Traditional ammo ban on federal lands

[KFhunter]

http://offgridsurvival.com/hunting-on-public-lands-traditional-ammo-ban/

The U.S. Department of Interior is currently reviewing a plan presented by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to ban traditional lead ammunition on all public lands. The traditional ammo ban would effectively ban hunters from using one-fifth of the total land area in the U.S.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/08/CA-Republican-Ban-On-Hunting-Disguised-As-Statewide-Ban-On-Lead-Ammo

California Assemblyman and gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly (R-33rd Dist.) says the proposed ban on lead ammunition awaiting Governor Jerry Brown's (D) signature is a de facto ban on hunting.
Donnelly was referring to AB711, which would ban lead ammo throughout California under the guise of protecting the state's Condor population. 
"This is a ban on hunting that is disguised as a lead ammo ban," Donnelly told Breitbart News on October 8. "It would force people to go non-lead bullets, but non-lead bullets are considered to be armor piercing, and if they can be fired through a handgun they are illegal to own. It is a breach of federal law to own arming piecing ammunition for handguns."
"This will effectively end ammunition options for hunters, ending hunting in CA as well," he explained. "And this makes no sense because hunters help us manage the wildlife population. And through licenses and other fees they actually pay the state to let them do the management."

discuss

[bigtex]

I will only speak to the DOI quote. Agencies are required to review all petitions/proposals they receive. I can write a proposal to WDFW today asking them that we have to wear a pink hat while hunting. Then you would see the following headline "WDFW Considering the Requirement of Pink Hats While Hunting" simply because the agencies reviews a proposal doesn't mean they are actually looking at implementing it. And even if DOI did ban lead (which it won't) it would apply to DOI lands only, so not to Forest Service, Army Corps, etc.

Any of you today can petition USFWS or NMFS to list ANYTHING under the protection of the ESA. By law the agency must review it, even if they know from the get go there will be no way the species will fall under ESA protection.

A lot of websites run with the whole "agency is reviewing" headline. Well agencies are reviewing hundreds of proposals everyday.

[washelkhunter]

The lead ban is coming and I dont have an issue with that. There are suitable substitutes which are not toxic and perform as well if not better. This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

[KFhunter]

Thanks BT


I gave this one a bit more credit because of California, so there is some trend there.  For proposals, some of them need strong public input to kill it.



I'm looking at one such beast right now with the snowmobiling on forest service lands in WA, probably see a post on that here shortly 

[jackelope]

Are all non-lead bullets considered "Armor piercing"?

All copper bullet:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/

Armor piercing? I think not, but then again, I'm far from an expert. That's the 1st thing that jumps out at me as BS.
 

I don't necessarily have an issue with non-lead ammo, but let's at least be realistic.

[bigtex]

Some of the WDFW Wildlife Areas are already no-lead areas. A couple years ago WDFW instituted no-lead fishing equipment in a handfull of lakes.

[Bob33]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

I think that's the point.

[huntnphool]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

[washelkhunter]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.

[bigtex]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.

Small game and birds.

[huntnphool]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.

Small game and birds.

I thought lead bird shot was already banned.

[bigtex]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.

Small game and birds.

I thought lead bird shot was already banned.

Not entirely. It's illegal to use lead for waterfowl statewide. It's also illegal to use lead for upland bird hunting on WDFW pheasant release sites. Other than that you can use lead for all other birds.

[huntnphool]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.

Small game and birds.

I thought lead bird shot was already banned.

Not entirely. It's illegal to use lead for waterfowl statewide. It's also illegal to use lead for upland bird hunting on WDFW pheasant release sites. Other than that you can use lead for all other birds.

I can see changing it for bird shot, but big game is a complete joke, varmint too.

 If this truly is a environmental/wildlife emergency, and I don't buy that for a second, then make it caliber restricted, like .22 caliber and smaller, since that's what 99% of prairie dogs and squirrels are hunted with.

[Bob33]

Not entirely. It's illegal to use lead for waterfowl statewide. It's also illegal to use lead for upland bird hunting on WDFW pheasant release sites. Other than that you can use lead for all other birds.

It can't be used on nearly all Wildlife Areas and National refuges.

[bigtex]

Not entirely. It's illegal to use lead for waterfowl statewide. It's also illegal to use lead for upland bird hunting on WDFW pheasant release sites. Other than that you can use lead for all other birds.

It can't be used on nearly all Wildlife Areas and National refuges.

I know Bob

[csaaphill]

 
I Say No to the hell NO! 
We think this ok next will be something else, can't believe people truly think this ok?
It's coming from HSUS For dang sakes the biggest anti hunting group out there!
Nothing like divide and conquer huh?
 

[sled]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.

Small game and birds.

I thought lead bird shot was already banned.

  I Was Shot In The Knee With A Pellet Gun When I Was9  I carried That Pellet for Eleven Years.  Nothing Wrong With Me.....  Wait A Minute..  IM Am As Messed Up As They Come!

[huntnphool]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.

Small game and birds.

I thought lead bird shot was already banned.

  I Was Shot In The Knee With A Pellet Gun When I Was9  I carried That Pellet for Eleven Years.  Nothing Wrong With Me.....  Wait A Minute..  IM Am As Messed Up As They Come!

[sled]

This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.

yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!

Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.

Small game and birds.

I thought lead bird shot was already banned.

  I Was Shot In The Knee With A Pellet Gun When I Was9  I carried That Pellet for Eleven Years.  Nothing Wrong With Me.....  Wait A Minute..  IM Am As Messed Up As They Come!

  Also Don't Have Much Hair Left.  Must Be from Paint Chips, Or Maybe A 5 Year Old Daughter...

[sakoshooter]

Growing up shooting a single shot/break open pellet gun, I always carried a mouth full of .177 cal pellets ready to deploy at a seconds notice if a second shot was needed as it usually was. Can't even fathom how many hundreds I swallowed while running after squirrels etc thru the woods.
Can't really say I've been affected or maybe I'm all screwed up like Sled, LOL.

I wouldn't support banning lead bullets for the reasons the Humane Society is using.

[Bean Counter]

Bullshat! 

I have a rather large supply of lead hunting ammo.   I will have to consider risking a ticket before just throwing it all out.

[Bigshooter]

I Say No to the hell NO! 
We think this ok next will be something else, can't believe people truly think this ok?
It's coming from HSUS For dang sakes the biggest anti hunting group out there!
Nothing like divide and conquer huh?
 

 

Give an inch now and they will come back and try and take a mile later.

[HawkCreek]

http://www.nssfblog.com/nssf-statement-on-u-s-fish-and-wildlife-service-study-on-traditional-ammunition-and-bald-eagles/

[huntrights]

ACTION ALERT: “Hunting on Public Lands at Risk”

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,155513.0.html

http://www.nssfblog.com/hunting-on-public-lands-at-risk/

Make those phone calls.

[washelkhunter]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

[huntnphool]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

Lmao, this is the kind of nanny, do gooder, BS mentality and comments that cracks me up. All of you wildlife "champions" pick the next heart string subject you can BS the general head in the sand public with, in your wildly exaggerated scenario's, just to further your real agenda's.

 There are so many other "toxic" issues you can be addressing that have far more realistic scenarios and impact, than a bird somehow ingesting poison from the lead bullet that passed through my buck 5 years ago.

 How about addressing the amount of oil or coolant leaking out of the vehicles on the roads as a example? Its far more realistic to suggest toxins from that are harming wildlife than a 150 grain bullet in the dirt somewhere..........lmao!

[pianoman9701]

It makes sense for waterfowl because the pellets are concentrated in the ponds. This would have no positive effects in the woods where there may be no more than a few bullets per sq mile. Ridiculous.

[Bob33]

I tend to agree this is a reaction to a problem that is not really a problem in the vast majority of places, including Washington.

Here's an interesting read, however: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml

[huntnphool]

It makes sense for waterfowl because the pellets are concentrated in the ponds. This would have no positive effects in the woods where there may be no more than a few bullets per sq mile. Ridiculous.

Agreed, I do not have a issue banning lead shot.

[snowpack]

I think most of the ammo bans only apply to hunters.  I think in many of those areas you can still go shoot 5,000 rounds of lead shot at sporting clays over a duck pond.  Or empty tens of thousands of lead rifle bullets into the hillside every afternoon.

[grundy53]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

Lead isn't man made. It is found in nature... so it's probably fine to leave it back in nature.

sent from my typewriter

[timberfaller]

  what a read!   the lead issue can be summed up with one statement.  IT is no different then the whole global warming/climate change HOAX! Same ideology and brainwashing by whacked out scientist 

I think some on here have fallen for BOTH!!

And before any of you spout off,  look up the very beginning of the(HOAX) lead vs steel issue.   Some on here were probably not even born yet.

Hint;  You'll find the FED'S were against going to steel!!  A "forced" retirement is what made the change in "agenda"

Good luck on your search.

Even though it won't change anything,  stupid people insist on doing stupid things especially if it involves a Federal agency!

[huntrights]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/

[Bob33]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/

They're just a wit bit biased.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/nra-pulled-its-science-denying-website-that-cla/195299

[Fishnfowler]

I'll chime in.  Perhaps I'm an anachronism, but my sport is hunting upland game with vintage SxS shotguns.  I've been doing it for 40 years and don't think I'll change soon.  My hunting is generally pretty far from ponds and the beaten path. I'm predominately a chukar hunter, but do chase the other game birds.  Banning lead shot will effectively force me to shoot bismuth and tungsten at what is quickly approaching 2 bucks a shell.  My three children also all shoot quality SxS shotguns.  Buying ammo for all of us would become prohibitive.  Selling all my guns so I could shoot steel just isn't going to happen.  When this state goes all steel, you can kiss my a$$ goodbye. I'll take my money, family, license purchases, and votes to another state. 

I'm convinced that concentrating lead shot in pheasant release sites and dove fields is a bad thing for the environment.  I am far from convinced that banning me from the chukar hills will make a lick of difference in lead poisonings.  Having my fellow hunters throw me under the bus is a bit of let down.  When they come for you I'll be gone.  Thanks for nothing.

[huntrights]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/

They're just a wit bit biased.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/nra-pulled-its-science-denying-website-that-cla/195299

"Biased" is a key term in the discussion. However, it also important to dig a little deeper.
Let's look at the source.  Also note the date of the article in the link (8-8-13).  Read their article closely and note how they came to their conclusion.  Then let's look at who Media Matters is.    Based on looking at Media Matters sole purpose and their history, they appear to be a very liberal, left-wing-biased organization that should not be given much credibility; just another propaganda machine.  Thanks for bringing Media Matters to our attention.  Of course, we all need to decide for ourselves.

Media Matters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
"Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"."


Media Matters, the watchdog group that loves to hate Fox News
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120205779.html


Media Matters Facts
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pages/static/media_matters_facts


This is a good read about Media Matters:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7150



About the Hunt for Truth website:

The website is up and running.  It is not uncommon for links to change on a website which might explain why the Hunt for Truth link on the NRA-ILA website did not work for Media Matters on the one day they checked (8-8-13). 

Hunt for Truth - The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/


The NRA provides links to Hunt for Truth in their articles:

Big Condor Trouble Brewing for Hunters in Oregon: Join the Hunt for the Truth About Lead Ammunition and Hunting
http://www.nraila.org/hunting/articles/2014/4/big-condor-trouble-brewing-for-hunters-in-oregon-join-the-hunt-for-the-truth-about-lead-ammunition-and-hunting.aspx?s=hunt+for+truth&st=&ps=

Posted on April 4, 2014


  The information on the Hunt for Truth website appears to rely on science versus what we typically see with anti-hunting propaganda.  It also appears we can add Media Matters to the list of propaganda propagators. 

Is there bias in Hunt for Truth?   

The NRA has stood by our sides and fought for our rights.  Media Matters works to discredit conservative views. Who should we believe?

[fireweed]

The WDFW 2015-2021 game management plan has a "statement" on lead that everyone better check out and comment on before July 18.

[Bob33]

Is there bias in Hunt for Truth?   

The NRA has stood by our sides and fought for our rights.  Media Matters works to discredit conservative views. Who should we believe?

I'm an NRA life member, but my answer in this case is "neither". There is far more information on this topic and I prefer to study it comprehensively without relying on any one source, particularly when they have a vested interest in the outcome.

[washelkhunter]

Media matters is funded by the scourge known as george soros, obamas and the demonrats master puppeteer and financier.

[Bob33]

“Most non-lead alternatives offer inferior ballistic performance compared to lead. Because most alternative metals are less dense than lead, they lose energy and velocity in flight faster than lead and retain less down-range energy. For rifle ammunition, alternative metals are able to offer similar performance to lead at close range, but the generally lighter density of non-lead alternatives undermines their ballistic performance above 100-150 yards and makes lead a far superior ammunition for long range targets. Unfortunately, rifles and pistols have rifling that is designed to gyroscopically stabilize lead projectiles and not alternative metal ammunition.”

I suspect there are more than a few hunters who have shot game at distances in excess of 150 yards with Barnes or Nosler eTip projectiles that would disagree.

“For shot, steel and other harder metals offer inferior terminal performance because the projectile passes straight through the game without deformation, thus wounding and crippling the game instead of killing it on impact.”

There are lead free shot materials (bismuth, tungsten) whose terminal performance is at least equal to, if not superior to lead.

“Hunt for Truth is researching the potential for lead poisoning in various waterfowl.”

Really? There’s not much to say about that comment.

[huntrights]

There is a lot of information and propaganda out there, and most of us are not qualified research scientists capable of determining which studies are based on sound and unbiased science and which studies are fuzzy, manipulated, and biased science to serve specific agendas.

However, there are two simple questions people can ask themselves. 

1)   Who are the primary organizations pushing for the ban on traditional ammunition?
             a.   Answer: Two of the primary organizations are:
                       i.   Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
                      ii.   Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)

2)   Who are the primary organizations fighting against the ban on traditional ammunition:
             a.   Answer: Some of the primary organizations are:
                       i.   National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)
                      ii.   Safari Club International (SCI)
                     iii.   U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)
                     iv.   National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Are all of these organizations biased in their organizational missions?  Answer: Absolutely.

Here are a couple more questions:

•   Has the Humane Society of the United States or the Center for Biological Diversity done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?

o   Answer:  Available information on these two organizations indicates that they fall into the category of organizations generally referred to as “antis”.  No need to say more.


•   Has NSSF, SCI, USSA, and NRA-ILA done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?

o   Answer: A resounding YES!  They are our allies.  They fight for rights to hunt, fish, own firearms, and participate in shooting sports.


Ultimately we must all decide who we will place our trust in since most of us do not have the time, resources, or expertise to do the detailed research ourselves.  At some point we must rely on the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by one side or the other.  Since this is a hunting forum, it is likely that HSUS and CBD will lose.

It would be interesting to do a poll asking who believes the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by HSUS and CBD versus the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA.  My vote goes with the NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA, but that’s just my  .

[huntnphool]

There is a lot of information and propaganda out there, and most of us are not qualified research scientists capable of determining which studies are based on sound and unbiased science and which studies are fuzzy, manipulated, and biased science to serve specific agendas.

However, there are two simple questions people can ask themselves. 

1)   Who are the primary organizations pushing for the ban on traditional ammunition?
             a.   Answer: Two of the primary organizations are:
                       i.   Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
                      ii.   Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)

2)   Who are the primary organizations fighting against the ban on traditional ammunition:
             a.   Answer: Some of the primary organizations are:
                       i.   National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)
                      ii.   Safari Club International (SCI)
                     iii.   U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)
                     iv.   National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Are all of these organizations biased in their organizational missions?  Answer: Absolutely.

Here are a couple more questions:

•   Has the Humane Society of the United States or the Center for Biological Diversity done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?

o   Answer:  Available information on these two organizations indicates that they fall into the category of organizations generally referred to as “antis”.  No need to say more.


•   Has NSSF, SCI, USSA, and NRA-ILA done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?

o   Answer: A resounding YES!  They are our allies.  They fight for rights to hunt, fish, own firearms, and participate in shooting sports.


Ultimately we must all decide who we will place our trust in since most of us do not have the time, resources, or expertise to do the detailed research ourselves.  At some point we must rely on the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by one side or the other.  Since this is a hunting forum, it is likely that HSUS and CBD will lose.

It would be interesting to do a poll asking who believes the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by HSUS and CBD versus the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA.  My vote goes with the NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA, but that’s just my  .

 All of their research and arguments mean nothing to me, if they dont address other issues contributing to the health of their targetted wildlife examples.

[woodswalker]

Are all non-lead bullets considered "Armor piercing"?

All copper bullet:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/

Armor piercing? I think not, but then again, I'm far from an expert. That's the 1st thing that jumps out at me as BS.
 

I don't necessarily have an issue with non-lead ammo, but let's at least be realistic.

The devil is in the DETAILS...the "armor-piercing ammo" legislation usually goes after construction.  With words like "Monolithic" and "non-lead construction".  When you couple that with a ban on "bullets containing or substancially constructed of Lead or Lead Alloys" that pretty well wipes out the handgun bullet market. 

Another for instance is the Barnes Banded Solid.... Barnes’ Banded Solids™ stop dangerous game right now! In life-threatening situations, you can depend on Banded Solids to put the largest animal down. Machined from homogenous copper/zinc alloy, these indestructible bullets won’t disintegrate or deflect on heavy bone.

In smaller calibers these bullets have been deemed "Armor Piercing" by TPTB due to the Monolithic nature., so its a slippery slope at best.

From Barnes:
In October 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) classified
twelve individual Barnes Banded Solid projectiles as armor piercing ammunition. Following
these classifications, Barnes submitted individual “exemption request” petitions to ATF. If the
petitions are approved, the projectiles will be removed from the statutory definition of armor
piercing ammunition, and therefore Barnes will have clearance to continue manufacturing and
selling these projectiles.
As of today’s date, ATF has not ruled on any of the petitions requesting the removal of the
Banded Solid projectiles from the statutory definition of armor piercing ammunition.
Accordingly, the following eleven Banded Solid projectiles (currently listed in the 2012 Barnes
Catalog) are subject to exemption requests that are pending with ATF. Please note that Barnes is
not pursuing an exemption for the .223 caliber Banded Solid projectile at this time. The .223
caliber Banded Solids are not listed in the 2012 Barnes catalog or on the Barnes website:
25 Cal 243 Cal 264 Cal 270 Cal
284 Cal 308 Cal 338 Cal 375 Cal
410 Cal 458 Cal (45-70) 458 SOCOM
While we await determination from ATF on these calibers, and in compliance with the original
classification by ATF, the projectiles listed above will not be available for purchase from Barnes.
However, if and when the exemption requests are approved, the projectiles at issue will become
available for purchase at that time.

[huntnphool]

Are all non-lead bullets considered "Armor piercing"?

All copper bullet:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/

Armor piercing? I think not, but then again, I'm far from an expert. That's the 1st thing that jumps out at me as BS.
 

I don't necessarily have an issue with non-lead ammo, but let's at least be realistic.

The devil is in the DETAILS...the "armor-piercing ammo" legislation usually goes after construction.  With words like "Monolithic" and "non-lead construction".  When you couple that with a ban on "bullets containing or substancially constructed of Lead or Lead Alloys" that pretty well wipes out the handgun bullet market. 

Another for instance is the Barnes Banded Solid.... Barnes’ Banded Solids™ stop dangerous game right now! In life-threatening situations, you can depend on Banded Solids to put the largest animal down. Machined from homogenous copper/zinc alloy, these indestructible bullets won’t disintegrate or deflect on heavy bone.

In smaller calibers these bullets have been deemed "Armor Piercing" by TPTB due to the Monolithic nature., so its a slippery slope at best.

 Yep, currently the bullets I am loading for my FiveseveN handgun are level 3 armor piercing, .223 caliber.

[timberfaller]

Don't forget, those two groups are using "wacko" science and their "green" lawyers to bend the ears of the un-informed!(politicians)

For you who don't have a problem "banning" lead shot, understand this,  back in the beginning NOT ONE bird out of the 50 states(not 57!) could be found to have died from lead poisoning from lead shot!  NO ducks, NO Bald Eagles but FACTS didn't stop their "agenda"

The above mentioned groups have, as do the liberals, A AGENDA!!   Educate your self and get in the fight!  and quit poking holes in the boat!!!

If anything should be "banned" its steel shot and stupidity!!

[Wacenturion]

It makes sense for waterfowl because the pellets are concentrated in the ponds. This would have no positive effects in the woods where there may be no more than a few bullets per sq mile. Ridiculous.

Not neccessary so.  Back in my younger days with WDFW as a biologist in Region 2, I took lots of samples looking for lead shot deposits from areas in Grant, Adams and Franklin counties prior to the eventual change over a few years later to non toxic shot. 

Many or those areas, including the Pothholes Reservoir showed no retention of lead available to waterfowl as it was mostly sandy bottoms and the lead was not there due to sinking lower than say in a hardpan bottom pond where it would remain on the top of the bottom surface.

[jasnt]

I Say No to the hell NO! 
We think this ok next will be something else, can't believe people truly think this ok?
It's coming from HSUS For dang sakes the biggest anti hunting group out there!
Nothing like divide and conquer huh?
 

+1 ill never support a lead ban!!!!!!!!

[csaaphill]

Bullshat! 

I have a rather large supply of lead hunting ammo.   I will have to consider risking a ticket before just throwing it all out.

damn strait.
Not against the environment either, but If anyone can't see how this will eventually give the anti hunters an edge to ban all hunting you sadly mistaken.
All my shotgun shells are of lead, and all my Rifle ammo is too so hell ya wont be throwing it out anytime soon!
Guess give me a ticket and good luck forcing me to appear! OR to pay!

[csaaphill]

It makes sense for waterfowl because the pellets are concentrated in the ponds. This would have no positive effects in the woods where there may be no more than a few bullets per sq mile. Ridiculous.

Not neccessary so.  Back in my younger days with WDFW as a biologist in Region 2, I took lots of samples looking for lead shot deposits from areas in Grant, Adams and Franklin counties prior to the eventual change over a few years later to non toxic shot. 

Many or those areas, including the Pothholes Reservoir showed no retention of lead available to waterfowl as it was mostly sandy bottoms and the lead was not there due to sinking lower than say in a hardpan bottom pond where it would remain on the top of the bottom surface.

Kind of funny how those with personal and true experience with these issue always get overlooked. always the agenda rules not what's true!
Can't recall specifics, and or issues, But I have talked to people who have knowledge of certain things such as this, but they got overlooked when decision time came around. SO ya biased opinions and agendas have a lot of weight on how things get done!