Judge Affirms Hunters Can Use Traditional Ammo in NRA Case

Shotgun Load NRA-ILA
A Federal Judge ruled that hunters can use standard ammunition. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Thursday, April 1st, 2021, a federal judge in Arizona sided with NRA-ILA and Safari Club International and held that hunters’ use of traditional ammo does not violate federal environmental law.

The case dates back to 2012 when a group sued the U.S. Forest Service. The group alleged that by allowing hunters to hunt with traditional lead ammo in the 1.6-million-acre Kaibab National Forest—which is authorized by Arizona state law—the Forest Service was violating the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. That Act was originally passed in 1976, to address the increasing amount of municipal and industrial waste that was being disposed of at the time. But over time, it has been used to attack gun owners and shooting ranges.

Today the judge held that the Forest Service is not disposing of any waste by allowing hunters to hunt in accordance with state laws. But the case had even bigger implications. The Plaintiff was asking the court to order the Forest Service regulate hunting. But the states own the wildlife, even while it is on federal lands. “Each national forest,” the judge said, “is required to cooperate with state wildlife agencies to allow hunting in ‘accordance with the requirements of State laws.”’ A ruling to the contrary would have given the federal government the authority to enter a field of regulation that belongs to the states on lands where hunting takes place. Those implications would be huge because 640-million acres (about twenty-eight percent of the country) is owned and managed by the federal government. Thankfully, the judge sided with NRA-ILA and Safari Club.

NRA-ILA will continue to protect the rights of hunters everywhere to use commonly owned and affordable ammunition to hunt and enjoy public lands.

The case is called Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service. The National Shooting Sports Foundation also intervened as a defendant in the case.

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on this and all of ILA’s efforts to defend your constitutional rights. 

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
8 months ago

They will lose eventually on grounds Arizona is protected habitat for the endangered California Condor that eats carcasses with lead shot.

8 months ago

Correction: The Federal government OWNS NO LAND in America!! ALL of the buildings and the land they sit on, BELONG to the American Citizens. It is only out of RESPECT the Americans do not run ruffshod over those areas. The land that they USE, IS ONLY ON LOAN from the States wherein the land IS!!

8 months ago

Too bad this judge did not have the guts to rule that USFS and all other FedGo v agencies DONOT OWN any of the lands they claim in Arizona or ano other state. That is against the US COnstitutioin, which clearly names all the kinds of property FedGov can own/control. And millions of acres of open land do NOT appear on any of those lists. Each state should reclaim ALL Fderal lands situate within their boundaries other than the specific types named in the US Constition.. naval bases, military forts, post offices and post roads, court and customs houses, and… Read more »

8 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

I wrote my comment without seeing yours. I AGREE!!!!!!

8 months ago

So who owns 640 million acres ? Are they paying tax for such rights ? Funny I have always been under the pretense if you own land taxes are due. You see I have no problem with lead. But at the same time don’t tell me the Federal Govt owns land but yet doesn’t perform the same duty as I do. As Madison wrote, people have “a property” in their rights, including in their rights of use. If the right to property did not entail rights of use, it would be an empty promise. People acquire property, after all, only… Read more »

8 months ago

Important win.