search
top

Difficulty of Enforcing the Lead Bullet Ban

The LA Times has <sarcasm>a remarkably pro hunting piece</sarcasm>, describing how difficult it will be to enforce California’s lead ammo ban, and suggests the fact that the bullets being expensive, and gas prices, might end up just making hunters give up the sport, which would be the “condor’s best friend.”

No mention of the billions of dollars that hunters pour into conservation efforts that will end up being lost if the largest state in the union manages to effectively extinguish hunting within its borders.

7 Responses to “Difficulty of Enforcing the Lead Bullet Ban”

  1. Robb Allen says:

    if the largest state in the union manages to effectively extinguish hunting within its borders.

    That, my friend, is the ultimate goal. And once you take away the ability to hunt, well then, there’s just no need for those icky hunting assault rifles then, eh?

    The lost money is of no concern to these people.

  2. Bitter says:

    The lost money is of no concern to these people.

    Actually, I would disagree – at least as far as the politicians. It’s amazing how effective the argument that all of the conservation funding could dry up was when lobbying for the lawsuit protection bill. When legislators realize that hunters are footing that bill out of their own pockets, and if they end the sport, they will have to find the many millions to pay for conservation or risk looking like anti-environment Bambi killers, they will often open their minds to new arguments.

    The press, now they may not give a shit. But when there’s no more money for happy green wildlife projects, they will bitch and moan without considering the reasons for the shortages. Fortunately, lawmakers are more easily persuaded with the dollar argument.

  3. Robb Allen says:

    Bitter, those would be the unintended consequences. I still believe the goal is to do everything possible to make firearms too expensive, or too hard to obtain / maintain to rid themselves of the scourge, once and for all. They’ll realize soon enough that such a plan comes at a cost, and I guarantee you they won’t want to pay it.

    The goal, however, remains the same.

  4. DirtCrashr says:

    They haven’t been able to balance the State budget on time (as per the State Constitution) in 22 years, and card-carrying communist mayor Ron Dellums flys hither and yon on expensive junkets paid for by a city (Oakland) that is in financial ruin.
    It’s not that they don’t’ know how – they simply will not comply with any kind of fiscal policy that has any responsibility attached because there are no consequences in the Media or elsewhere for misbehavior.

  5. Bitter says:

    Robb,

    I think that is a goal of anti-gun activists and leaders, but I think you give too much credit to the politicians, even the anti-gun ones, for thinking like that. :) It is still hard for legislators to convince themselves it’s worth going after hunters at the expense of $10.3 million (this year’s apportionment alone) a year in CA.

    I will say, I don’t think sport shooters play this card nearly enough. Our guns and ammo are also funding these programs. (These fees can also pay for public ranges, but that’s another issue…) It’s worth making the argument to fence sitters because often they don’t want to go after hunters. (Whether that’s right or wrong is a bigger battle. This is about a short-term argument that hits somewhere they understand – the wallet.)

  6. BobP says:

    “the largest state in the union”?? Maybe you meant “the largest gun banning state in the union”? I raw, absolute size, Alaska and TX are larger than CA.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Population is generally the measure of state size. California is the largest state by population.

top