others, rimfire and shot shells are not included in this ban.
Believe me, I’m also frustrated with the state of affairs when it comes to recreational hunting and fishing. Too many of the new regulations are based on politics, not science. This one, however, sounds as if it is based on some actual research.
As you are perfectly aware, there are plenty of forces out there that would happily ban ALL hunting and fishing in the state. As much as we dislike it, the hard reality is that we will need to be willing and able to compromise. The impact of this particular regulation appears minimal (to me), and as such it is a fairly easy one to support.
Supporting decent regulations will help convince the powers that be that hunters are willing to get behind solid, science based regulations. This in turn will (hopefully) convince them to make sound regulatory decisions in the future that will benefit all of us without hurting the hunters and fishers too badly.
Feel free to call me an optimist if you feel charitable, or call me hopelessly naïve if you don’t. Either way, this is California: being categorically unwilling to compromise on conservation/environmental issues will only do us harm.
Freedivr2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,858
- Reaction score
- 3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Speckmisser @ Oct 25 2007, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Thanks Phil, that sure makes this bill a lot more palatable. Kinda strange that it doesn't apply to ground squirrels, I'd think it'd be a safe bet to say that scavengers like Condors eat a few of them babies up.
It'll be real interesting to see if this ban does any good at all, I'd be surprised if it did.......
Thanks Phil, that sure makes this bill a lot more palatable. Kinda strange that it doesn't apply to ground squirrels, I'd think it'd be a safe bet to say that scavengers like Condors eat a few of them babies up.
It'll be real interesting to see if this ban does any good at all, I'd be surprised if it did.......
