Government Overstepping Bounds

The EPA will consider banning lead ammunition along with lead shot and lead sinkers used for fishing. The EPA is not allowed to regulate ammunition (by statute) and this would seem to be out of its jurisdiction. That does not seem to have hampered the agency from taking up the issue.

The Weekly Standard is asking if the EPA will rule to ban lead ammo and further push voters to remove Democrats from office, particularly in conservative areas where Democrats hold office. This is a valid question given that lead is used by sportsmen and a ban on it will likely double the cost of sports items, particularly ammunition.

The answer here seems to be a simple one. The EPA has no jurisdiction to regulate ammunition so it should not be allowed to regulate the composition of ammunition. The problem is, rules and statutes are seldom followed by government unless those rules or statutes support what it wants to do. Otherwise it ignores them and pushes on with its agenda.

The voters will be sending a very simple message in November and if the EPA does something unlawful and stupid then that message might be sent to a lot more people than Democrats would be comfortable with.

The EPA is typical of a government agency that gets too big and involves itself in things that it ought not to. The problem we face is that these ever expanding agencies are not held accountable for what they do.

We can start that making government accountable by holding the politicians accountable. They make sure things get done the way we want or we bounce them on their rear ends.

November will be a good time to start and we can keep getting rid of the temple monkeys until we are governed by a smaller government that does what we tell it to.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

20 Responses to “Government Overstepping Bounds”

  1. Adam says:

    The EPA has already shut this down. It’s a non-story. Well, the lead bullets part anyway.

    Hopefully the EPA can do away with lead sinkers sooner rather than later since there’s no need for them anyway.

  2. Blake says:

    Well, this shows your ignorance- you do not seem to be a fisherman, so you wouldn’t know what lead sinkers are needed for.
    They provide the most weight for the least amount of space and profile- only two other thinggs even come close- gold, and depleted uranium. Which of those would you have fishermen use, Adam? Neither seems right-

  3. Adam says:

    First of all I fished most of my life growing up and I grew up in a community that survives off of a local fishing industry.

    Second, you won’t need gold or depleted uranium. Cut the drama. There are already several alternatives to lead such as tungsten which is about 50% denser than lead.

    I understand there is no perfect alternatives to lead sinkers but we know it’s toxic to wildlife and it needs to end.

    I can picture you having this same conversation of asbestos in buildings: “Why, the only alternative to asbestos is $100 bills lined edge to edge or those tiles from under the space shuttle. Which insulation would you have builders use?”

    • Big Dog says:

      What is the concentration of lead in the water? We know that asbestos is bad and the levels of it in the air where it is used is high. But what is the level in the water. Since the solution to pollution is dilution it would seem that the amount of lead used compared to the amount of water to dilute is sufficient. But please tell me the concentration of lead and if it exceeds the PEL.

      • Adam says:

        I don’t believe PEL even applies to wildlife.

        The use of lead in fishing has been an ongoing concern for some time resulting in restrictions and outright bans being put in place in several states and national parks. It hasn’t forced any of those places to use gold or DU yet as far as I can tell…

        • Big Dog says:

          People drink water, people swim in water sp the PEL would apply to their use.

          How much damage has been shown to wildlife? What is the lead content of fishes and other creatures caught. I doubt they are ingesting lead if it is not in a measured quantity in the water (or not ingesting enough to make a difference).

          Your article states that lead poisoning is a concern (and it is) but gives no evidence that it actually occurs and if it does, how frequently.

          Getting hit by a car is a concern but we don’t ban crossing the street.

  4. Adam says:

    “People drink water, people swim in water sp the PEL would apply to their use.”

    I still don’t agree. If it were about concern for people it would have been dealt with decades ago the same way it was with insulation and with leaded gasoline. We’re talking about a slightly different subject which is the impact on wildlife and it doesn’t line up so much with PEL or drinking/swimming concerns.

    “Getting hit by a car is a concern but we don’t ban crossing the street.”

    I don’t get this argument. We haven’t banned crossing the street but we do provide crosswalks and signals to make walking safer.

    We banned lead shot in hunting water fowl specifically to reduce the amount around water sources. The science there was sound and well documented. The lead sinker problem is insignificant compared to lead shot of course but states are banning the shot for good reason in my opinion.

  5. Big Dog says:

    I did not say that lead was not a problem. I only asked for the numbers to show why it is banned.

    We provide crosswalks yes, but they are not mandated for use. The point is, if we can use something other than lead fine but if the alternatives are too expensive or not as good then people should be able to choose what they will use.

    I don’t hunt birds any longer and shoot shotguns for sport so I would use lead shot because it is cheap and will not be landing in water. However, you made an important point. The STATES are banning the lead shot. That is an issue for the state and not the EPA. It is not a federal issue.

    However, I still maintain that banning less expensive items that would price people out of shooting is a backdoor method of gun control.

    • Adam says:

      “The STATES are banning the lead shot. That is an issue for the state and not the EPA. It is not a federal issue.”

      The EPA exists because some things should be federal and not left up to the states or to industry to decide. I think the EPA should get serious about this subject like it did with lead shot and see if a new round of impact studies back up the older evidence for the negative impact of lead sinkers. If the impact is real then it should be a federal issue and if not leave it up to states to decide.

      “However, I still maintain that banning less expensive items that would price people out of shooting is a backdoor method of gun control.”

      Just as phasing out cheaper leaded gasoline was a backdoor method for getting folks to drive less? You could see it either way I suppose. I’d be interested in seeing any research put into the impact of the ban on the cost of hunting water fowl.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Getting rid of leaded gasoline was not designed to make people drive less. It did make gas prices slightly higher for a while and required engines to be tinkered with but it hurt nothing in the long run.

    You claim that some things should be left up tot he Federal Government and I agree with you on this. The things left up to the federal government are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. The EPA and regulating the environment are not in there.

    When you can find them in the Constitution then you can tell me what should be left up tot he government.

    • Adam says:

      Yes, I searched for ‘regulating the environment’ in the US Constitution and I didn’t find it so I guess we better just defund the EPA immediately, correct?

      • Big Dog says:

        I would be happy with that approach but since it is unlikely we should drastically reduce the amount of funding the agency receives and limit the agency’s scope.

        This will prevent it from acting as a legislative body as in CO2 regulation through rules rather than Congressional action.

        It will prevent the EPA from making rules that some states do not want or that are BS.

        Yes, if it has to exist it should have limited authority.

        I understand you have trouble with the concept of Constitutional government and that is partly the fault of your education and your parents. But we have a set of rules and they are spelled out in the Constitution. If the rules are not in there then they are left for the states or the people.

        If you do not like that then there is a process by which you can change the document to add or remove things.

        Use that process and all will be well. But don’t hand me BS about why we need something when it is not authorized in the Constitution.

        • Adam says:

          “I understand you have trouble with the concept of Constitutional government and that is partly the fault of your education and your parents.”

          Ha. You mean I have trouble with your concept of Constitutional government? You tend to take things you don’t agree with and pretend they are Unconstitutional based on your narrow view of how things should work.

          “But don’t hand me BS about why we need something when it is not authorized in the Constitution.”

          It’s one thing to say the EPA has overstepped it’s bounds on occasion which could be backed up by the Supreme Court. It’s another to pretend the EPA has no Constitutional authority to regulate the environment.

          I’m sorry to inform you that the EPA does in fact operate inside the bounds of our Constitutional government and is authorized by Congress to alter the Code of Federal Regulations just like many other Executive Branch agencies can.

          What is your disagreement here? That the Executive can’t create a federal agency and that Congress can’t authorize that agency to have control over federal regulations? Please tell me what part of that is unconstitutional.

          • Big Dog says:

            Un-rogued.

            So show me again where they can just form all these government agencies. I guess this part:

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

            Means nothing to you. There is no power to regulate the environment or to create these agencies. Unless you can show that.

            It has nothing to do with my view of the Constitution, it has to do with the view that the Founders had. They wrote the 10th for a reason.

        • Adam says:

          Woops. I have a rogue EM tag in there.

  7. Adam says:

    “There is no power to regulate the environment or to create these agencies. Unless you can show that.”

    The courts have ruled that the necessary and proper clause allows for the passing of laws that relate to Congress’ enumerated powers. The constitutional basis for most environmental laws is through the commerce clause.

    The courts have also ruled that Congress can extend that power to independent offices in the executive like the EPA.

    We can debate whether the courts are wrong to rule this way but let’s not pretend there is just a bunch of groups like the EPA, FEC, FCC, or NASA running around doing things mysteriously unconstitutional because somebody ignored the 10th Amendment.

    • Big Dog says:

      No one is pretending that a bunch of groups are running around because the tenth was ignored. The Constitution has been interpreted in ways the Founders did not intend and contrary to their writings. Commerce was between nations and between the states and yet Congress regulated intrastate commerce, something not allowed.

      Necessary and Proper gave them the ability to make laws that were necessary and proper. Congress has abused this to get what it wants and contrary to what the founders intended.

      Yes, the court has erred in its rulings because they became political rather than judicial. They were bullied by presidents like FDR and they were coerced to rule certain ways. And in some cases they just ruled contrary to the Founders and what they wrote.

      The fact is that the liberal and incorrect interpretation of these clauses has given us a government that runs contrary to the limited and enumerated one the Founders established. By allowing them to interpret the way they have we have given them carte blanche to do what they want and this is contrary to what was supposed to happen.

      To top it off, the Congress keeps giving these agencies more power and does not prevent them from exercising power they should not have. In fact, Congress encourages it with regard to carbon and other items so that Congress does not have to do its job.

      Yes, they have ignored the 10th and they have bastardized the clauses to do what they want.

      As far as I am concerned, I do what I want anyway. If I want to use lead sinkers, I will. You can make your own. You can buy lead shot and load your own and you can make lead bulltes on your own. And if they do cap and trade by rule rather than legislation there will be hell to pay.

  8. Big Dog says:

    BTW, the necessary and proper clause allows them to make laws necessary to carry out their ENUMERATED powers. They can make the laws needed to do what the Constitution allows them to do. Our Founders worried that this clause would be misinterpreted and Congress would use it to be a menace to individual liberty. They were right…

    The clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution’s ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers as part of his argument for why the federal government required the powers of taxation. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a “dead letter”. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty.

    Link

    Once again, it is about the Founder’s intent. It is also about doing what the clause says and not what you want it to say. To makes laws necessary to perform its ENUMERATED powers AND NOTHING MORE.

    So, once again, show me where these things are enumerated.

    • Adam says:

      “The Constitution has been interpreted in ways the Founders did not intend and contrary to their writings.”

      Congress and the EPA operate inside the bounds of what the SCOTUS has said is Constitutional. Whether you accept it as so is really not that important.

      What you mean to say is that the interpretation goes against the views of founders you identify with as a conservative. We know the founders couldn’t agree on much of anything and this was clear even after the documents were made the law of the land and the real governing had to begin. Let’s not pretend they’d all be of one mind on this issue and support your view. There were certainly founders who supported a strong federal government and would probably back this interpretation.

      • Big Dog says:

        The Founders agreed on quite a bit. And while it is true that the only interpretation that matters is that of the SCOTUS, it does not mean they are right.

        Suppose they decided to say that taxes could not be used for social programs? Would you be satisfied? That would be more in line with the Founders but would you sit down and take it? Or if they decided that you had no right to speak out openly in the street? Would you be OK with that?

        I have no real worries about it. While I hate to see things done in a manner that is destructive to our country I also know that I don’t have to do what they say or follow what they decide is the rule. The greatness of this is that we can, as individuals, do as we please.

        So like I said earlier, people will use what they want regardless of what the EPA says. And when people have had enough they will take matters into their own hands and set things straight.

        Many of these things will be revisited in the future and will be straightened out. And if we have to start over to get it right then we can.

        States have chosen to bend over and take it for the almighty dollar but I see a bad moon rising. Many will just say screw the feds and do what they want. What do you suppose the feds could really do if the states refused to follow the diktats from the politburo in DC?