The National Rifle Association (NRA) won its case against environmental groups trying to ban lead ammo in a national forest.
Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a bid by the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity to order the Forest Service to ban the use of lead ammo in the Kaibab National Forest for hunting.
🇺🇸This NRA victory is a significant setback for gun control and anti-hunting advocates who see ammo bans as a pivotal leap in their agenda.
— NRA (@NRA) September 2, 2023
More from @SecretsBedard/@DCExaminer ➡️ https://t.co/eAUL9Fnkwr pic.twitter.com/W3lBb4GmVL
The group fought in the courts for 11 years to push a ban on lead bullets, which are often used by hunters and sometimes ingested by condors and other birds when feasting on guts left behind when game is field dressed.
The case was a win, not only for the NRA but also for hunters. The group applauded the court’s ruling in a statement.
“This NRA victory is a significant setback for gun control and anti-hunting advocates who see ammo bans as a pivotal leap in their agenda,” said Michael Jean, the director of the Office of Litigation Counsel with the Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA’s legal and lobbying arm.
The federal government, which owns a 1.6 million-acre forest, largely defers to states regarding hunting regulations, and Arizona pushes hunters to use lead ammunition but does not outright forbid it. In fact, the state encourages the use of non-lethal ammunition and provides it to hunters, who mostly utilize it when hunting in Kaibab.
The Center argued that the federal government was contributing to the deaths by refusing to ban lead ammo, which the court rejected.
“A decision by an agency not to regulate — whether the lack of regulation represents a conscious decision or a lack of initiative — is passive conduct. In and of itself, nonregulation contributes nothing to the disposal of hazardous waste,” the court said in its ruling.
Jean added that hunters were simply following state laws and condemned the environmentalists for trying to regulate ammunition.
“This case affirmed that the states have primary responsibility over wildlife management, including all aspects related to hunting. Courts will not entertain ‘failure-to-regulate’ lawsuits against the federal government for merely honoring state hunting laws. It’s also a rejection of an attempt to apply a federal law that was designed to regulate large-scale commercial-waste disposal to ordinary American hunters,” he said.
