New ammo law

[JohnPeeff]

Last week the new law requiring a background check to buy ammo went in to effect in California. If you have purchased a firearm in the last 5yrs you are "in the system" and only pay $1 per purchase. If not you pay $19 for a background check that may take a couple of days then $1 every transaction afterwards. One Democrat wants to use it to "limit ammo purchases" In addition we can no longer use any lead ammo for hunting, even non game animals. I sold 10 new boxes of Winchester .30-06 150gr to an out of state friend for $100 and paid $35 a box for Federal copper .30-06.

[1563621]

That will be next in nj, unless the recall on this dem gov. works.

[S.A. Boggs]

That will be next in nj, unless the recall on this dem gov. works.

A recall, hadn't heard anything about it...tell us more!
Sam

[togor]

Lead bans have been part of waterfowl hunting for 40+ years now. And $2/round centerfire hunting ammo is hardly new also. If someone is using expensive hunting ammo for target practice then they need to examine some of their life choices. I oppose ammo limits as a tool for anti-gun social engineering but have no problem with the science that says getting it out of general hunting use is a good idea.

Did I swallow any lead shot in the pre-ban days? Hopefully not, we learned to be careful. But occasionally a bit of shot made it to the table. In my time my kids had to learn to chew carefully, as the steel shot could break a tooth! Again, every once in awhile some shot makes it to the dinner table.

[bruce]

Re:Lead Bans. As to restrictions of lead for hunting waterfowl, the science supports it. Reality is that those who hunt waterfowl support it. Restrictions of lead a good for the birds and the sport. There is no such support, scientifically or among the hunting community for a restriction on lead bullets for hunting. There is no good reason to restrict lead from use for general hunting of game animals. It is superior in every way. It is no detriment to the environment. It is no risk to people. Such restrictions do not well serve the animals hunted, the sport or those who enjoy hunting. Such restrictions only serve the interests of those whose agenda is to limit/eliminate the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Sincerely. bruce.

[togor]

Re:Lead Bans. As to restrictions of lead for hunting waterfowl, the science supports it. Reality is that those who hunt waterfowl support it. Restrictions of lead a good for the birds and the sport. There is no such support, scientifically or among the hunting community for a restriction on lead bullets for hunting. There is no good reason to restrict lead from use for general hunting of game animals. It is superior in every way. It is no detriment to the environment. It is no risk to people. Such restrictions do not well serve the animals hunted, the sport or those who enjoy hunting. Such restrictions only serve the interests of those whose agenda is to limit/eliminate the free exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Sincerely. bruce.

Ever hunt doves?

[lyman]

I remember when I was a kid, Dove season would come in,
my grandparents managed a Dairy Farm, wheat and corn also grown on the farm,

they would charge the city folks by the person, or carload, depending on the mood, to hunt,


we stayed in the house most of the day, or played outside on the other side of the farm, to keep from getting pelted by shot,

I remember several Sat afternoons watching TV in the house, and hearing the lead falling on the tin roof

[Art]

Did I swallow any lead shot in the pre-ban days? Hopefully not, we learned to be careful. But occasionally a bit of shot made it to the table. In my time my kids had to learn to chew carefully, as the steel shot could break a tooth! Again, every once in awhile some shot makes it to the dinner table.

The problem with birds and lead shot is they take it as "grit" to facilitate digestion in the gizzard. As such it stays there and isn't passed for quite a spell. It sits there gradually being ground down and absorbed into the blood stream. Since human beings don't have a crop and gizzard arrangement and don't need grit to digest food, lead shot simply passes through the system in a day or two so an occasional lead shot pellet isn't going to be a problem. Unfortunately the change to non toxic shot has largely mitigated but not completely eliminated the problem. The fish & wildlife folks I deal with when I hunt tell me they still get an occasional duck that's scooped up enough lead from the old days in pond bottoms to turn into what used to be called a "straw hat." Three to five pellets in a waterfowl gizzard will be eventually fatal 100% of the time.

The lead ammo ban in California is based on the (remote) possibility that an eagle or condor might eat carrion and while doing so wind up with a lead bullet in its crop that will get stuck in its gizzard. Of course an equally important reason in "The Golden State" is to inconvenience gun owners.

Interestingly, the U.S. military has gone to all non toxic ammo because of the desire to reduce the lead dump into the environment. The new M855A1 round in 5.56 mm NATO ammo is typical. A solid copper projectile with a hardened steel penetrator. It's supposed to be a big improvement in both penetration and lethality over the cartridges it replaced, though a lot expensive. I do notice that this newfound environmental concern hasn't stopped the military from using depleted uranium ammunition .

The use of steel or other non toxic shot in shotgun shells for all purposes is probably inevitable and I've killed enough ducks and geese with it that that doesn't bother me much and is probably a good idea. I see a lot of steel dove and quail loads now as well as steel target loads, especially Winchester AA on the local shelves now.

If you're my age you remember when the greatest risk of lead poisoning in the old days, pre 1980, was exposure to exhaust from leaded gasoline and lead paint. Today lead in water can still be a hazard. Improper and illegal dumping of lead core automobile batteries contaminates a lot of water every year and is an ongoing problem. I remember when local environmental protection agents tested water under the I-10 San Jacinto River bridge found just outrageously high levels of toxic metals, especially lead. It turned out that stretch of the river had been an illegal battery dumping ground for years.

[Clark Howard]

The Cali ban on lead has nothing to do with wildlife. It is simply another mechanism to curtail hunting and the use of firearms by it's citizens. The trend is to prohibit/discourage/shame the use of guns in the state. Dems on parade.

[Allen]

All politicians need to read the 2nd amendment thoroughly. It has nothing to do with hunting but instead a guarantee that citizens will always have the right to defend themselves against the government. Perhaps they know this all too well so they try to disarm everyone by making hunting related restrictions against guns, ammo and gun ownership.

[togor]

Lead ammo still legal in CA for target shooting. Those stashes of Ball M2 are safe.

[S.A. Boggs]

The Cali ban on lead has nothing to do with wildlife. It is simply another mechanism to curtail hunting and the use of firearms by it's citizens. The trend is to prohibit/discourage/shame the use of guns in the state. Dems on parade.

You and other's are 100% right, this is about people control by government.
Sam

[lyman]

The Cali ban on lead has nothing to do with wildlife. It is simply another mechanism to curtail hunting and the use of firearms by it's citizens. The trend is to prohibit/discourage/shame the use of guns in the state. Dems on parade.

IIRC they found a dead Condor way back when and it had some lead shot in it's belly or gizzard from some dead animal(s) it had eaten,

and they used that incident to ban what they could

[RED]

The problem with birds and lead shot is they take it as "grit" to facilitate digestion in the gizzard. As such it stays there and isn't passed for quite a spell. It sits there gradually being ground down and absorbed into the blood stream. Since human beings don't have a crop and gizzard arrangement and don't need grit to digest food, lead shot simply passes through the system in a day or two so an occasional lead shot pellet isn't going to be a problem. Unfortunately the change to non toxic shot has largely mitigated but not completely eliminated the problem. The fish & wildlife folks I deal with when I hunt tell me they still get an occasional duck that's scooped up enough lead from the old days in pond bottoms to turn into what used to be called a "straw hat." Three to five pellets in a waterfowl gizzard will be eventually fatal 100% of the time.

The lead ammo ban in California is based on the (remote) possibility that an eagle or condor might eat carrion and while doing so wind up with a lead bullet in its crop that will get stuck in its gizzard. Of course an equally important reason in "The Golden State" is to inconvenience gun owners.

Interestingly, the U.S. military has gone to all non toxic ammo because of the desire to reduce the lead dump into the environment. The new M855A1 round in 5.56 mm NATO ammo is typical. A solid copper projectile with a hardened steel penetrator. It's supposed to be a big improvement in both penetration and lethality over the cartridges it replaced, though a lot expensive. I do notice that this newfound environmental concern hasn't stopped the military from using depleted uranium ammunition .

The use of steel or other non toxic shot in shotgun shells for all purposes is probably inevitable and I've killed enough ducks and geese with it that that doesn't bother me much and is probably a good idea. I see a lot of steel dove and quail loads now as well as steel target loads, especially Winchester AA on the local shelves now.

If you're my age you remember when the greatest risk of lead poisoning in the old days, pre 1980, was exposure to exhaust from leaded gasoline and lead paint. Today lead in water can still be a hazard. Improper and illegal dumping of lead core automobile batteries contaminates a lot of water every year and is an ongoing problem. I remember when local environmental protection agents tested water under the I-10 San Jacinto River bridge found just outrageously high levels of toxic metals, especially lead. It turned out that stretch of the river had been an illegal battery dumping ground for years.

Sorry Art but dumping or discarding lead acid batteries went away years ago. I ran a battery recycling business for 3 years and the problem was a shortage of junk batteries, not an excess. I had crews on the road calling on anybody that had junk cars, used car dealers, and farmers. In 2005 we were paying $2.50 for a run of the mill junk car battery that had an average weight of 32 lbs. By 2008 we were paying $10 for the same batteries. In 2007 we shipped over 40 tons a week to refineries in Doe Run, Alpharetta, GA, and St Joesph MO. That is two semi trailer loads a week. IIRC, By 2009 the price for a for the average junk battery was up to $.30/lb and our output was down by 50%.

Today the lead price on the LME is $1954 per U.S. ton, which is about the same as it was back in 2008. People don't throw away lead acid batteries anymore. The recycling rate for them is over 90% and far higher than aluminum cans.

[togor]

Lead used to be a major component in electronics manufacturing, in the solder. Virtually all electronics now are lead-free in manufacturing. Military applications are an exception, where lead has desirable mechanical properties.