The National Rifle Association is frequently criticized for being “too extreme” on gun rights, or “too willing to compromise” on gun rights; it has been accused of “masquerading” as a hunting rights organization, and of all sorts of other things.
Full disclosure: I served three terms — nine years — on the NRA Board of Directors, and during my tenure I chaired at one time or another the Law Enforcement Assistance Committee and the Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Committee. I’m an NRA Endowment member.
Earlier this month, this column discussed an attempt by several environmental groups to push a ban on all lead-based hunting ammunition; that is, shotshells with lead shot, cartridges with lead bullets, even round balls and conicals used by muzzleloaders. Had the petition from the American Bird Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Association of Avian Veterinarians and a group calling itself “Project Gutpile” (which claims to be a hunter’s organization) been successful, it could have literally ended hunting as we know it, and hammered ammunition manufacturers and bullet makers.
UPDATE: Former Congressman Bob Barr weighed in on this controversy here.
Perhaps not surprisingly, that earlier Examiner column entry garnered a heavy reaction from readers, well above normal.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) raised a stink about the petition and ignited the grassroots reaction, but it was not until a few days after the NRA weighed in that the EPA evidently finally realized it had collided with a granite wall, and thus rejected the petition. The part about this situation that leaves “progressives” and anti-gunners and anti-hunters just livid is that the NRA — in a letter from Chris Cox, executive director of the Institute for Legislative Action that contained some passages that are simply classic — reminded the EPA that it does not have the legal authority to ban ammunition or its components, as specified by federal statute. Of course, the media is spinning this like a top, suggesting that the EPA "surrendered" to the NRA, which is hogwash.
The NRA did the right thing. It reminded the EPA that the law — you know, that's the thing environmentalists draw like a gun when they want to force people to do something — does not allow what those same environmentalists were trying to do. The NRA didn't make anybody "surrender." The NRA merely insisted that the statute be followed.
Cox's letter can be read here, and you all ought to focus on the bottom of Page 1 where Cox starts explaining about the futile nature of regulating ammunition components. He continues on to Page 2, without once using the word “stupid,” a feat of diplomacy that is admirable.
Hunters are the original conservationists, a reality that grinds on the teeth of knee-jerk greenies and animal rights extremists. Hunters and shooters contribute millions of dollars annually, through federal excise taxes, license and tag fees, and through fund-raising efforts by a score or more different hunting organizations, to the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitat, game species and land acquisition. All of that habitat they protect for elk, deer, waterfowl and upland game also provides a home for non-game species (song birds, protected waterfowl, you name it), insects and plant life.
The bottom line here is that the NRA stopped this effort cold, and they deserve full credit for that, and the NSSF deserves credit for raising the alarm about this attack on shooting and hunting. Indeed, their resistance may have just saved wildlife conservation as we know it.
Like it or not — and the neo-conservationists typically do not — hunters and shooters, sportsman groups and the NRA have been involved in wildlife conservation for more years than some of you have been around. Bravo!
And Don’t forget to visit:
GUN RIGHTS EXAMINERS ON-LINE:
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
Comments
I will admit to having issues with the NRA but at the same time If they do good I support them, if I have an Issue with them, I address it, My biggest complaint was they didn't respond to the Membership as well as they could have. That said I'm really glad this Issue was stopped cold and I give Credit where credit is due! Way to Go NRA!
the NRA has been shooting itself in the foot so often in the last decade it should have died of lead poisoning a long time ago. That being said, I do applaud them for reminding the EPA of the law and condemn the EPA for not tossing this petition back at the idiots who presented it for attempting to circumvent the law before the NRA had to step in and help correct the situation. I am not a fan of the NRA but will give credit where credit is due in helping to stop this petition. Now let's see if the NRA can quit shooting itself in the feet, learn to walk again, and respond to the membership in a positive way.
This is certainly good news, but I think the title here - along with much of the NRA-generated info about this issue - is misleading. This was not an "EPA threat." As you correctly state in the article, EPA was faced with petitions from several organizations. It correctly rejected those petitions. But this never was about some EPA proposal to restrict ammunition components.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!