AmmoLand.com

Firearms Industry Maintains Ban on Traditional Ammunition Is Wrong Following CA. Condor Report

National Shooting Sports Foundation

NEWTOWN, Conn. – -(AmmoLand.com)- A report issued yesterday by the California Fish & Game Commission on blood lead levels in California condors is inconclusive and supports the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s contention that there is no scientific basis for the state’s ban on hunters using traditional ammunition in condor regions.

“The problem all along with linking the use of traditional ammunition and the health of the California condor has been lack of conclusive scientific evidence that justifies banning ammunition containing lead components,” said Steve Sanetti, president and CEO of NSSF, trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. “This report only serves to support industry’s position that the ban is unwarranted.”

“The report’s data certainly does not justify the commission’s intent to increase the scope of the ban to include upland and small game in the condor region,” added Sanetti. “Expanding the ban will only create another barrier to hunting, reducing funds derived from license fees and tags that support wildlife conservation in the Golden State.”

The firearms and ammunition industry vigorously opposed the effort to ban use of traditional ammunition in condor regions, citing lack of conclusive evidence to support claims that some condors had higher elevated blood lead levels from ingesting ammunition fragments while scavenging entrails from hunter-harvested big game. Nevertheless, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the ban into law, which went into effect July 1, 2008.

Then last month the F&G Commission announced its intention to consider expanding the ban to cover small and upland game hunting, a move the F&G Department did not support since condors do not feed on small game and hunters retrieve upland birds from the field. The fact that no scientific evidence exists for condors feeding on small game supports the department’s position.

The report, which the commission approved by unanimous vote, covers the first sampling of blood lead levels in free-flying California condors since the ban went into effect. In its summary, the F&G Department and F&G Commission caution that the data was not “systematically collected” and “thus, the information should not be considered conclusive of any ’cause and effect’ relationship between the prohibition of lead projectiles in condor range and blood lead levels detected in condor.”

The department and commission note that the “sources of lead in sampled condors are unknown, relationship of sampled condors to hunting activity are unknown, and . . . the condor feeding habits for this period . . . are unknown.”

Said Sanetti, “Given all of these caveats, no one should rush to give credence to this report as evidence supporting the state’s ban on traditional ammunition.”

NSSF questions the report’s use of standards for humans as the basis for measuring blood lead levels in condors. The standard “background” blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) for condors is the same threshold for concern established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for a human child.

“To our knowledge, there is no baseline blood lead level established for condors, or any other species of animal, and it strikes us as arbitrary to use a human threshold for a bird species,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for NSSF.

Data in the report was derived from blood lead levels sampled during calendar year 2008 and was provided to the F&G Department by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Samples were taken from 72 free-flying condors in California in 2008. During the January to June period, 59 percent of condors sampled had blood lead levels considered above background levels (greater than 10 ug/dL), and 45 percent of condors had levels above background during July to December of 2008.

The data, said the F&G Department and Commission, is considered inadequate for “any in-depth or meaningful comparative analyses regarding the possible consequences of the ’2008 lead ammo ban’ in condor range. However, the department and commission conclude that the data provides a basis for future comparison. Beginning in fall 2009, a more comprehensive data collection plan is expected to be in place.

The commission’s intent to expand the ban is in response to a lawsuit settlement between the state and plaintiffs the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Biological Diversity that stipulates the commission will consider amending regulations requiring alternative ammunition for taking small and upland game within the condor range.

For more information about traditional ammunition and how it relates to the California condor, see http://www.nssf.org/media/FactSheets/Lead_Ammunition.cfm.

About:
NSSF, founded in 1961, is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition and recreational shooting sports industry. It promotes the safe ownership and responsible use of products its members make and sell. For more information, visit www.nssf.org

Filed under: Ammunition News by Ammoland No Comments »

GOA Applauds Call to Action on Judge Sotomayor from NRA’s Past President

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- Gun Owners of America applauds immediate past NRA President Sandy Froman, who stepped up to the plate last week with a call to arms for all NRA members to vigorously oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. (See the article below).

GOA has been calling on our members to oppose this nomination since it is clear that Sotomayor is anti-Second Amendment and wants to legislate from the bench.

The official position from current NRA leadership is to take a “wait and see” approach to the Sotomayor nomination which may well allow her to wiggle through and be confirmed.

GOA calls on all pro-gunners across America to urge NRA leadership to join in this critical fight to protect the Constitution — and especially our gun rights.

– GOA Vice-Chairman Tim Macy

—————————————-

NRA Members Must Oppose Sotomayor
by Sandy Froman

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a narrow view of the Second Amendment that contradicts the Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. A heated debate has started in the U.S. Senate over her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. This issue, which has decided the fate of presidential elections, could also decide her nomination. Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

On June 24, senators began speaking on the floor of the Senate expressing grave concerns over Judge Sotomayor’s Second Amendment record. Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed out that although her record on the issue is “fairly scant,” she has twice stated that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right. Senator Sessions also noted that in Second Amendment and other constitutional cases, Sotomayor’s analysis of important constitutional issues has been lacking suggesting “a troubling tendency to avoid or casually dismiss difficult Constitutional issues of exceptional importance.” Sotomayor’s view on the Second Amendment clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy, and some Democrat senators from pro-gun states are justifiably nervous.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms. But that ruling was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. Justice Kennedy joined the four conservatives on the Court to make the majority, with the four liberal justices writing passionate dissents about how the Second Amendment does not apply to private citizens.

Bluntly speaking, the Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had one justice voted differently, the Second Amendment would have been erased from the Bill of Rights forever. Today in the Supreme Court, the right to bear arms hangs by a single vote.

The next question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the Second Amendment is a “fundamental right” that applies to cities and states, thus preventing them from restricting gun rights. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor disagrees.

When Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it belied his flowery rhetoric about respecting our constitutional gun rights. Out of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge Sotomayor is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold that the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or city chooses to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already have in your home for hunting and self-defense, Sonia Sotomayor says the Constitution can’t help you.

This position becomes all the more radical when it’s revealed how she reached this conclusion. Only six judges have denied gun rights against the states. Of these, three did so in a recent Seventh Circuit case, NRA v. Chicago, writing a detailed opinion that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states because they thought an old 1800s Supreme Court case tied their hands on the issue, and they commended the case up to the Supreme Court after long and scholarly consideration. Judge Sotomayor and two of her liberal colleagues, however, wrote only a single paragraph on the whole issue when deciding their own New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo. In one paragraph, she said the Second Amendment gives people no rights at all when it comes to state or city laws. She gave no explanation, and made no call for Supreme Court action.

Then we find that this has been a consistent belief for Sotomayor. In a case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues concluded that there is no fundamental right in the Second Amendment but provided no substantive analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor’s record is one of consistent opposition to the private ownership of firearms.

America has almost 90 million gun owners who value their rights. And of these, no one does more to protect the Second Amendment than the four million members of the National Rifle Association.

I served as an officer of the NRA for nine years, including a two-year term as president. I saw NRA members turn the tide on Election Day 2000 to defeat Al Gore. We fought again to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. We can do the same with Sonia Sotomayor, if we call our U.S. Senators and tell them to vote against this anti-gun judge. No fewer than fourteen Democrat senators have solid records on the Second Amendment, and we must urge them to oppose this nominee.

Next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up NRA v. Chicago, which will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to states and cities like it does the federal government. This case is as important as Heller, and will massively impact gun rights forever.

We already know where Judge Sotomayor stands. It’s time to tell the Senate, “Vote No! on Sonia Sotomayor.”

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. ‘The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland No Comments »