Lead ban

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

They are only the rubber stampers to the EU, and have been since the bail-out. The real government is in Brussels, has been for some time.

Worse than that. Our guys often gold-plate EU legislation by adding on their on sh1te onto it and then blame the EU.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

Worse than that. Our guys often gold-plate EU legislation by adding on their on sh1te onto it and then blame the EU.

Thats becuase they want a pat on the head and when they finally get voted out here, will get a nice cushy job in the eu, as a chair warmer for huge wages and expenses. Phil Hogan fer instance.

keith s

BattleCorp wrote: »

What's the bets that the definition of wetland will cover 100% of Ireland?

Yeah, the government have the option to completely ban the sale and use of it, if the territory is made up of over 20 percent wetlands.

Mississippi.

keith s wrote: »

Yeah, the government have the option to completely ban the sale and use of it, if the territory is made up of over 20 percent wetlands.

Didn't something like that happen the last time that the Greens were in coalition. John Gormley
Signed off on legislation that turned the nearly the whole country into wetland status, that a mini treatment plant was needed instead of a septic tank for rural housing .
Might of been to do with river catchment areas.

keith s

Not sure on that one Mississippi.
This one is more built in to the lead ban, possibly to relive the government of any hassle they will face trying to enforce it.

With the whole guiltily for carrying lead shot cartridges within 100 meters of "wetlands", banning it completely makes that easier to enforce / prosecute.

tudderone

If a complete lead ban comes in its curtains for a lot of sports here i reckon, clays for instance. Steel shot is muck and would make a mockery of a round of dtl. Max half choke and having to use shot sizes two-four times as large as with lead, to get the same effect.

keith s

There is a recent ballistics test on YouTube here:https://youtu.be/XDX65Vx9sjE

Not sure I completey agree with the attitude of replacing barrels and looking at handed down shotguns as just tools, but at least ammunition companies are making cartridges, hopefully they keep getting better.

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

If a complete lead ban comes in its curtains for a lot of sports here i reckon, clays for instance. Steel shot is muck and would make a mockery of a round of dtl. Max half choke and having to use shot sizes two-four times as large as with lead, to get the same effect.

You'd probably want to be within about 30 yards of the target too because steel drops like a mutha****a in comparrison to lead.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

You'd probably want to be within about 30 yards of the target too because steel drops like a mutha****a in comparrison to lead.

The whole thing is a dogs breakfast. Also to get the same performance as lead, chamber pressures have to be higher, so recoil will be higher too. Its a mess.

solarwinds

Mississippi. wrote: »

Didn't something like that happen the last time that the Greens were in coalition. John Gormley
Signed off on legislation that turned the nearly the whole country into wetland status, that a mini treatment plant was needed instead of a septic tank for rural housing .
Might of been to do with river catchment areas.

True, they wanted to extend the SAC around lakes to something daft like a couple of kilometres. Where I am with the amount of lakes it all overlapped to cover the entire area making it all SAC status. All done in stealth no public consultation until about a week before the deadline when affected land owners received a letter stating the date it was taking effect and only a written scientific objection written by in effect a Phd would be entertained which had to be submitted in something like 5 days.
When the local politicians got the same letter who also own land started to query it, they were told 2 public meetings had been held in a local pub in the area but no one turned up, when the pub owner was asked he confirmed no such meeting was booked for on those dates and no persons were there to chair such a meeting.
So yes they tried to pull a fast one before they were booted out and for that I now have a life long dislike for that party and their sly underhanded tactics.

Grizzly 45

Been thinking a bit on this friends, and maybe there is a way we can upset the cart a bit on this? Not so much on the lead ban itself, but make it expensive for the Irish govt to comply with?

The proof house legislation and the lack thereof in Ireland. Seeing that Britan is leaving within the next couple of months and is the next neighbour who handles this...What is the situation with the EU accepting UK proof marks in the future as an acceptable standard on firearms on the market?

No point in us sending guns to an outside the EU country for proof, and the EU, and even its own legislation stating all guns on the market MUST be registered,sold or deactivated and within EU proof standards. Then to be told they are not acceptable..Because of Brexit.

So next stop is the Continent. However, there is also EU legislation that states all govt services mandated by the EU in Brussels must be provided for in each individual country and be of an acceptable common standard. IE our NCT must be on par with say the MOT, or TUV, etc.

Ergo,we should have our own proof house here under EU legislation!!
As we did have once and we have legislation that was provided for testing SHOTGUNS only.
So where is it?? Us sending our guns to Ulm or Liege would be like driving our cars there for an NCT as well.:eek: Esp as we are an island nation outside the Schengen agreement.IOW because of our location,it is an arduous and vexatious legislative process.

IOW let's make the Irish Govt comply with a law they have never considered necessary to comply with.
We need these guns tested to see if they are safe for steel, we need a deactivation standard to EU legislation. We have some" gunsmiths" selling stuff, that are technically potential bombs, gun dealers that are passing on junk, and doing thread jobs that wouldn't pass on a cattle crush, let alone a gun barrel.

It will cost them a few million to set up , staff and keep running and give them another EU headache. Phyric, I know...But at least it would save us some ridiculous money, get possibly some dangerous scrap off the market, and make sure we aren't buying an " ACME Wyle Coyote" special gun off "Danny Joe gunsmith and cattle grid works"

This obviously can be a double-edged sword for us too...But would the pros outweigh the cons in this case?

tudderone

solarwinds wrote: »

True, they wanted to extend the SAC around lakes to something daft like a couple of kilometres. Where I am with the amount of lakes it all overlapped to cover the entire area making it all SAC status. All done in stealth no public consultation until about a week before the deadline when affected land owners received a letter stating the date it was taking effect and only a written scientific objection written by in effect a Phd would be entertained which had to be submitted in something like 5 days.
When the local politicians got the same letter who also own land started to query it, they were told 2 public meetings had been held in a local pub in the area but no one turned up, when the pub owner was asked he confirmed no such meeting was booked for on those dates and no persons were there to chair such a meeting.
So yes they tried to pull a fast one before they were booted out and for that I now have a life long dislike for that party and their sly underhanded tactics.

Scandalous.

Zxthinger

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Been thinking a bit on this friends, and maybe there is a way we can upset the cart a bit on this? Not so much on the lead ban itself, but make it expensive for the Irish govt to comply with?

The proof house legislation and the lack thereof in Ireland. Seeing that Britan is leaving within the next couple of months and is the next neighbour who handles this...What is the situation with the EU accepting UK proof marks in the future as an acceptable standard on firearms on the market?

No point in us sending guns to an outside the EU country for proof, and the EU, and even its own legislation stating all guns on the market MUST be registered,sold or deactivated and within EU proof standards. Then to be told they are not acceptable..Because of Brexit.

So next stop is the Continent. However, there is also EU legislation that states all govt services mandated by the EU in Brussels must be provided for in each individual country and be of an acceptable common standard. IE our NCT must be on par with say the MOT, or TUV, etc.

Ergo,we should have our own proof house here under EU legislation!!
As we did have once and we have legislation that was provided for testing SHOTGUNS only.
So where is it?? Us sending our guns to Ulm or Liege would be like driving our cars there for an NCT as well.:eek: Esp as we are an island nation outside the Schengen agreement.IOW because of our location,it is an arduous and vexatious legislative process.

IOW let's make the Irish Govt comply with a law they have never considered necessary to comply with.
We need these guns tested to see if they are safe for steel, we need a deactivation standard to EU legislation. We have some" gunsmiths" selling stuff, that are technically potential bombs, gun dealers that are passing on junk, and doing thread jobs that wouldn't pass on a cattle crush, let alone a gun barrel.

It will cost them a few million to set up , staff and keep running and give them another EU headache. Phyric, I know...But at least it would save us some ridiculous money, get possibly some dangerous scrap off the market, and make sure we aren't buying an " ACME Wyle Coyote" special gun off "Danny Joe gunsmith and cattle grid works"

This obviously can be a double-edged sword for us too...But would the pros outweigh the cons in this case?

It might serve to cement firearms and sports-shooting by creating an micro-industry around/beside something thats just seen as a PIA for the PTB

richiedel123

Maybe I'm dreaming this but as far as I remember did the scovi not have a plan for setting up a training centre and proof house somewhere. When the last batch of regulations were being thrown out by the ptb I remember they put in this is what they wanted as regulations because they had it all set up and ready to go

BattleCorp

richiedel123 wrote: »

Maybe I'm dreaming this but as far as I remember did the scovi not have a plan for setting up a training centre and proof house somewhere. When the last batch of regulations were being thrown out by the ptb I remember they put in this is what they wanted as regulations because they had it all set up and ready to go

Believe me, you don't want the SCOVI on your side based on their previous actions.

tudderone

richiedel123 wrote: »

Maybe I'm dreaming this but as far as I remember did the scovi not have a plan for setting up a training centre and proof house somewhere. When the last batch of regulations were being thrown out by the ptb I remember they put in this is what they wanted as regulations because they had it all set up and ready to go

Yes, that they alone ran. Anyway who are any of them to train anyone ?

ayagerard

richiedel123 wrote: »

Maybe I'm dreaming this but as far as I remember did the scovi not have a plan for setting up a training centre and proof house somewhere. When the last batch of regulations were being thrown out by the ptb I remember they put in this is what they wanted as regulations because they had it all set up and ready to go

yes you are correct it is all part of the plan ,of which should not be financed by any shooting man on this island that has any interest in shooting with what they have done to the sport for financial gain for them selves no other reason
every issue that has come up in shooting the last 10 years they have been behind it, they have crawled in the door of every minister in charge of sports ,justice ,heritage that has been appointed in the last decade trying to get their retric passed as law , all of the departments dont care as we although these twits to dictate to us as they are seen to represent the shooting community,
they want every thing to change with a better outcome for themselves

night shooting ,fox-shooting, deer shooting, deer hunting licences, competency courses. RFD security , restricted firearms , pistols ,
the list goes on and on

every change of minister or government they raise their heads again to see what they can get through even though they only met twice only half turned up for the meetings half were asleep and we are still aloughing them to exist as our representatives only in Ireland is all i will say

grassylawn

Is the only reason that people are opposed to this that their guns will become obsolete?

I'd be pretty wary of lead contamination in food personally. Wouldn't eat game. I understand the lead exposure levels are significant if you do regularly eat it.

Didn't even occur to me that there would be level of environmental and possibly water contamination as well.

Grizzly 45

The easiest way to get rid of them from the ministerial table is simply starting an E-petition stating as the gun owners of Ireland, we have no faith in SCOVI and that they represent no majority of gun owners or hunters bar themselves...[All 10 of them proably], and we petition them to be removed from the FCP.

Grizzly 45

grassylawn wrote: »

Is the only reason that people are opposed to this that their guns will become obsolete?

I'd be pretty wary of lead contamination in food personally. Wouldn't eat game. I understand the lead exposure levels are significant if you do regularly eat it.

Didn't even occur to me that there would be level of environmental and possibly water contamination as well.

You'd have to be eating it in the tonne range per year to start worrying about that with modern ammo.
Seriously, unless you are ingesting SOFT lead pellets which haven't been used in the shot since the 60s, you have little to fear of it, as it is nowadays HARD lead.IE its coated with various materials that actually even make it impervious to acids, including hydrochloric acid, which is the stuff in your stomach that helps break down food and ingested bones.

Unless you are eating game that has been prepared in a lead works...You have more chance of ingesting lead from your bio veggies that were grown too close to a busy road or motorway.

The simple fact is; you will ingest lead in some shape or form in modern life either from the background or from plant-based materials. Compared to Victorian and even up to the 1970s,it is substantially less than 100 years ago.So eating game that has a couple of pellets in it isn't an immediate death sentence. But maybe a dentists bill,of which you might have more with steel shot...

tudderone

grassylawn wrote: »

Is the only reason that people are opposed to this that their guns will become obsolete?

I'd be pretty wary of lead contamination in food personally. Wouldn't eat game. I understand the lead exposure levels are significant if you do regularly eat it.

Didn't even occur to me that there would be level of environmental and possibly water contamination as well.

Steel shot isn't as humane as lead shot in that it loses it kinetic energy quicker, leading to wounded and lost birds. The first review in a shooting magazine of steel shot i read about 20 years ago, the reviewer was so disgusted at the amount of wounded birds, he threw the remaining rounds into the lake.

There was a survey involving blood testing of people in Germany done, people who ate game regularly and people who didn't. The lead levels in the blood was the same.

My grandmothers house had lead piping, she lived until she was 90 and was very mentally alert and agile until a few weeks before she died. My father worked with lead for years, it didn't interfere with his health either.

Its the modern complete over reaction we get now, Hazmat suits and oxygen fed face masks because someone found a fishing weight in the bottom of an old box in the attic. Its lead, not polonium or plutonium.

BattleCorp

grassylawn wrote: »

Is the only reason that people are opposed to this that their guns will become obsolete?

I'd be pretty wary of lead contamination in food personally. Wouldn't eat game. I understand the lead exposure levels are significant if you do regularly eat it.

Didn't even occur to me that there would be level of environmental and possibly water contamination as well.

It's not only that guns will become obsolete.

Lead shot alternatives aren't as humane. Steel simply isn't a good replacement for lead. It won't do the same job. Steel is cheaper than lead. If it worked near as well, shooters would have switched to it years ago.

You have to be closer to your target when shooting with steel as steel drops quicker. It doesn't have the same balistic properties.

While nobody can say that there's zero risk of lead poisoning from lead shot contamination, the chances are miniscule. When you think about it, we have lead flashing on our houses. We have lead water pipes etc. Half the old buildings/machinery have lead paint. The air we breathe has had lead pumped into it for the best part of 100 years from cars before they got the lead out of the petrol.

While lead isn't brilliant for the environment, some of the alternatives are worse.

There's an anti-shooting agenda in society nowadays and as far as I can see, this is part of that. Because if they were worried about lead in the environment, they could have gone after far bigger polluters than someone shooting a few ducks or geese every now and again. Realistically (and I'm plucking figures out of my hole), shooters wouldn't even account for 1% of lead released into the environment.

tudderone

The steel shot is eiither coated with zinc (which is toxic) or oiled. Both to stop rusting. So can you eat game after oily shot is dragged through it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg78btY_lKw

J.R.

grassylawn

Thanks for giving me a more rounded idea of the issue.

I did a bit of research and the consensus doesn't seem to agree with it being innocuous.

Use of lead ammunition in wetlands has an impact on bird populations there:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672933/

Lead exposure at firing ranges poses a health risk to people there:
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-017-0246-0

Lead in game causes significant exposure in people who eat it regularly:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(16)30021-3/pdf


I have no idea if steel alternatives are better.

Not being judgmental here, just linking what I found when I read up about it... I enjoyed visiting a firing range in the USA a few years ago. The issue of lead in game only came to my attention after I saw a warning about it on some game I bought from Aldi. So no agenda here basically.

juice1304

grassylawn wrote: »

Thanks for giving me a more rounded idea of the issue.

I did a bit of research and the consensus doesn't seem to agree with it being innocuous.

Use of lead ammunition in wetlands has an impact on bird populations there:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672933/

Lead exposure at firing ranges poses a health risk to people there:
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-017-0246-0

Lead in game causes significant exposure in people who eat it regularly:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(16)30021-3/pdf


I have no idea if steel alternatives are better.

Not being judgmental here, just linking what I found when I read up about it... I enjoyed visiting a firing range in the USA a few years ago. The issue of lead in game only came to my attention after I saw a warning about it on some game I bought from Aldi. So no agenda here basically.

The alternatives are more toxic and dangerous. They are harder so they will ricochet. They are lighter so they won't carry as much energy. They don't deform so they can cause barrels to burst and they won't impart the kinetic energy to the animal. Lead instantly builds a hard oxide layer when exposed to the air making it insoluble. Copper on the other hand is far more toxic and soluble. There are no alternatives. Regardless of whatever alloy they create they will never change the density of the elements. The danger on ranges is vaporized lead particles in the air or in the berm.

GooseB

Is the only reason that people are opposed to this that their guns will become obsolete?

Thanks for giving me a more rounded idea of the issue.

I did a bit of research and the consensus doesn't seem to agree with it being innocuous.

"grassylawn" - Like you, I don't hunt, nor do I own a shotgun so I don't have "skin in the game" from that point of view. I only shoot targets with my rifle - but I'm still against this lead ban.

Don't forget, this lead shot ammunition ban affects more than game shooting or hunting. Anyone that shoots targets with a shotgun is also affected. Clay pigeon shooting for example will be affected and some people who shoot clays are only interested in that, they don't hunt at all but just love the sport. And lead due to it's density and relative softness performs better ballistically than steel and is kinder to steel in barrels.

Steel is less dense than lead, therefore for a given weight of projectile the steel one will be larger than the lead one. If launched at the same speed the larger steel one will have more drag due to it's size and slow down faster. For a given size, a steel projectile will be lighter. If launched at the same speed the steel one will be slowed down faster by the air than the lead one due to being lighter.

These points affect how things flying in the air, at varying distance and under environmental conditions will be hit and suitably disabled, be that a humane kill of a bird or the effective destruction of a clay pigeon.

Another point of note is the term "wetlands". Ask anyone what "wetlands" means to them and they'll conjure up an image of a marshy type scene, maybe an estuarine environment or an area dappled with lakes occupied by ducks, swans, geese, wading birds etc. That's what I think most people's common sense take on "wetlands" is - maybe I'm wrong but I don't think for the most part I am. The lead ban near wetlands from this new EU ECHA law basically considers "wetlands" to be land that is wet, it only has to have standing water on it. So somewhere that is not a "wetland" can become a "wetland" if it were to rain and form puddles on the ground.

Imagine this just for the sake of taking the concept into the realm of the ridiculous. Imagine Ireland had a desert in the midlands. Bone dry, arid and dusty. Some people decide to set up a clay pigeon shoot, use lead ammo and legally operate away. One person takes out their canteen to quell their thirst from the heat and accidentally spills it on the ground and forms a puddle. Now they can no longer legally shoot there. They have to either (a) wait until the puddle dries up or (b) take all their equipment a minimum of 100 metres away from that spot before they can legally shoot again.

Let's imagine scenarion (b) above happens. Everyone begins to move all their gear 100 metres away so they can legally shoot the clays again with lead ammo. During the move the Gards turn up and ask to have a look at the cartridges. They discover that they contain lead shot and it's within 100 metres of the canteen puddle. Even though everyone there was in the process of moving all their gear beyond 100 metres of the "wetland", in other words, the "bit of land that's wet", there's a presumption that they are guilty under this new law. The Gards don't have to prove the people were shooting on wetlands, they are presumed guilty. The shooters have to prove that they are innocent and prove that they were not going to shoot within 100 metres of the "wetland". The "innocent until proven guilty" system that we normally use has been reversed.

The aforemantioned scenario is just my take on it, I could be wrong but I think for the most part I have the gist of it. Please anyone correct me where I'm wrong.

So why am I against the ban since I don't have a shotgun or hunt? Well the shotgunners I my club are addicted to it, they live for a Sunday when they can shoot clays and if the notion takes me I may wish to join them and the lead ammo currently in use is the best we have. From a price point of view and for its effectiveness.

The lead shot over wetlands really is just the tip of the iceberg though. The next thing that is coming down the line - and this is not my guess, this IS coming - is the total ban on all lead in ammunition for civilian use. And this has noting to do with lead in game birds or venison being ingested because it will also affect people who don't hunt but merely target shoot. Lead bullets caught in the sand/clay berm at target ranges doesn't get into the environment at all really, it's just trapped in the sand. And with a bit of effort it can be sieved, sorted and recycled. The lead shot ban is the start of a process to remove effective ammunition from civilians. Our guns are not being removed, but they're effectively being made useless by banning suitable and affordable ammunition under the auspices of a "green" agenda. And all politicians and the EU have to be seen to be going "green" so they won't go against it. The military are probably the biggest user of ammunition an they remain unaffected. Why? Because this is about removing firearms from civilians in the long run.

This lead shot ban will have a serious affect on Olympic clay shooting because of the "wetlands" part of the law. And should the total ban on all lead ammunition come into effect down the line, even Olympic target rifle shooting and air guns will be knackered in the EU.

"grassylawn" - Here's a couple of links to read from the ISSF that look after target rifle shooting and clay pigeon shooting, from FACE which are hunting-centric and others:

https://www.issf-sports.org/getfile.aspx?inst=439&pane=1&mod=docf&iist=101&file=Presentation%20ECHA_compressed.pdf

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/law/Ban-of-lead-in-ammunition-the-position-of-ISSF/

https://www.leadinammunition.com/faq/#faq-3

https://www.face.eu/2020/11/envi-vote-on-leadshot-2-2/

Lastly -

I enjoyed visiting a firing range in the USA a few years ago.

So there's no reason you won't enjoy it here also. Why not look into local clubs and ranges and get in touch, pay one a visit, have a go. I guarantee you you'll be met by a bunch of very nice, enthusiastic people only too happy to show you what it's all about and shoot a club gun. Shooting tiny groups or knocking over steel chickens can be very addictive!

Grizzly 45

grassylawn wrote: »

Thanks for giving me a more rounded idea of the issue.

I did a bit of research and the consensus doesn't seem to agree with it being innocuous.

Use of lead ammunition in wetlands has an impact on bird populations there:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672933/

OLD American particullary Californian research with particular bias towards raptors from eating waterfowl or others with lead shot in them,rather than the affects of lead on humans eating same

Lead exposure at firing ranges poses a health risk to people there:
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-017-0246-0

Been known since the 1980s,nothing new there bar showing how bad research is these days.Done by googling papers... IOW pick what suits your position.

Lead in game causes significant exposure in people who eat it regularly:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(16)30021-3/pdf

American Medical Journal has proven itself to be consistently ANTI GUN OWNERSHIP in numerous aricles,So I would not consider them an unbiased source.

I have no idea if steel alternatives are better.

No one is saying it is better[it isnt] but what we are complaining about is the fact that this legislation in the EU is too blunt an instrument for a country that is 95% wetland, and has no method or means of correcting this problem with the firearms already in circulation.

Not being judgmental here, just linking what I found when I read up about it... I enjoyed visiting a firing range in the USA a few years ago. The issue of lead in game only came to my attention after I saw a warning about it on some game I bought from Aldi. So no agenda here basically.

The warning on the ALDI game is simply there as a cover your ass from litigation. Same as Mc Donalds have to put HOT BEVERAGE on their coffee cups, and Japan has to put Caution! Sharp edge on knives it sells.

It doesn't mean you eating probably the healthier option in meat in Aldis is the same as you chugging down 3 six-packs and doing 20 Marlboro a day. The amount of lead in-game is minuscule,and you would have to be eating literally a metric plus ton of it a year to start to get significant lead build up.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

grassylawn wrote: »

The warning on the ALDI game is simply there as a cover your ass from litigation. Same as Mc Donalds have to put HOT BEVERAGE on their coffee cups, and Japan has to put Caution! Sharp edge on knives it sells.

Because most modern adults are not adults, but oversized toddlers that whinge their way to a lawyer if they cut their pinky or get a gob full of hot tea. Its the infantilization of modern society :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Oh and just for you clay pigeon and .22 rifle hunters who think this doesn't affect them ...IT DOES!
Lead shot cant now be used within the "200-meter "buffer zone of the wetland" IE that puddle that forms at the bottom of the field where you have the clay range. Or the 90% of which in Ireland's clay ranges are in now areas that could be declared "wetlands".

Ditto you won't be shooting any bunnies out on Farmer Brown's field because of that instant forming "wetland" after a heavy downpour of rain.,as your .22 ammo is lead isn't it?:(

As for that shower of MEPs that voted against this. I suggest some serious letters and emails to them stating that their action on this has reflected on their parties who put them in Europe, and their party members in your area need not bother calling in any local, national, or EU election again and need not bother looking for your votes.