Mass banning the use of lead?

[IrishIron]

Major Blood you maybe a little naive.

I am not sure why you or anyone else would trust what state legislators say. In this situation it may not be the reason for the legislation but it will be used for that. The original bill lists lead as the number one toxic substance. This will be used by anti-hunting groups as well as developments close to ranges that are tired of the noise.

Take a look at the flawed science in CA that was used to ban lead bullets in the condor range. If the residents/gun owners of Mass sit back and think this will not effect you then a horrible mistake will be made.

This needs to be everyones concern. I will link to you the study using TURI that everyone should be made aware of.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Alternatives_for_significant_uses_of_lead_in_Massachusetts

It is already on the radar screens of anti-hunting organizations, and will be used for that purpose with no scientific evidence.

Oh and I am much more intimate with this bill and with what happened in CA. Trust me it is not good.

 

[JonJ]

These chemicals would be chosen for study entirely by a large, diverse advisory panel, made up of stakeholders from industry, environmental activism, children’s groups, and others.

Didn't need the Hubble telescope to see that coming

 

[Cabinetman]

While I agree that these bills and the replies from the legislative aids aren't aimed specifically at bullets, let me tell you that I also agree that this will be open to "interpretation" by anyone who wants to curtail the use of lead bullets.

All you have to do is look South, here to your neighbor Connecticut. Our existing AWB specifically names the AK47 (full auto version). However, the Connecticut State Police "interpreted" the AWB to completely ban all AK47 clones in 7.62 x 39 on a whim. You can't own one here any longer. Any other caliber is fine, just not 7.62 x 39. And, when challenged, we were shot down (no pun intended) in the courts. We can't even challenge the CSP's bogus contention in court for their totally illegal (passing laws with no legislative recourse) "interpretation" of the vague wording of the AWB still in force here. So, while you may feel comfortable with ammo being 'ignored' by this new bill, you would have to be concerned about some entity in Mass using this new regulation to, in fact, ban lead at ranges. You could easily see how they might claim that the barriers at the backs of ranges are large 'hazardous waste sites" and need to be remediated, thus shutting them down.

BTW, lead solder has been replaced by using antimony instead of lead. It's supposed to eliminate the "leach" of the lead in our water pipes. It has higher melting point than solder but does the job. You can't find lead solder any more.

Good luck with this. It does seem that the NRA has called the 'sky falling" since bullets are not specifically mentioned but it does appear to open the door to anyone's interpretation after that bill is passed and put in place. It may just be a foot-in-the-door but it's there, imho.

Rome

 

[boomerang]

Please forgive me, as I haven't read all posts in this thread before I posted this.

It's also possible that Mr Tolman wrote this bill partly because Mr Markey's office building is contaminated with chemicals from the dry cleaner which was occupying the building previously.

In any case, here's the link to find your representative and senators' addresses. The NRA link from the email is too confusing to bother with.

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=13942

 

[kevin9]

I apologize up front for the length of this post, but proposed legislation like this deserves to get torn to pieces line by line.

Here is a link to a page on the Four Seasons website, complete with letters from two officials intimate with the bill stating that this will have no impact on lead bullets in MA:

http://fsguns.com/legislativealerts.html

Found this in about 30 seconds...sheesh, doesn't take much to get you guys riled up huh?

The NRA is really starting to remind me of Chicken Little...

Why? I suppose one could come to that conclusion if they have not read the legislation and ignore the fact that the replies from the politicians' offices are factually incorrect on the essential points.

So, Let's look at the actual bill; I'll use the House version:
First, there is the false assertion that it will not affect ammunition or ranges where said ammunition is present. Here's the definition of the initial "priority toxic substances":

60 “Priority toxic substance” means any of the following sub
61 stances:
62 Lead
63 Formaldehyde
64 Trichloroethylene
65 Perchloroethylene
66 Dioxins and Furans
67 Hexavalent chromium
68 Organophosphate pesticides
69 Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
70 di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) 71 2,4, Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4, D)

This is the classic list of stuff that can be dangerous to people if they misuse it so the state must protect us from them. Note that there is no exemption for any forms of lead. Lead is Lead.

Here is the definition of "used". Note that the presence of said chemicals in services is included:

109 “Usage” means the presence of a priority toxic substance in
110 manufacturing, products or services delivered or conducted within
111 the Commonwealth.

Ranges provide a service. Lead is present as part of the conduct of that service. Maybe one could argue that ranges are exempt under the end user exemption noted below, but I would not want to bet on it.

Interestingly, while people can petition to have chemicals added to the priority toxic substance list (lines 655 to 664) it appears that people cannot petition to have them removed from the list. The mitigation/substitution plan can be challenged, but there is nothing that indicates the inclusion of a chemical on the list that results in said plan can be challenged:

676 (C) Petition for Appeal. No later than 60 days following the
677 publication of a final Chemical Action Plan by the EOEA, any ten
678 residents of the Commonwealth may file a petition of appeal of
679 any provisions of the plan with the Secretary of Environmental
680 Affairs. Such a petition may be filed if the petitioners assert that
681 the plan mischaracterizes uses of the priority toxic substance; fails
682 to include feasible alternatives, or mischaracterizes alternatives;
683 fails to result in substitution of the safest available alternatives as
684 expeditously as possible; fails to adequately address job loss or
685 impacts on existing jobs; or otherwise fails to meet the criteria of
686 this act.

Then there is the false assertion that the bill has no teeth. The proposed legislation starts with forced registration to identify the targets:

229 Section 27. Registry of Uses of Priority Toxic Substances.
230 (A) Notices. No later than 120 days following the effective
231 date of this section, any person or legal entity that manufactures
232 or distributes a product in the Commonwealth which the manufac
233 turer or distributor knows or has reason to suspect to contain a pri
234 ority toxic substance shall file a notice with the department identi
235 fying the product, the approximate number of units distributed in
236 the Commonwealth, an estimate of the amount or concentration of
237 the priority toxic substance contained in each unit, if known, pur
238 pose for including the priority toxic substance, the name and
239 address of the manufacturer, and the name, address, and phone
240 number of a contact person.

Followed by enforement (note the use of the words "require", "regulations" and "enforcement"):

288 ...The goal of the Chemical Action
289 Plan shall be to coordinate state agency activities and to require
290 users of priority toxic substances to act as expeditiously as pos
291 sible to ensure substitution of the priority toxic substance with a
292 safer alternative, while acting to minimize job loss and mitigate 293 any other potential unintended negative impacts.

and

430 (A) In conformance with the Chemical Action Plan, the depart
431 ment shall promulgate regulations to establish substitution dead
432 lines and substitution planning requirements for business or
433 institutional uses for each priority toxic substance. The regula
434 tions shall specify enforcement mechanisms.

and

494 Section 32. Implementation — Distributors and Out of State
495 Manufacturers of Products Containing Priority Toxic Substances.
496 The department shall promulgate regulations for distributors
497 and out of state manufacturers to implement the Chemical Action
498 Plan for each priority toxic substance,

and the "all powers" catch-all in case something was forgotten:

562 (C) The department shall have all of the powers and authorities
563 necessary to prohibit or limit the use, sale or distribution of a
564 product containing a priority toxic substance in the Common565
wealth.

all backed up with penalties:

666 (A) Penalties for Noncompliance. Except as otherwise provided
667 in paragraph B of this section, violations of sections 24 to 39 of
668 this chapter by any person or legal entity, shall subject the violator
669 to penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation. In addition, the
670 department shall have the authority to exclude products from the
671 state when a distributor or manufacturer has failed to comply with
672 the provisions of this Act.

One might note that the following section (lines 673-675) exempts end users from penalties, but if there is no manufacture or distribution of said items then the effect of people not having access to said items is still the same.

All of this of course will be funded by new fees: Guess who ultimately pays those:

1 SECTION 5. Fee on toxic substances.
2 The department of environmental protection shall revise its
3 existing fee structure under the Toxics Use Reduction Act to
4 encompass, in addition to current filers, the wholesale sellers or
5 distributors of products or services to retail establishments in the
6 Commonwealth where such products or services utilize or contain
7 priority toxic substances, regardless of whether such wholesale
8 sellers or distributors are located within or outside of the Com
9 monwealth.

In the end this feel-good bill would result in significant governmental growth with new boards, fees, rules and regulations, and the intrusion into and constraint of free individual and fmarket activities in the interest of socialist nanny-stateism.

Bad bill, very bad bill. Folks can feel free to use as much of this as they like in writing their legis-critters.

 

[Producer]

Nice breakdown Kevin.

 

[dwarven1]

Excellent analysis, Kevin - I'd give you a hundred rep points for this if I could. This shows what I suspected (but didn't have the time to analyze myself yesterday). I will be contacting Senator Resor's office again today and expressing my displeasure and opposition to this bill.

I recommend that you all contact not only YOUR rep & senator, but Sen. Resor as well, as she is on the committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture that released the bill.

 

[cahilj]

Since I've never contacted any of my elected officials before, how would I go about doing it properly? Tell them I'm not a fan of the bill? Maybe butter them up?

 

[dwarven1]

Cahilj, no need to butter them up; they work for YOU. Here is some good information for starters.

Basically, be polite but firm - you want to sound credible. Be aware that they will ask your name and address - I'm pretty sure that they'll be cross-referencing that information to the voter registration lists so that they can be sure that you're someone worth listening to; IE, a registered voter. So if you're not registered, get registered.

 

[MassMark]

Folks... don't send email. Send snailmail - real paper letters. They pay MUCH more attention to them, or so I'm told. Phone calls also work...

Exactly. Every time an issue arises, I feel like a broken record. E-Mails are of course electronic and though snail mail can be thrown away, E-Mails can just be skipped over. I send my snail mail certified return receipt. I know E-Mails are free, but some things are worth paying for. Stacks of mail speak louder than an electronic inbox which can be deleted with the click of a mouse....

 

[dixidawg]

Why not also email them a text of what you send snail mail?

 

[Fsorrent]

I contacted legislators, this is the email I got in response:

"Thanks for contacting my office regarding the Safer Alternatives Bill, currently Senate Bill 2406.

This bill was carefully crafted over the course of several years in a collaboration of legislators, scientists, businesses, and environmental leaders. It does not ban any chemicals, nor are any chemicals named in the bill. Instead, it sets up a process, to be administered by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) of the University of Massachusetts Lowell, to study chemicals. These chemicals, which are not pre-selected, would be chosen for study entirely by a large, diverse advisory panel, made up of stakeholders from industry, environmental activism, children’s groups, and others.

If it is determined by scientific study that a chemical in question is harmful to health and/or safety, the next step would be to study whether there are feasible, cost-effective alternatives for each of the uses of that particular chemical. If there are no feasible alternatives, nothing happens. If there are, TURI would assist business in phasing in these alternatives. In sum, even if lead is identified as a harmful chemical and there is no reasonable alternative to lead in bullets, there would be no action taken to current practices and products. This bill, in short, does not represent a ban on ammunition or ban on anything, for that matter.

Jay Kaufman"

 

[Jaxon]

That's the same email I received. Obviously a automated response.

And I just sent out the Kevin inspired version along with the responses from the other offices to show that this automated reponse is incorrect.

Thanks Kevin!

 

[GOAL]

GOAL Files Request for Amendment to Toxic Chemical Bill

http://www.goal.org/news/leadbill.htm

 

[pbearperry]

Dangerous chemical Bill

After browsing through this bill,I feel it would probably be benificial to us as long as lead bullets were not included.However,I am sure that the people pushing this bill truly hope that all bullets will be illegal for the Sportsman and citizen wanting to be able to protect himself.
What the powers to be fail to realize is that many Firearm manufacturers and Ammo companies already have had their fill with Massachusetts and already refuse to deal with us.Eventually,Massachusetts will be ignored by all of the so named businesses.This will eventually become a problem when Mass. Law enforcement finds it dificult to buy firearms and ammo for their Departments.I wonder how much fun it will be fighting dangerous criminals with just batons and rocks?Wake up State House before it's too late.

 

[subhunter76]

I really hope that people are contacting there reps on this. Sportsman are notorious in this state for not doing enough.Yes we have goal, but shooters and hunters have a duty to help stop these things. As you all know it's all about the wroding in these bills, and unless it states that lead ammunition is exempt then the gun haters will use the loose worded bill in there favor. a little off topic, not enough people nation wide stood up to fight the recent bill that could ban Vets with PTSD from getting firearms. Bush signed it.be heard!

 

[Snapshot]

people can petition to have chemicals added to the priority toxic substance list (lines 655 to 664)

Tell them to add Dihydrogen Oxide.

 

[ronbok]

From Susan Martin in Senator Pam Resor's office, in response to a phone call I made this afternoon:



I can't help but think that there's an awful lot of weasel room in the phrase "feasible, cost-effective alternatives for each of the uses of that particular chemical."

I want you all to notice Pamela Resor's statements and then look at the same response from Townley/Loscocco:

"The Safer Alternatives Bill, currently Senate Bill 2406, carefully crafted over the course of several years in a collaboration of legislators, scientists, business leaders, and environmental leaders, does not ban any chemicals. Instead, it sets up a process, to be administered by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) of the University of Massachusetts Lowell, to study chemicals. These chemicals would be chosen for study entirely by a large, diverse advisory panel, made up of stakeholders from industry, environmental activism, children’s groups, and others. The chemicals have not been pre-selected. If it is determined that the chemical in question is harmful to health and/or safety, the next step would be to study whether there are feasible, cost-effective alternatives for each of the uses of that particular chemical. If there are no feasible alternatives, nothing happens. If there are, TURI would assist business in phasing in these alternatives. In sum, even if lead is identified as a harmful chemical and there is no reasonable alternative to lead in bullets, there would be no action taken to current practices and products."
EXACT same message as Resor...they were prepared for us and they're all shoveling the same lies out the door at the same time.

Those that think the NRA was crying wolf and playing the role of Chicken Little had better wake up and smell the coffee. This is a REAL threat.

 

[subhunter76]

today I called Pam Resors office and explained the reason I was calling was about the bill and that I did not feel that the concens of sportsmen were being heard through email due to the fact that the same Canned letter is being sent out from every senate rep.The woman said though she did not see that is was possiable for anti gunners to use the bill to ban bullets , she under stood the concern and the possiable need for an exclusion on lead ammo. I encourage all of you to call!!!! This will get your point across, and the more calls they recive as well as email will hopefully have them consider their political future if they do not ammend this. Speak up and be heard! I am going to try to call the rest of the reps.

 

[jhblaze1]

today I called Pam Resors office and explained the reason I was calling was about the bill and that I did not feel that the concens of sportsmen were being heard through email due to the fact that the same Canned letter is being sent out from every senate rep.The woman said though she did not see that is was possiable for anti gunners to use the bill to ban bullets , she under stood the concern and the possiable need for an exclusion on lead ammo. I encourage all of you to call!!!! This will get your point across, and the more calls they recive as well as email will hopefully have them consider their political future if they do not ammend this. Speak up and be heard! I am going to try to call the rest of the reps.

So who should we call. Our reps or senators or both. The house and senate bills were rolled into one senate bill, correct?

 

[IrishIron]

Yes. Your best bet is to call both your reps and senators

They are both aware of this bill because it is a high profile piece of legislation that is not only getting alot of coverage from gun-owners and sportsmen, but also the business community is concerned with it.

They all need to know the concern we have and that the only way to add comfort in this situation is to include amendments to protect the rights of gun owners and the ranges and clubs that they shoot at.

 

[ronbok]

So who should we call. Our reps or senators or both. The house and senate bills were rolled into one senate bill, correct?

Visit http://www.mass.gov/legis and clicking on these two links:

House: http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenuh.htm

Senate: http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenus.htm

These will give you the full list of Representatives in the House and Senator's in the Senate.

If you need to figure out who your specific Rep and Senator's are then visit:

http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php

 

[subhunter76]

I started by calling both in my town,then I started at the bottom of the senate list of names and have been working my way up to the top.http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenus.htm
one of the calls I made the woman took several notes and said she would forward my concerns. Apparently a lot of the Buissnesses are concerned also due to the vauge wording in the bill and there is a new draft being made. The more emails and calls they get the better. I also let them know that depending on how this was handled , it would effect the way I vote next time.

 

[dwarven1]

Contact info:

STATE SENATOR
PAMELA P. RESOR
State House
Room 410
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089

Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
E-Mail Address: Pamela.Resor @state.ma.us

 

[ronbok]

I apologize up front for the length of this post, but proposed legislation like this deserves to get torn to pieces line by line.

.
.
.

Bad bill, very bad bill. Folks can feel free to use as much of this as they like in writing their legis-critters.

Great analysis. However, this bill is dead. S.2406 is what the statement was referring too and when you look at it...you'll see they withdrew calling out specific chemicals. Why? Controversy. If they par down the bill...with the same, nasty, singular intent they figure they'll get it passed.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/185/st02pdf/st02406.pdf

 

[dwarven1]

Just talked to Sen Resor's office again; apparently, they're getting a lot of calls from "rod & gun clubs". Nice going, all of you who called!

And she's talking now to Jim Wallace of GOAL about the bill. Personally, I'd like to see this bill go down in flames, completely. It's too vague, and too broad - it'd be too easy for a special interest to twist it.

 

[kevin9]

Great analysis. However, this bill is dead. S.2406 is what the statement was referring too and when you look at it...you'll see they withdrew calling out specific chemicals. Why? Controversy. If they par down the bill...with the same, nasty, singular intent they figure they'll get it passed.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/185/st02pdf/st02406.pdf

Thanks for the update. I looked at the new version and with the exception of removing the initial list of priority toxic substances, which specifically identified Lead as such chemical, all the rest of the problematic sections remain, most of the word for word.

The Fees section was the only one revised noticeably, and that just to more specifically describe what was to be funded by the increased fees. A real improvement

It is still a very bad bill. The impact on any specific chemical may be delayed by at most 1 year by not starting with a defined list in the bill, but I would be willing to bet at almost any odds that the first list of priority toxic substances will bear suspiciously strong resemblance to the list in the House bill, including Lead.

 

[Windwalker]

I emailed and received the following. (original email is below the reply)

Hi Michael:

Thank you for your email on this issue. I have taken note of your concerns and hope my response will help clear up some very important information about this legislation. The bill that was originally filed has been modified significantly over the past several months.

The legislation you reference has been redrafted. As currently written, the "Safer Alternatives Bill" does not ban or restrict the use of lead ammunition. There is no language in the legislation that specifically states there are any restrictions on use of lead ammunition. The legislation is mainly tailored toward assisting businesses phase out harmful chemicals into the environment (and for public health) through a state program. Many businesses across the state already lead the nation in removing harmful chemicals from their operations and have dedicated much time and resources to finding safer alternatives. This program would help foster and build on these successes. However, as written, the bill you reference does not ban or limit the use of lead ammunition. Again, the main impetus for the bill is to further assist businesses with phasing out chemicals form their operation. The legislation is designed to be a tool for business, not to be overly regulatory.

If you seek any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my Chief of Staff, Jamie Hellen, at 617-722-1230. You may also email him at [email protected] I have copied him on this email. The Safer Alternatives Bill is a very complex piece of legislation. Jamie can be very helpful in answering any detailed questions about the bill and how the program works.

Very truly yours,

Bob Antonioni



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: morcutt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:24 PM
To: Antonioni, Robert (SEN)
Subject: Senate Bill 558 Language


Senator Antonioni,

I am writing to strongly urge your close attention to a portion of Senate Bill 558. Contained in the bill is language related to lead that would effectively ban most current handgun and rifle ammunition, and possibly result in closure of existing gun ranges in Massachusetts. It is my understanding that current federal EPA regulations already apply to the handling and clean-up of lead at gun ranges. In the absence of any documentation regarding the current environmental impact of ammunition containing lead, I urge you to work toward elimination of any language related to lead in this bill.

Thank you for your continued efforts to faithfully represent your constituents.

(name and address deleted)

 

[dwarven1]

Still not good enough - they either need to put a specific ammunition exemption in it, or they need to scrap it entirely. I vote for the latter. The phone call I had with Sen Resor's office did NOT give me any "comfort" on this bill; I still feel that, like RICO, it's way too broad and can be too easily misused.

 

[ronbok]

I emailed and received the following. (original email is below the reply)

Hi Michael:

Thank you for your email on this issue. I have taken note of your concerns and hope my response will help clear up some very important information about this legislation. The bill that was originally filed has been modified significantly over the past several months.

The legislation you reference has been redrafted. As currently written, the "Safer Alternatives Bill" does not ban or restrict the use of lead ammunition. There is no language in the legislation that specifically states there are any restrictions on use of lead ammunition. The legislation is mainly tailored toward assisting businesses phase out harmful chemicals into the environment (and for public health) through a state program. Many businesses across the state already lead the nation in removing harmful chemicals from their operations and have dedicated much time and resources to finding safer alternatives. This program would help foster and build on these successes. However, as written, the bill you reference does not ban or limit the use of lead ammunition. Again, the main impetus for the bill is to further assist businesses with phasing out chemicals form their operation. The legislation is designed to be a tool for business, not to be overly regulatory.

If you seek any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my Chief of Staff, Jamie Hellen, at 617-722-1230. You may also email him at [email protected] I have copied him on this email. The Safer Alternatives Bill is a very complex piece of legislation. Jamie can be very helpful in answering any detailed questions about the bill and how the program works.

Very truly yours,

Bob Antonioni



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: morcutt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:24 PM
To: Antonioni, Robert (SEN)
Subject: Senate Bill 558 Language


Senator Antonioni,

I am writing to strongly urge your close attention to a portion of Senate Bill 558. Contained in the bill is language related to lead that would effectively ban most current handgun and rifle ammunition, and possibly result in closure of existing gun ranges in Massachusetts. It is my understanding that current federal EPA regulations already apply to the handling and clean-up of lead at gun ranges. In the absence of any documentation regarding the current environmental impact of ammunition containing lead, I urge you to work toward elimination of any language related to lead in this bill.

Thank you for your continued efforts to faithfully represent your constituents.

(name and address deleted)

Typical Politician speak for "We knew we couldn't get the bill passed naming specific chemicals, so we took them out." We know very well that once TURI gets their money we can hide behind their recommendtions as they are the standing experts and the "law". Therefore, Lead will be banned, and your tax dollars helped us do it. If lead is banned, lead ammo will be banned. It doesn't get any simpler to understand than that...and they'll not get any political flack for it because they'll all hide behind this legislation. Keep the pressure on and use this argument against S.2406 which is the current bill #.