PDA

View Full Version : Major Legal Victory in Protection of Traditional Hunting Ammo


sbrady@Michel&Associates
10-04-2011, 3:54 PM
NRA Victory in Battle with Environmental Groups Over Use of Lead Ammunition for Hunting in Arizona

In a major legal victory, on October 3rd a federal judge ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and threw out a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) out of federal District Court in Phoenix, Arizona. The case is Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, et al., No. 09-CV-8011. Safari Club International had joined the case as a “friend of the court” and assisted NRA with its successful efforts.

CBD’s lawsuit, filed on January 27, 2009, alleged that the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) were illegally mismanaging federal lands intheArizona “strip” in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. The lawsuit challenged the allowance of off road vehicles, construction of roads, inadequate protection of desert tortoises, and inadequate protection of California condors. Among other things, the suit sought to force BLM to ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona strip. CBD contended California condors in Arizona and elsewhere were being poisoned from scavenging game that was shot by hunters using lead shot or bullets. But the official record plainly shows that California condors were reintroduced to this area of Arizona in reliance on express promises by FWS and other agencies that the “reintroduction” would not impact huntingin any way.

In throwing CBD’s case out of court, the Court ruled in part that CBD had waived its claims concerning BLM’s failure to assess the alleged impact of lead ammunition on condors because “[i]t did not argue that BLM was required to include the potential effects of lead ammunition in [BLM’s] analysis of environmental impacts.”An appeal by CBD is likely.

Even before today’s ruling, NRA's intervention in the case on behalf of its members had already resulted in several legal victories. A January 13, 2010 court ruling granting NRA's motion to intervene was recently published in the official Federal Rules Decision Reporter(FRDR). The FRDR is a compendium of selected United States District Court rulings that specifically interpret and apply the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Publication of this earlier court ruling is important to hunters and NRA members because it sets legal precedent and confirms that there is "significantly protectable interest" in hunting that can justify intervention by hunter's rights groups like NRA in the increasing number of lawsuits filed by so-called environmental groups against state and federal natural resource, game and land management agencies.

Groups like CBD often file lawsuits alleging improper regulatory action or inaction in managing public lands and natural resources in attempting to advance their anti-hunting agenda. NRA has collected thousands of documents via public records act requests over the last two years on the lead ammunition issue. Many of these documents raise serious doubts about the veracity of claims that lead ammunition is poisoning condors. In fact, many documents obtained by NRA show that claim is often based on faulty science.

To see key documents filed in this case, visit http://michellawyers.com/cbdvblm.

taperxz
10-04-2011, 3:56 PM
Will this help out hunters in our own "condor zone" in the future?

sbrady@Michel&Associates
10-04-2011, 4:09 PM
Will this help out hunters in our own "condor zone" in the future?

Yes and no. The published opinion saying groups like the NRA have a "significantly protectable interest" in these types of lawsuits and should be allowed to interevene and make their case will help to the extent there is ever litigation on the Condor Zone lead ammo ban. It also puts groups like CBD on notice that they will have to take on this fight every time.

But, the specific issue that gave NRA victory on the merits -- that condors were allowed to be introduced into AZ as an experimental flock and could not affect hunting in any way -- is not present in California.

There have been several somewhat unheralded victories by NRA/CRPA concerning California lead ammo issues recently. They don't seem to "make the news" as much as other issues, but they are significant. I think there are articles about each of them at wwwcalgunlaws.com.

Dreaded Claymore
10-04-2011, 6:19 PM
A little off-topic, but I think the term "traditional ammunition" is kind of like calling lead water pipes "traditional plumbing." It might be traditional, but it's still poisonous. (Whether that toxicity is a serious problem is another question; pipes yes, bullets probably not.)

taperxz
10-04-2011, 6:34 PM
Actually this was posted on CA rifle and pistol email alert. It hit my email box about 5 minutes before it was posted here.

Librarian
10-04-2011, 7:18 PM
Messrs Brady and Combs,

I believe I detect a hint of a discussion that might most profitably be taken off-forum.

If you would be so kind, gentlemen ...

sbrady@Michel&Associates
10-04-2011, 7:27 PM
Actually this was posted on CA rifle and pistol email alert. It hit my email box about 5 minutes before it was posted here.

Yeah, and you don't even have to click on another website to view it. ;)

oni.dori
10-05-2011, 1:08 AM
...But, the specific issue that gave NRA victory on the merits -- that condors were allowed to be introduced into AZ as an experimental flock and could not affect hunting in any way -- is not present in California...

Yes, but could this set any kind of precidence for CA? Also, are CALIFORNIA Condors even NATIVE to AZ in the first place?

Also, could this in any way bolster our efforts against DeLeon's current bills if the need arises to fight them, or is this another discussion that should be taken off the public side of the forum?

Homebrew2
10-05-2011, 7:19 AM
Actually this was posted on CA rifle and pistol email alert. It hit my email box about 5 minutes before it was posted here.

By subscribing to Michael & Assoc. email alerts, I was appraised of this 5 hours before the CRPA email arrived :)

Crom
10-05-2011, 8:40 AM
Very good!

bwiese
10-05-2011, 12:01 PM
Woot!

hill billy
10-05-2011, 2:39 PM
The CBD has long been hated in the off road community being the driving force behind closures at Surprise Canyon, Glamis and others. They might be the only group I hate more than the Brady's

Smokeybehr
10-05-2011, 2:51 PM
The CBD has long been hated in the off road community being the driving force behind closures at Surprise Canyon, Glamis and others. They might be the only group I hate more than the Brady's

How about the Sierra Club?:43:

DeanW66
10-08-2011, 12:01 PM
:clap::clap:

So, I'm a little dim but which group does Michel&Assoc typically represent so I know who I should be supporting & thanking more? CRPA? 2ATF? CGF? Is this info stickied somewhere?

RRangel
10-08-2011, 1:56 PM
A little off-topic, but I think the term "traditional ammunition" is kind of like calling lead water pipes "traditional plumbing." It might be traditional, but it's still poisonous. (Whether that toxicity is a serious problem is another question; pipes yes, bullets probably not.)

No, it's simply traditional ammunition, that most people are familiar with. Many hunters eat the game taken with their "poisonous" ammunition. If it was so terrible they would not use it to hunt. The CBD's claims are bunk. The very reason they lost. And you can bet that copper is CBD's next argument. I doubt that there's any ammunition safe from the prohibitionists.