PDA

View Full Version : AB 2223 and Pedro Nava- The Right Attorney General?


acanales
05-02-2010, 4:41 PM
Assemblyman Pedro Nava has sponsored AB 2223, a bill which would ban the use of lead bird shot in California State Wildlife Areas, upland game management areas, and deer regions for possession or use when hunting and target shooting .

During his presentation at the Assembly Committee on Water Parks and Wildlife on April 13, 2010, Assemblyman Nava made a number of statements that bear scrutiny.

Compare these with past discussions at the California Fish and Game Commission over a past proposal to ban lead bird shot, and one can question whether California can afford a Pedro Nava as Attorney General.

URL's at:

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/newsbriefs/100426.htm

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTaofR-QmUo

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

jacques
05-02-2010, 6:48 PM
Nava is about as anti as they come. He is Ex-LEO and uses that to promote his agenda. I do not know if he is just ignorant, or does it because his jurisdiction wants it.

Waterfowler
05-02-2010, 11:54 PM
I am not saying this bill is a good thing but it has always struck me as odd having to shoot steel/tungsten shot for waterfowl on WMAs(+ everywhere else) for the last 20 years when they allowed people to shoot lead over these very same ponds(both full and seasonally dry) during dove and rabbit season.

RRangel
05-03-2010, 12:09 AM
Assemblyman Pedro Nava is another tax, spend, and regulate clown that feels he's entitled to screw over citizens because he's one of the enlightened. His anti-gun stance shows his outright hatred for independent Americans who don't need him to regulate their lives. We don't need enemies with legislators like him.

acanales
05-03-2010, 8:44 AM
I am not saying this bill is a good thing but it has always struck me as odd having to shoot steel/tungsten shot for waterfowl on WMAs(+ everywhere else) for the last 20 years when they allowed people to shoot lead over these very same ponds(both full and seasonally dry) during dove and rabbit season.

Dear Waterfowler,
What they are not telling you is how toxic tungsten shot is turning out to be. Steel shot also may have issues in dry upland game brush situations related to fire causation. One can even have too much iron in water and soils, depending upon which regulatory authority gets to issue the regulations.

The National Park Service and the DOD have both banned many kinds of small arms ammunition containing tungsten, the NPS having banned it's use by NPS personnel since July 2006. DOD still uses tungsten in research and certain AP rounds, but have eliminated it from small arms training or "Green" ammo several years ago.

The agenda is clearly to ban lead, then address known tungsten and copper toxicities afterward. All of this is based upon "science" with questionable data and logic towards exposure levels.

Even if they find a suitable substitute for lead, copper and tungsten from an environmental rules standpoint, the real issue is as to whether all but a privileged few could afford to shoot that yet to be determined material.

That's not conducive to the Second Amendment, at least the way I see it.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

stevenarita
06-15-2010, 6:09 PM
While I'm not fan of most gun laws, lead is a pretty toxic substance you don't want on land and in the water supply....why be against this?

Werewolf1021
06-15-2010, 6:28 PM
While I'm not fan of most gun laws, lead is a pretty toxic substance you don't want on land and in the water supply....why be against this?

Because there isnt any data to prove that it does noticeable harm. Remember the condor thing not too long ago that DFG tried to ram through?

nick
06-15-2010, 6:40 PM
While I'm not fan of most gun laws, lead is a pretty toxic substance you don't want on land and in the water supply....why be against this?

1. Because the "science" and logic behind the lead ban are both tortured at best (or rather, a convenient lie), and we shouldn't encourage laws passed on such basis.

2. Because they aren't trying to address a problem with lead, but that with ammunition. There're many much greater sources of lead in the environment (landfills, various runoffs, projects, etc.). However, it's the lead ammunition, one of the lesser sources of lead, that gets banned.

3. Because it infringes on one of the fundamental freedoms we (supposedly) have, and that shouldn't be taken lightly or encouraged, either.

4. Expanding on #2, because lead ammunition outside of designated shooting ranges (where it's concentrated) isn't a significant enough source of lead pollution to matter in the first place.

stevenarita
06-15-2010, 7:22 PM
The toxicity of lead is a common science -- there can't be dispute there. They're not saying we can't shoot, but to simply use steel shot which should be good enough for 50 yards. Freedom to bear arms is not freedom to shoot lead. Isn't a simple solution merely to copper jacket coat shots?

singleshotman
06-15-2010, 7:26 PM
I am a collector who shoots his guns.Banning lead shot will make it impossable to shoot almost any gun made before 1980 or so, ther'es millions of these guns out their.

nick
06-15-2010, 8:23 PM
The toxicity of lead is a common science -- there can't be dispute there. They're not saying we can't shoot, but to simply use steel shot which should be good enough for 50 yards. Freedom to bear arms is not freedom to shoot lead. Isn't a simple solution merely to copper jacket coat shots?

Arsenic is toxic and has been used as a poison. However, we use it as a medicine in small doses.

While lead is toxic, the small amounts of it released when lead ammunition if being used by hunters don't make a difference, yet they're the ones targeted. There were 262K tags sold in CA in 2005 (the latest data I could find). Less than a half of them are in the condor area, but since we're talking about the terrible impact of lead coming from hunters using lead bullets, let's use the entire number. Let's assume 2 bullets per tag (sorry, I don't mean to offend any hunters here :p), that's 524K bullets. at the average of 130gr per bullet (and I'm being generous here, once again), we're talking about 9731.43 lbs of lead (provided the entire bullet is made of lead, which isn't usually the case, but I'm being generous here) distributed over 163696 sq. miles of surface that is the State of California. That's a bit less than .06 lbs per sq mile per year. In comparison, how much lead do we throw out in car batteries, industrial batteries, or electronics (a single CRT monitor or TV, for example, contains 4 lbs of lead on average), not to mention other sources?

Basically, you're replacing common sense with "common science". It's not enough to know a scientific fact, you have to be able to apply it, too.

RRangel
06-15-2010, 9:01 PM
Nava is about as anti as they come. He is Ex-LEO and uses that to promote his agenda. I do not know if he is just ignorant, or does it because his jurisdiction wants it.

He does it because he's an elitist. Whether his "district wants it" or not is not the criterion with which to judge. Who was asking the question? The fact that he does it is more an indication of his character and lack thereof.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
06-16-2010, 6:57 PM
While I'm not fan of most gun laws, lead is a pretty toxic substance you don't want on land and in the water supply....why be against this?

I am sorry for threadjacking, but I don't think Mr. Canales will mind, seeing as his report re this matter is in the link I provide below. Mr. Arita, I think all hunters, and most people, want to be good stewards of the land, but as to your question "why be against this," you may want to look at the article we have on www.calgunlaws.com that explains what happened with the CA Fish & Game Commission on this very topic last year. The article with all the related documents and reports is located at:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/articles-memoranda-and-commentary/908-memoranda/844-nracrpa-legal-action-project-stops-expansion-of-lead-ammunition-ban.html

Incidentally, there is an article on the frontpage of www.calgunlaws.com right now about a fight the NRA is involved with over attempted lead ammo bans in Arizona for anyone interested in this issue.

dantodd
06-16-2010, 8:47 PM
Depleted Uranium FTW

ddestruel
06-16-2010, 11:05 PM
The toxicity of lead is a common science -- there can't be dispute there. They're not saying we can't shoot, but to simply use steel shot which should be good enough for 50 yards. Freedom to bear arms is not freedom to shoot lead. Isn't a simple solution merely to copper jacket coat shots?

All metals / elements are toxic when administered above acceptable levels. You try steel shot on Rabbits, quail, grouse and all other upland game and get back to me. You obviously don't remember the days of lead duck hunting. 1 shot and the bird was dead the amount of game lost due to the lack of lead in certain hunting situations is evident and real. scientifically proven statistics exist.

You are missing the point that the levels of lead exposure are so little from lead shot that it can not be measured in 99.9% of the cases. our old 72 acre duck pond in the central valley had to have soil samples when we converted over to wetlands management. this pond has been hunted in since 1916. the amount of lead shot into that pond by 6 members and their guests every weekend during every duck season from 1916 until lead was banded should have been significant enough by your reasoning to show up in a soil testing on land that has never been farmed only hunted with lead shot. in the tests the amount of lead in 1986 in our pond was trace amounts. no more than what naturally occurs in the soil throughout CA. After 80 years of shooting during duck seasons and pheasant seasons our pond that is still used heavily had trace amounts of lead. our iron samples were higher than the lead.

Point is this isn't about lead or public health it is a campaign founded on false science claiming that minute exposure to the environment poses a risk when in reality the exposure equates to nothing more than trace levels that are equal to or less than that of naturally occurring lead in the soil already.

It starts here either you draw a line or we continue to give up ground like we did with gun rights we have to acknowledge that there are limits but there also are acceptable levels for everything.