National Shooting Sports Foundation Responds to New York Times Editorial

Published on May 20, 2011
Duration: 8:53

This video discusses the National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) response to a New York Times editorial concerning the EPA's potential regulation of ammunition. Larry Keane, NSSF General Counsel, explains that legislation (S. 838 and H.R. 1558) aims to clarify that the EPA lacks jurisdiction over firearms and ammunition, a stance previously upheld by the EPA itself. The NSSF argues that attempts to ban lead ammunition components by environmental groups like the Center for Biodiversity are a pretext to ban hunting and shooting sports, which would devastate wildlife conservation funding derived from excise taxes on ammunition.

Quick Summary

Legislation like S. 838 and H.R. 1558 aims to prevent the EPA from regulating firearms and ammunition, a move supported by the NSSF. This is in response to environmental groups petitioning for a ban on lead ammunition, which proponents argue would devastate hunting and shooting sports, cripple wildlife conservation funding derived from ammunition excise taxes, and make ammunition prohibitively expensive.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction
  2. 00:13NYT Editorial Criticism
  3. 00:50Congressional Sportsman's Caucus Bill
  4. 01:14EPA Jurisdiction Clarification
  5. 02:02Ammunition Ban Impact
  6. 02:24Fishing Tackle Exemption
  7. 02:47Scientific Basis for Regulations
  8. 03:12Conservation Organization Support
  9. 03:36Consequences of Ammunition Ban
  10. 04:12Conservation Funding Impact
  11. 04:29Environmental Group Motivations
  12. 05:10American Bird Conservancy Acknowledgment
  13. 05:35Ammunition Cost Implications
  14. 06:27Legal Challenge Status
  15. 06:33EPA Petition Denial
  16. 06:50Federal Court Lawsuit
  17. 07:00NSSF Intervention
  18. 07:24Motion to Dismiss
  19. 07:34Other Interventions
  20. 07:38Pending Decision
  21. 07:49Fishing Tackle Petition
  22. 08:08Call to Action

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary goal of the legislation supported by the NSSF regarding ammunition?

The primary goal of the legislation, S. 838 and H.R. 1558, is to clarify that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have jurisdiction to regulate firearms and ammunition, preventing gun control measures through regulatory bodies.

How would a ban on lead ammunition impact conservation funding?

A ban on lead ammunition would significantly harm wildlife conservation efforts. This is because a substantial portion of conservation funding in the U.S. is generated through excise taxes collected from the sale of ammunition, which would dry up if traditional ammunition were banned.

Who is attempting to ban lead ammunition, and what are their alleged motivations?

Environmental groups like the Center for Biodiversity and the American Bird Conservancy are attempting to ban lead ammunition. The NSSF alleges their motivation is not solely environmental but to destroy the shooting sports and hunting communities in America.

What are the potential economic consequences of banning lead ammunition?

Banning lead ammunition would cause the price of ammunition to skyrocket. Alternatives to lead, such as tin and tungsten, are significantly more expensive, making it unaffordable for individuals to participate in target shooting, hunting, and for law enforcement and the military to procure necessary ammunition.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from NRA

View all →