doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Possibility of Limited Lead Authorization

I don't often agree with jOe but he's on the money here. Every tax, regardless of form or amount, should always be resisted. Why? Because the government will ALWAYS waste the money. The only way to encourage careful government spending is to limit the available funds.

When I dream I dream that sensible people using rational thought and accurate science would make sensible laws and regulations. But as I said, in my dreams.

In real life, we have to fight the way we have been fought against....in ways that appeal to feelings in people who don't hunt that get them on board. Want to get lead back in use in a more widespread way. Get the ban lifted on those giant flying crap machines, Canada geese. The ones that have, over the last 30 years, stopped migrating and decided life is good on the no shoot zones of public parks, playgrounds, golf courses and other open spaces frequented by the masses. Get their populations under control.

Also on snows that are devastating wide swaths of the north during their summering. Start showing what the over population of these birds are doing.

This sounds good, but are there other considerations? How about the last US 'popular' vote. On the one hand, the single state of california could be seen as the lone reason that hill won the pop vote. That point alone is a fact, but it's the meaningless talking point that drives the 'conversation', at least as much as it's the flavor of the week.

Of any state, doesn't cali drive the national mantra about enviro ideology. Back to starting small. Have you ever seen such a campaign to delegitimize the will of so many people who voted for the current President? Doesn't the electoral college represent 'Kansas', when cali spots the dem a 20% head start to 270, the second voting closes?

On a side note, I'd rather leave gramps old five hundred dollar beater in the closet than buy some stamp or permit for it to shoot lead for some romantic notion. Whats given in the way of permit will certainly be taken at some point. The main difference would be that places like cali would teach us what would now happen to the old duck gun when it comes time to pass it on to the next generation.

The tax stamp could easily be restricted to be spent in waterfowl enhancement only. BATF already is use to special taxes like for full auto guns and that goes back to 1934 as I recall. Do we just amend it so lead shot on waterfowl sing black powder if needed. Just get your foot in the door. RST could make a run of black powder ammo for the first year. Start small, be honest about it and make it like a reenactment of how duck hunting was a hundred years ago.

I'd pay $100.00 a year to use lead shot in my doubles. I don't want it tied to just one gun because for all my hunting needs I use several guns. A100/yr fee is nothing when you figure out all the other associated cost of duck hunting. You have nothing to loose. It would be voluntary. Like paying a hundred bucks for the right not to have to use more expensive ammo and enjoy our old doubles at the same time. Hell if I could get a lifetime permit I'd pay ten grand for myself and my sons.

And calling me a liberal is like calling Al Sharptin a white supremest. I was lol when I read that. My wife who is much closer to one was also.

Why not just buy bismuth or ITX shot?

Cost and different ballistics. Not the same as lead. Bismuth is not easy to find in a lot of places. Why not cut your lower leg off and get a prosthetic leg instead of taking care of an infection after all the prosthetic will let you kind of walk Bismuth and ITX are a lead shot replacement, a prosthetic substitute, with real draw backs. Bismuth is a lesser replacement. A step down in effectiveness at a much higher cost, $180/7 pounds verses $40/25. Lead is 100% double gun safe. I won't use ITX shot in a classic double and it also is not cheap.

Did you know that the braintrust in the US military had decided planes would not need machine guns in the future. They tried it for a short while and found out rockets could not replace the machine gun. You had to expend several 100k rockets to do what a few hundred rounds of 50 cal could do. So they went back to putting machine guns on planes. Progress is not always progress in the real sense.

Much of current law excludes the use of lead shot where waterfowl and upland overlap. ALL Federal Waterfowl Production Areas (often quite good pheasant hunting, here in the Midwest) are nontox only. Here in Iowa, where our lead shot restrictions are not as comprehensive as they are in South Dakota, all public areas in several entire counties (where most public lands are wetlands) are nontox only. And just about all public wetlands everywhere else in the state are also nontox only, even for pheasants.

I don't think we'll ever get lead back again for waterfowl. For one thing, the enforcement people like the rules as they are because they're relatively easy to enforce. If you're hunting waterfowl, it's strictly nontox. If you're hunting on areas that are nontox only, then no lead. As for vintage guns, there are nontoxic options (like bismuth). More expensive than lead or steel, and I suppose individuals could show that's a burden if they do a LOT of waterfowl hunting with a vintage gun. But since those options do exist, I doubt there will be a lead loophole for vintage guns. Again, difficult to enforce. What's a vintage gun? And since Browning says no steel in any of their Belgian-made classics (Superposed, A-5) and a whole lot of those aren't really "vintage" . . . it quickly becomes very complicated.

I'm more than happy to put the antis on the defensive when it comes to hunting upland birds other than around wetlands. And we're doing a good job of winning there . . . as long as the new head of USF&WS reverses the ban on lead shot put in place by Obama's director.

I believe they could draw a line similar to the BATF by saying prior to 1899 and proof of manufacture system could be set up. Further if date of manufacture and a system of proof is too hard they could draw the line on Damascus barrels only.

While both those courses of action leave alot of what most of us would hold to be vintage out, nonetheless it would open things a a small bit.

As for additional taxation for the privilege, not sure I like the idea of pricing out those without the same resources I have

Are you willfully obtuse or just slow naturally?


Just kidding. I know your remarks are driven by an ideological bent you are powerless to use common sense and reason to overcome.

This is what I was thinking Jon. I think the dems could easily be on board for this. Have the folks not only agree to backdoor registration, but pay for it. It could also be a path to go completely notox, because it's the same old, if you like your lead, you can keep your lead, if you can afford to jump through hoops.

Just speculating out loud. Besides, haven't you heard, just run some #7 steel through the old gun and all will be just fine, in someone else's world.

Everyone has an ideological bent, James. Mine is conservative in many ways, particularly with the environment and lead. It doesn't prevent me from suggesting a proven change formula to a thread inquiring of a way to benefit members in the public interest. A collective urban-rural, pro- and anti-gun ideology removed Canada's long gun registry because it made common sense. We opened the tent and respected a wide range of opinions.