Lead ammo email from MN Gun Owners PAC

[bstrawse]

My mistake, I thought this was the same thing as the MN Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance. Are you?

GOCRA = Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance - http://gocra.org - 501(c)(4) advocacy organization
MNGOPAC = Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - http://mngopac.org - a Minnesota Political Action Committee

Details on how MNGOPAC works with GOCRA and the NRA are on our website at: http://www.mngopac.org/about

Hope this helps,
Thanks,
Bryan

[Randygmn]

Let's get a few things straight...

1. Non-Science
While lead in birds is an issue, there's little evidence to support that ammunition is a source of it. Most of the science out there starts with the premise that ammunition is a primary source of lead.

“[T]here are other sources of lead in the environment that condors may be accessing, including five individual condors apparently ingesting chips of lead-based paint in a fire tower,”

2. Expense
Sure, hunting CAN BE an expensive hobby, but ammunition is a key continuing cost. A box of steel 410 for my son's shotgun costs 1/5th the cost of the gun itself.
The NSSF surveyed California hunters after AB 711 passed and found that nearly 40 percent said they will either have to stop or severely reduce their hunting due to the much higher costs of non-lead ammunition.
Keep in mind that not any steel / non-tox will do. It has to be "certified" by the ATF.

Your premise that cost will go down depends on the market. hazmatpat can probably give some better insight, but unless there's a substantial demand for non-tox from all aspects of the market (Government/Police, target ammo, military, etc) there won't be a major production shift.

3. It won't stop.
Just like California's lead ban zone has now expanded to the whole state, the same thing will happen here, and probably worse.

4. Hunters need to get off the bench
While the Fudds, as we lovingly call them, don't get worked up over self defense, and are not likely to take on a scientific battle, they can relate to the costs of ammo, and that as ammo prices increase, people shoot less. We need to engage politically apathetic hunters to understand the risks of unchecked bureaucratic rule making, and how it will affect them. This was a good opportunity.

5. The text
Here is the "fear mongering" draw your own conclusions.

This past weekend, my son and I enjoyed his first pheasant hunt in Watertown, MN with his brand new .410 break-action shotgun.

I had a bit of sticker shock when I saw the price of shells for his gun.

I'm afraid that price could get much, MUCH higher.

The Minnesota Department of National Resources (MN DNR) has opened up a comment period for proposed rules that would prohibit the use of lead ammunition in Minnesota's 1.3 million acres of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) - and even statewide for certain species of small game.

This prohibition would make hunting two to four times more expensive, without having any measurable benefit on the environment.

You can view the proposed rules at this link.

In 2008, California introduced a lead ammunition ban in an attempt to reduce lead exposure to the California Condor. Despite 99% compliance with the law, the issue of lead levels in wildlife went unchanged. Researchers have since identified that the chief contributing factor was industrial lead usage, rather than lead shot by hunters.

While the Condor's lead levels remained stagnant, the price of hunting ammunition in California skyrocketed.

Don't let that happen here. Your voice is needed NOW!

Take a few minutes and do the following this TODAY:
E-Mail the MN DNR: Send an e-mail to Jason Abraham at jason.abraham@dnr.state.mn.us and let him know that you're a gun owner, that you oppose any restriction on your right to make the best choice for affordable and high-performing ammunition, and that Minnesota should not taken on proposals that make hunting less accessible.
If you're able, please consider chipping in $10 or $20, or more, to the Minnesota Gun Owners PAC so that we can continue to quell the tide of anti-hunting regulation and legislation in Saint Paul.

We'll continue to monitor this issue in the months ahead and will keep you up to date on the latest developments with the Minnesota DNR.

Thanks for your support.

Thanks a lot. Now I'm really frightened. To hell with the message, that's not important. Instead, I'm going to focus my anger on the jerk who composed and sent this message instead of the gun grabbing, would-be-confiscators who are actively DESTROYING MY COUNTRY!!!!!

[yukonjasper]

Don't be frightened, Take action. Heck no one is even asking you to pick up a sign and march on the capitol -yet. All that is required to register your dismay and disgust is to put together an email that registers your displeasure with the idea of further restrictions. As always, be polite, be fact based and be direct.

I composed mine in about 7 minutes, probably could have been edited a bit, but it wasn't difficult to put thoughts down into an email.

Here is the email I sent:
Dear Mr. Abraham,
I am a shooter and a hunter and I do not agree with any proposal that would further limit my ammunition choices.

I particularly object to any measure that is not firmly anchored in actual science as it begins to look like another way to infringe upon my Gun Rights. The incremental whittling away of the fundamental right secured by the Second Amendment is insidious and objectionable. The legislation and regulation couched in good intentions without the backing of hard evidence is misguided and “feel good” for special interest groups whose sole purpose is the systematic limitation and eventual elimination of the use of firearms. Further restriction will only raise the costs associated with the shooting sports and hunting.


Please do not be fooled by junk science. I understand that you and your agency are under pressure from environmental groups to “do something” but do not let reason and logic slip away in an effort to quiet the din of these fringe groups who ignore the science or apply incomplete research to achieve their goals. The basis for much of the concern regarding the metallic form of Lead is unfounded. Further research in the early case studies of the lead toxicity in California Condor concluded that it was not elemental lead that was causing the toxicity, but lead paint, industrially introduced non-metallic elemental lead sources and naturally occurring concentrations found in their environment. Similarly, longitudinal studies have shown that the instances of migratory waterfowl dying or being sickened by lead exposure in the form of lead shot have been miss-represented and exaggerated. It is widely known that the bioavailability of elemental lead in its metallic form is very low. Please seek out alternative sources to the studies that are designed to advance a particular agenda.

Any further restrictions, fees, taxes or bans, however well meaning, should be considered an assault on the citizens that you and your agency are supposed to answer to and support. Further restrictions will only result in higher costs to the citizens who choose to hunt and squeeze out those who may not be able to afford to hunt, many of those who could benefit from the protein sources represented by the various game species in this state. Increasing costs and raising further barriers will only diminish the numbers of citizens who can participate.

Thanks for your time and your consideration.

[rtk]

Don't be frightened, Take action. Heck no one is even asking you to pick up a sign and march on the capitol -yet. All that is required to register your dismay and disgust is to put together an email that registers your displeasure with the idea of further restrictions. As always, be polite, be fact based and be direct.

I composed mine in about 7 minutes, probably could have been edited a bit, but it wasn't difficult to put thoughts down into an email.

Here is the email I sent:
Dear Mr. Abraham,
I am a shooter and a hunter and I do not agree with any proposal that would further limit my ammunition choices.

I particularly object to any measure that is not firmly anchored in actual science as it begins to look like another way to infringe upon my Gun Rights. The incremental whittling away of the fundamental right secured by the Second Amendment is insidious and objectionable. The legislation and regulation couched in good intentions without the backing of hard evidence is misguided and “feel good” for special interest groups whose sole purpose is the systematic limitation and eventual elimination of the use of firearms. Further restriction will only raise the costs associated with the shooting sports and hunting.


Please do not be fooled by junk science. I understand that you and your agency are under pressure from environmental groups to “do something” but do not let reason and logic slip away in an effort to quiet the din of these fringe groups who ignore the science or apply incomplete research to achieve their goals. The basis for much of the concern regarding the metallic form of Lead is unfounded. Further research in the early case studies of the lead toxicity in California Condor concluded that it was not elemental lead that was causing the toxicity, but lead paint, industrially introduced non-metallic elemental lead sources and naturally occurring concentrations found in their environment. Similarly, longitudinal studies have shown that the instances of migratory waterfowl dying or being sickened by lead exposure in the form of lead shot have been miss-represented and exaggerated. It is widely known that the bioavailability of elemental lead in its metallic form is very low. Please seek out alternative sources to the studies that are designed to advance a particular agenda.

Any further restrictions, fees, taxes or bans, however well meaning, should be considered an assault on the citizens that you and your agency are supposed to answer to and support. Further restrictions will only result in higher costs to the citizens who choose to hunt and squeeze out those who may not be able to afford to hunt, many of those who could benefit from the protein sources represented by the various game species in this state. Increasing costs and raising further barriers will only diminish the numbers of citizens who can participate.

Thanks for your time and your consideration.

Perfect!

[bstrawse]

Don't be frightened, Take action. Heck no one is even asking you to pick up a sign and march on the capitol -yet. All that is required to register your dismay and disgust is to put together an email that registers your displeasure with the idea of further restrictions. As always, be polite, be fact based and be direct.

I composed mine in about 7 minutes, probably could have been edited a bit, but it wasn't difficult to put thoughts down into an email.

Here is the email I sent:
Dear Mr. Abraham,
I am a shooter and a hunter and I do not agree with any proposal that would further limit my ammunition choices.

I particularly object to any measure that is not firmly anchored in actual science as it begins to look like another way to infringe upon my Gun Rights. The incremental whittling away of the fundamental right secured by the Second Amendment is insidious and objectionable. The legislation and regulation couched in good intentions without the backing of hard evidence is misguided and “feel good” for special interest groups whose sole purpose is the systematic limitation and eventual elimination of the use of firearms. Further restriction will only raise the costs associated with the shooting sports and hunting.


Please do not be fooled by junk science. I understand that you and your agency are under pressure from environmental groups to “do something” but do not let reason and logic slip away in an effort to quiet the din of these fringe groups who ignore the science or apply incomplete research to achieve their goals. The basis for much of the concern regarding the metallic form of Lead is unfounded. Further research in the early case studies of the lead toxicity in California Condor concluded that it was not elemental lead that was causing the toxicity, but lead paint, industrially introduced non-metallic elemental lead sources and naturally occurring concentrations found in their environment. Similarly, longitudinal studies have shown that the instances of migratory waterfowl dying or being sickened by lead exposure in the form of lead shot have been miss-represented and exaggerated. It is widely known that the bioavailability of elemental lead in its metallic form is very low. Please seek out alternative sources to the studies that are designed to advance a particular agenda.

Any further restrictions, fees, taxes or bans, however well meaning, should be considered an assault on the citizens that you and your agency are supposed to answer to and support. Further restrictions will only result in higher costs to the citizens who choose to hunt and squeeze out those who may not be able to afford to hunt, many of those who could benefit from the protein sources represented by the various game species in this state. Increasing costs and raising further barriers will only diminish the numbers of citizens who can participate.

Thanks for your time and your consideration.

Great letter - thanks for sharing this!
b

[linksep]

To me, this comes off as being a bit dramatic and contrary to the basics of economics. While the prices are currently higher for non-toxic shotgun shells, the increase in demand for them would cause shifts in production and increases from the companies that currently make them.

You can have all the production shift and related economy of scale you want but it won't overcome the fact that the commodity price of tungsten (the primary ingredient in lead alternatives) is $12.13/lb while the commodity price of lead is $0.80/lb.

Black Cloud is steel and non-toxic. Tungsten is not the only option. I understand that the idea is to raise money, and I support MNGCRA and appreciate what they do. The NRA does it too, it has just always bothered me because I see it get turned around in the opposition's ads.

Steel: Inexpensive, hard on barrels, low density.
Bismuth: 10x the cost of lead, more dense than steel but still not as good as lead.
Tungsten Matrix: 15x the cost of lead.
Tungsten Iron: 15x the cost of lead, harder than steel!
Hevi-Shot: 15x the cost of lead, slightly denser than lead.
Lead: Cheap, easy to work with, easy on barrels, great density.

IMO, even if you could get steel payload ammo down to lead loaded prices you still lose at every turn. It's not a comparably performing alternative to lead, it's an inferior substitution. There are comparable (tungsten matrix) or maybe better (Hevi-Shot) lead alternatives but they're never going to be able to touch lead material and manufacturing costs without artificially raising the price of lead.

[Holland&Holland]

Elemental lead (lead metal) is poorly understood outside of the laboratory. It isn't quite the devil it's been made out to be in all circumstances.

Too many people were raised on horror stories of lead paint chips (which are NOT metallic lead) to view things via an objective or scientific eye.

Whoa whoa whoa since when is lead not a metal?

[PhilaBOR]

If it's in a compound (eg lead oxide) it's not elemental lead. I don't know how that affects its bio toxicity.

[photogpat]

If it's in a compound (eg lead oxide) it's not elemental lead. I don't know how that affects its bio toxicity.

^this.

Elemental lead - commonly referred to as lead metal, metallic lead...a blob of silvery metal.

Lead compounds - lead oxide, lead chromate, lead chloride, etc...common colorant ingredients in old lead paint...and toxic, much more biologically available, etc...

They are different materials from a chemical and toxicity standpoint -- but unfortunately, most people view lead as inherently evil strictly based on the experience with the toxicity of lead paint chips. Elemental lead (lead metal) behaves MUCH differently in the environment than does lead compounds. Metallic lead is typically unavailable for incorporation into biological systems - and, in an upland hunting situation, lead shot is distributed across such a broad area, that it's concentration in any one spot is extremely dilute.

That, and the science behind this potential ban is sorely lacking -- meaning, there's no indication of any harm being caused wildlife populations in general by lead shotgun shot...a fact the DNR actually acknowledges.

[Holland&Holland]

Bull. Pb is Pd. Now it may be in a compound but it is still an element and still Pb and still a metal. Ya it may not be a silvery blob but an element is an element unless it has been split and in that case we are talking something else.

[photogpat]

Bull. Pb is Pd. Now it may be in a compound but it is still an element and still Pb and still a metal. Ya it may not be a silvery blob but an element is an element unless it has been split and in that case we are talking something else.

Sodium chloride = table salt. No one would ever say sodium chloride has the same properties as sodium and chlorine do individually.

I didn't say it wasn't lead anymore...just that elemental lead and lead compounds have different properties.

[BigBlue]

Bull. Pb is Pd. Now it may be in a compound but it is still an element and still Pb and still a metal. Ya it may not be a silvery blob but an element is an element unless it has been split and in that case we are talking something else.

That's incorrect. An element chemically bonded to another element makes something that can be totally different from either constituent. The sodium chloride example is a good one. Neither pure sodium nor chlorine is particularly good for you, but table salt most certainly is. And salt is also not a metal.

I'm not saying anything about the safety of pure lead versus lead compounds, because I don't know the details, but they could very well have dramatically different effects on things. Just pointing out that the chemistry is not as you describe.

BB

[Kaveman]

Bull. Pb is Pd. Now it may be in a compound but it is still an element and still Pb and still a metal. Ya it may not be a silvery blob but an element is an element unless it has been split and in that case we are talking something else.

I am not trying to pile on, just clarify with an example.
Carbon is an element. It can be found in nature as graphite and also as diamond. Both are pure carbon simply to different allotropes of carbon.

[jshuberg]

Metallic lead can be a health concern, but generally only when inhaled or ingested as very small particles that tend to remain in the body for a long time, rather than being flushed out. Swallowing something like a lead bullet might slightly increase a persons lead levels, but it would be very temporary. Contrast that with breathing clouds of lead paint being stripped off a bulkhead with a needle gun, where a persons lead levels may be significantly and dangerously elevated for decades without chelation treatment.

[Holland&Holland]

Bull. Pb is Pd. Now it may be in a compound but it is still an element and still Pb and still a metal. Ya it may not be a silvery blob but an element is an element unless it has been split and in that case we are talking something else.

That's incorrect. An element chemically bonded to another element makes something that can be totally different from either constituent. The sodium chloride example is a good one. Neither pure sodium nor chlorine is particularly good for you, but table salt most certainly is. And salt is also not a metal.

I'm not saying anything about the safety of pure lead versus lead compounds, because I don't know the details, but they could very well have dramatically different effects on things. Just pointing out that the chemistry is not as you describe.

BB

Of course they could have dramatically different effects. Na is still Na no matter what and Pd is still Pb no matter what it is in and both are metals. To say otherwise is just false.