California May Soon Ban Lead Ammunition

The California Fish and Game Commission is considering a state-wide ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting making it illegal for the Gun Enthusiast to hunt with lead ammunition.  Two years ago they were successful at banning lead ammunition in areas inhabited by the California Condor with AB 821 that was signed into law by the governor.   Now through their hunting regulations, they have extended the ban to include .22 rimfire ammunition in the condor habitat.   This incremental approach puts them in line to extend the ban to the State’s borders, which they are considering now.

Proponents of the current ban have wanted a state wide ban from the very beginning.   The California Condor simply provided an excuse to implement a smaller version of the law to get us used to the idea.  The anti-hunting and anti-gun extremists now are pushing to extend their little ban to prohibit all Gun Enthusiasts from using the less expensive lead ammunition for all purposes whether hunting or target practice statewide.

Lead is a natural element that comes from the earth.  It is an element that all humans and animals alike require in their bodies, to a small extent.  However, large enough quantities can cause lead poisoning.  But it is ridiculous to make us believe that condors are likely to eat spent lead ammunition in the first place, thereby causing them to get ‘lead poising’.   But this is the premise that made it possible for the anti-gun lobbies to garner favor with the Fish and Game Commission and convince them to enact this preposterous regulation.  But now they are going for the entire State.

There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition is causing lead poisoning in condors or any other animals.  Similarly, there is no evidence that lead ammunition is a risk to human health or the California environment.  What is evident is that a small group of extremist activists, who have friends on the Commission, will not stop until they successfully remove some more of our freedom and make the most affordable and ballistically superior ammunition illegal to all Gun Enthusiasts.   They know the damage that this will do to hunting interests in the State.  Further, it is a loss of freedom that we will never get back if they are successful at extending the ban on lead ammunition to cover the entire state. 

Californians are encouraged to call and write Fish and Game Commission and request them to oppose all efforts to extend the ban on lead ammunition.  I personally feel we should also request that they rescind the current ban covering the condor habitat. 


Mailing Address:

California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Phone Number:
(916) 653-4899

Fax Number:
(916) 653-5040

E-Mail:  (Please include “State-wide Lead Ammo Ban” in the e-mail subject line.)

Submit written comments, via electronic mail to:  

John Carlson, Jr.,  Executive Director  
Jon K. Fischer,  Deputy Executive Director – Regulations and Policy
Adrianna Shea,  Deputy Executive Director – Special Advisor to the Commissioners

Please compose your email with all civility beginning with:  Dear Fish & Game Commissioner (name)


Filed under General, News

5 responses to “California May Soon Ban Lead Ammunition

  1. So…you answered some stuff for me, however there is this one little issue left.
    Tell me this, if you insist on believing that it’s hardened criminals that commit the most crimes and inner city folks, what about putting restrictions on the clips or amount of ammo a person can purchase. I’m curious to know what you think about this issue. 🙂


    • Funny you should ask. This is one of my hot issues right now, as you may have guessed. I’ve actually discussed that in three different posts here about recent legislation, of which, of course, I am opposed. I probably best answered that question in a recent post here about Connecticut S.B. 1094 wherein I felt compelled to answer one of the State Senators who was asking about some conflicting emails he had received. It is possible to argue that it makes little difference to limit the size of a magazine in a situation such as we had in Arizona in January, as a skilled person could drop a spent magazine and reload with a full one in less than a second. But you can also argue that not being allowed to have a large magazine and having to take the time change a small one is unwarranted. Someone who might be faced with having to defend their life is not going to want to bet their life on ten rounds. Even if they have a second magazine available, this frightened person may not be able to change a magazine quickly and it could cost him his life.

      So there, in a nutshell, without even going into the Constitutional issues, is the basis of my opposition to limiting the size of magazines. I am against it. Thanks for asking.



    • Oh yeah, the other part of your question was about limiting the amount of ammunition one could buy. To be honest, I really don’t understand the thinking behind that one. I have heard the idea bandied about of limiting sales to 50 rounds a month. Other than limiting one of our Constitutional Freedoms, what difference would that make to someone like Jared Loughner? His magazine held 30. But to us recreational shooters, it would seriously crimp our style. When we go target shooting out in the desert, we can easily blow through 500 – 1000 rounds – each. Competition shooters shoot many more than 50 rounds in a competition. But in order for them to become good, they have to shoot thousands of rounds a week. It seems that you (collectively) (gun control activists) think its all about shooting people. Most shooting is done for recreation with inanimate targets. It is extremely fun. I really wish you would try it. I’m sure you would like it too.


  2. s.souza

    At this point, you should have seen the studies showing actual lead bullet fragments within the digestive tracts of both Golden Eagles and California Condors… You should also have seen the before ban vs. after ban study levels of lead in the exact same areas in eagles and vultures.

    At some point, those who love birds of prey and scavenger birds know those birds need the remains of, and the shot but died later animals for their existence. Since vultures don’t kill their own food, they need dead (shot or otherwise) animals to live.

    This means we need to keep hunting for those birds to exist.


    • Actually, since the writing of this article, it has come to light that the studies used by environmentalist groups to get the ban that is in place now were flawed and biased in that they used only data that furthered their cause and omitted data that contradicted their premise. For example, the “Church Report” was found to have much data that contradicted a negative impact of lead ammunition selectively excluded from the report. It was such an egregious “cooking of the books” as it were, that some of the commissioners on the California Fish and Game Commission have called it “pseudo science”. Commissioner Richard B. Rogers expressed great concern about the problems with public access to data, and apparent contradictory evidence, saying that the situation is “quite troubling.”

      As is always the case, the liberal environmentalist wackos can’t win in the arena of ideas if they are required to back their outrageous statements and claims with facts. Instead, they have to resort to exaggeration and omission of real facts to get any traction with their bogus claims. As with the whole “Global Warming” hoax, this supposed fear of poisoning condors and other scavenger fowl is another hoax devised by liberals to impose just one more control on gun enthusiasts and hunters. And don’t even get me started on Global Warming.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s