How Dangerous, Really, Is Lead Ammunition?
All DRGO articles by Gary Mauser, PhD

A variety of authorities such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UK Food Standards Agency, as well as the Centers for Disease Control warn that there is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe. If true, then literally any exposure to lead should be hazardous. These authorities warn that blood lead levels (BLL) even lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter are a matter of serious concern. Scientists confidently assert that using lead bullets for hunting endangers human health, particularly that of children, and should be prohibited.

Such Draconian claims have important implications for hunters and their families, particularly families who rely upon game as a primary source of meat. Warnings about lead poisoning by anti-hunting activists are preventing generous hunters from donating wild game meat to food banks. Hunters are estimated to have provided over 1.3 million meals in 2014 to food banks across North America.

But is the science really settled? Is it universally accepted that no known level of lead exposure is safe? No. Respected scientists in Norway, Australia, and the UK, are skeptical that low levels of exposure must be considered dangerous, pointing out that the research remains unclear whether blood lead levels under 10 micrograms per deciliter have any meaningful health effects. Because the available studies do not provide reliable evidence to draw confident conclusions, these skeptics insist that more research is needed before any governmental restrictions are imposed on lead ammunition. It is not a stretch to compare the dire warnings about lead ammunition to the exaggerated claims of the Alar scare in the 1980s that unnecessarily frightened apple consumers.

Here are brief summaries of a few alternative assessments:

Norway

In 2013, the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) assessed the risk of lead exposure in Norway from consuming cervid meat (which includes moose, deer and reindeer). Many (70%) Norwegian hunters reported eating cervid meat at least once a month, and approximately 5% of the Norwegian population has a hunting license.

No association was found between game meat consumption and BLL in two of the four Norwegian studies reviewed. However, a significant association was found in two studies. No link was found for women, but men who consumed cervid meat monthly (or more often) had about 30% higher average BLL than those with less frequent consumption. The increase in blood lead concentrations appeared to be associated with consumption of minced cervid meat, particularly purchased minced meat. Blood lead concentration was found to be significantly higher in participants who reported hand-loading ammunition. However, there was a wide range, and many participants with high or long-lasting game meat intake had low blood lead concentrations.

The authors found that, “The number of years of game meat consumption was inversely related to blood levels, with about 5% decrease per decade of game meat intake. The phenomenon illustrates that game meat intake over time is not necessarily associated with higher lead accumulation in the body.”

VKM concluded by identifying serious data gaps that cast doubt upon warnings about the hazards of lead exposure in game meat. The data on lead concentration in Norwegian game meat, particularly in commercial minced meat, were inadequate. There was a wide range in the number of lead fragments found in commercial minced meat samples examined, apparently due to the manner of meat preparation. More research is required about the fragmentation pattern of bullets in moose. It was difficult to assess the bioavailability of metallic lead in food. Despite concerns about lead exposure from game meat consumption in children, it was impossible to conduct a risk assessment because no blood lead data or consumption data for children were available.

VKM reiterated concerns about heavy consumption of game meat, and urged that the lead exposure from cervid meat consumption could be reduced by removal of sufficient meat around the wound channel, and recommending increased educational efforts about the best practices of preparing game meat. They also encouraged hunters to use lead-core ammunition with low fragmentation such as certain types of bonded expanding bullets, or non-lead ammunition.

Australia

The prestigious Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a “comprehensive evaluation of the evidence on the health effects of lead” and issued a report in May 2015 titled, accordingly, Evidence of the Effects of Lead on Human Health. Despite their concerns about exposure to lead, the NHMRC remained somewhat tentative about the harmful effects of low BLL.

The NHMRC recommended that any Australian, particularly a child or pregnant woman, having a blood lead level greater than 5 micrograms per deciliter should investigate and reduce the source of exposure. However, the NHMRC cautioned:

“It is well established that blood lead levels greater than 10 micrograms per deciliter can have harmful effects on many organs and bodily functions. . . .

“The evidence for health effects occurring as a result of blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter is less clear. NHMRC’s comprehensive review of the health effects of lead found an association between blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter and health effects, including reduced Intelligence Quotient and academic achievement in children, behavioral problems in children, increased blood pressure in adults and a delay in sexual maturation in adolescent boys and girls. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that lead at this level caused any of the health effects observed.”

The NHMRC was primarily concerned with lead exposure due to industry (such as lead mining or smelting) and recommended that communities should take steps to identify and control the source of lead exposure to reduce the risk of harm to the individual and to the community. In a companion report, the NHMRC cautioned Australians that casting lead fishing sinkers or eating game harvested with lead ammunition were activities also risking exposure and recommended that people take steps to reduce any potential dangers.

United Kingdom

Following concerns about the health risks of consuming game shot with lead ammunition, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) set up the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) in 2010. This group was charged with identifying the most serious risks and recommending possible solutions. The resulting LAG report in 2015 found that consumption of wild game meat killed using lead ammunition posed risks to tens of thousands of high-level consumers of wild game in the UK. LAG concluded that public education was unlikely to improve the situation and that the only way to guarantee an amelioration of human health concerns would be to replace lead ammunition with non-lead alternatives.

Concerned about procedural irregularities, a group of prestigious scientists withdrew from LAG, eventually deciding to issue their own minority report. They objected that LAG would “result in conclusions and mitigation recommendations which are not necessary, not appropriate or not proportionate in relation to real risks.” Their minority report reviews the evidence provided to the LAG and makes recommendations to address existing and new potential risks identified.

The independent scientists made several key points:

a) It is unclear whether blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter have meaningful health effects, because available studies (cross-sectional) do not provide reliable evidence needed to draw confident conclusions.

b) Evidence from studies in other countries may not directly apply to a specific country’s people.

c) Findings from population data cannot be applied directly to individuals (e.g., individual BLL higher than the national average does not necessarily correlate with reduced IQ).

d) A small difference in a group’s average for a specific health measure may not be health effects doctors can diagnose for people exposed to lead.

The key concern over the LAG human health risk assessment is that it was prepared by people with little human health or lead toxicology expertise, but who are themselves publicly antagonistic to lead ammunition. They made uncertain and non-transparent use of only some of the relevant literature. From this they concluded adverse effects of spent lead ammunition on human health, which appear to require substantial mitigation measures to control. However, the whole assessment is subject to many uncertainties which have not been confirmed.

These points drastically undermine LAG’s recommendation that lead ammunition should be urgently banned. Instead the dissidents advised improved game handling and processing efforts to minimize lead entering the human food chain through game meat, and encouraged consumers to take additional steps to reduce lead exposure through better methods of preparing game meat.

Conclusions

The reviews summarized here identify serious data gaps that undermine warnings about the seriousness of consuming game meat shot with lead bullets. It would appear to be more political than scientific to assert that prohibitions are the only solution, when training in best practices would show more respect for individual rights and might even be better for the health of consumers. Education, not bans, is the most appropriate way to deal with lead contamination for those who eat game harvested with lead ammunition. Hunters need to understand they should take reasonable precautions. It is telling that none of the assessments of the potential health risks associated with lead exposure from game meat were compared to the benefits and nutritional value of eating game meat.

So the case for banning lead bullets remains inconclusive. These assessments of the dangers of lead bullets do not ignore concerns about the health risks, but they do imply that the dangers have been exaggerated. Despite agreeing that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, there is as yet no clear evidence that lead-core ammunition poses serious health risks when harvesting deer or other big game. Risks are reduced by proper butchering and meat-handling techniques, although researchers also warned that greater precautions are required when casting bullets or hand-loading ammunition.

Finally, it is not easy to find an alternative to lead. Not only are all possible substitutes more expensive, but it has proved very difficult to achieve ballistic and impact equivalency using lead substitutes (like steel, copper or barium) that do not damage the firearm nor cause greater dangers to the environment. Lead is not the only toxic element—ingested iron, copper and barium are, too.

Banning lead for bullets and shot is not an easy solution—unless the end game is really to eliminate hunting with guns. And the point of that would be to undermine the Second Amendment.

Massie and other Republicans push 'National Constitutional Carry Act' to protect Americans' gun rights

The measure would protect Americans' right to carry guns in public

Alex Nitzberg By Alex Nitzberg Fox News

Published January 24, 2025 9:33am EST

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and a slew of other House Republicans are pushing a proposal that would compel states to allow Americans to carry guns in public areas.

The measure, dubbed the "National Constitutional Carry Act," would prohibit states and localities from limiting U.S. citizens from carrying firearms in public if they are eligible to have the weapons under state and federal law.

"By prohibiting state or local restrictions on the right to bear arms, H.R. 645 upholds the original purpose of the Second Amendment—to ensure the security of a free state—while safeguarding individual liberties against government infringement," Massie noted, according to a press release.

Specifically, the text of the measure stipulates that "No State or political subdivision of a State may impose a criminal or civil penalty on, or otherwise indirectly limit the carrying of firearms (including by imposing a financial or other barrier to entry) in public by residents or nonresidents of that State who are citizens of the United States and otherwise eligible to possess firearms under State and Federal law."

"Any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a State or a political subdivision of a State that criminalizes, penalizes, or otherwise indirectly dissuades the carrying of firearms (including by imposing a financial or other barrier to entry) in public by any resident or nonresident who is a United States citizen and otherwise eligible to possess firearms under State and Federal law, shall have no force or effect," the measure reads.

The measure would not apply to locations "where screening for firearms is conducted under state law," and it would not block the owners of privately-owned facilities from banning guns on their premises.

Massie and others had previously pushed such a proposal last year as well.

In 2021, Massie shared a family Christmas photo in which each person was holding a gun.

"Merry Christmas!" the staunch gun rights advocate wrote when sharing the photo, adding, "ps. Santa, please bring ammo."

In a 2022 post, he criticized the term "Gun Violence," asserting that it "is part of the language leftists use to shift blame away from evil perpetrators of violence" and that it "suggests that guns are to blame instead of people, which sets the table for their anti-second amendment agenda."

"There’s a reason you never see a Communist, a Marxist, or even a Socialist politician support the right of common people to keep and bear arms: Those forms of government require more submission to the state than armed citizens would tolerate," Massie also tweeted in 2022.

Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Second Amendment Guarantee Act to Defend New Yorkers 2A Rights

January 15, 2025

Press Release

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) to ensure that states are prohibited from banning the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun that is lawfully permitted under federal law.

Additional cosponsors of this legislation include Representative Doug LaMalfa (CA-1) and Nick Langworthy (NY-23).

New York's SAFE Act, signed into law under disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo, prohibits law-abiding New Yorkers from purchasing, transferring, and owning certain firearms. If signed into law, this SAGA Act would nullify the SAFE Act and prevent New York and other states from passing unconstitutional gun bans.

"The Constitution clearly established our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The SAGA Act nullifies New York's unconstitutional SAFE Act and prevents other states from enacting laws that violate the Second Amendment. This legislation upholds our country's founding principle of protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans, even from liberal states with anti-gun policies," said Congresswoman Tenney.

"No matter how hard radical Democrats in Albany attempt to limit lawful gun ownership, the New York Congressional delegation will stand firm to protect law-abiding New Yorkers and manufacturers in protecting their constitutional rights. I am proud to join Rep. Tenney and my New York colleagues in Congress to ensure these rights ‘shall not be infringed, and I will never back down in my fight to protect the Second Amendment,” said Congressman Langworthy.

Poll: 3/4 of American Voters Want Pro-2nd Amendment Judges Nominated at Federal Level

AWR Hawkins    18 Dec 202476   3:03

A poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates and released by the Second Amendment Foundation shows three-quarters of American voters believe it is “important” to see pro-2A judges nominated and confirmed at the federal level.

The poll asked, “How important is it to you to get judges confirmed and nominated to the federal courts who make it a priority to try their best to strictly follow the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”

Seventy-six percent of respondents said it is “important.”

Another question asked, “How important is it to you that our political leaders in Washington, D.C. protect and defend the 2nd Amendment Rights in the U.S. Constitution of law-abiding gun owners?”

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said this is “important” as well.

When asked, “Do you think that President Donald Trump will make it a priority to protect and defend the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” 63 percent of respondents said “yes.”

Jim McLaughlin commented on the poll’s results, saying,

Overwhelming majorities of voters want their political leaders in Washington to defend Second Amendment rights (77%). Furthermore, three out of four voters (76%) say it is important to nominate and confirm judges to the federal courts who will make it a priority to strictly follow the Second Amendment and nearly two-in-three voters (63%) think President Donald Trump will make it a priority to protect and defend the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

A fourth poll question asked, “Who do you think will do a better job of protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners in America…the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress?”

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said “Republicans” versus only 24 percent who said “Democrats.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb also commented, saying, “This survey underscores the prevailing public perception that Democrats have become the ‘party of gun prohibition.’ The numbers also justify SAF’s commitment to defend the Second Amendment in our various court challenges, winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio, a member of Gun Owners of America, a Pulsar Night Vision pro-staffer, and the director of global marketing for Lone Star Hunts. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in 2010 and has a Ph.D. in Military History. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly: awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

New York’s “Vampire Law” Gun Free Zones Struck Down Again

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 12, 2024 by John Crump

A federal judge in the Western District of New York issued summary judgment for the Firearms Policy Coalition striking down New York State’s “Vampire Law.”

The order read:

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the State’s restriction on private property open to the public. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to this issue.

New York State’s “Vampire Law” made private property open to the public “gun free zones” unless the owner posted signs or gave express permission to carry a firearm on the property. This law was a part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). The CCIA was a concealed carry law passed in an emergency session shortly after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. Many believe that New York State was thumbing its nose at SCOTUS.

Instead of becoming less restrictive at Bruen, the state became more stringent, making it a felony to carry firearms in most of the Empire State. The “Vampire Law” made it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to fill up their car with gas while carrying their gun unless the gas station posted “guns welcome” signs. After the CCIA passed, multiple lawsuits were filed against New York State, challenging different parts of the regulations.

One of those cases was Christian v. James, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation in the Western District of New York. The plaintiffs were able to get a preliminary injunction against the law. This injunction was just one of a few injunctions against the prohibition of carrying firearms on public property open to the public without express permission. The injunction enjoined New York State from enforcing the new regulations.

Both New York State and the plaintiffs asked the District Court for summary judgment. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the law. The state was fighting an uphill battle since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the law in Antonyuk, which was filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA). Judge John L. Sinatra ruled against the state on the private property issue, stating that the law was Unconstitutional.

According to the Bruen standard, a gun law has to be consistent with the original text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. There was no question that the right to bear arms was part of the text of the Second Amendment. Judge Sinatra was weary of the state’s historical analogs for tradition and history. Most dealt with plantations and hunting. Although Rahimi said a historical analogue must be similar, it doesn’t have to be a historical twin. The state provided multiple laws about hunting and trespassing on plantations, but the judge believed these laws were too different from the “Vampire Law.” The state also tried to cite laws from after the ratification date of the 14th Amendment, but the judge rejected those, too. Anti-gun states liked to use the ratification date of the 14th Amendment in 1868 because there were a lot more gun laws on the books to prevent formerly enslaved black people from obtaining firearms.

The judge declined to rule on the second part of the case, which dealt with carrying firearms in public parks and public transportation. He highlighted that those issues were appealed to SCOTUS in Antonyuk. In Antonyuk, the Second Circuit upheld those restrictions, leading GOA to file for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The writ would be granted. The Second Circuit’s decision was vacated, and the case was remanded back to the lower court, where they would get another chance to get it right.

New York State asked for a 14-day stay on the court’s decision to give them time to appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sinatra rejected the request, stating that the injunction has existed since 2022, so there is no irreputable harm, and the defendants are not likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Also, the Second Circuit already upheld a similar injunction in Antonyuk.

“This is yet another important victory for Second Amendment rights and another major loss for New York, authoritarian governments, and radical anti-rights organizations like Everytown and Giffords. We will continue to fight forward as we work to restore the full scope of the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. Hopefully Kathy Hochul is ready to write another check for legal fees.” — FPC President Brandon Combs

“This is an important victory. SAF is winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.” — SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb

New York State is expected to appeal the District Court’s decision to the Second Circuit even though the Second Circuit has already upheld an identical injunction.

 Proposed Constitutional Amendment: The So-Called “Equal Rights Amendment”
• Governor Hochul and Albany Democrats adopted a proposed state constitutional amendment: the “Equal Rights Amendment.” A recent Appellate Court decision ruled it will appear on the November ballot as Prop 1 .

• Partisan policymakers claim this amendment is needed to protect abortion rights in New York. This is not true. New York legalized abortion in 1970 and this law is not under any genuine threat of modification or repeal.

• What Does it Say? The amendment’s broad language would create “new” constitutional rights.

• Among these new “rights” are “gender identity” and “gender expression.” The language would cover all persons including minor children. If voters approve Prop 1 in November, it will grant minor children the right to medical transgender interventions without parental consent/ notification. Several laws currently under consideration in Albany would likewise not require parental consent such as treatment for STDs. European regulatory authorities have walked back initial policy recommendations for gender affirming care cautioning a far more conservative approach. Why has New York NOT learned from these experiences?

• The NYS Department of Education released guidance in 2023 entitled “Creating a Safe, Supportive, and Affirming School Environment for Transgender and Gender Expansive Students”. Accordingly, a minor child will now decide if parents should be informed of their decision to transition and school administrators are not permitted to inform parents of their child’s desire to change genders.

• Prop 1 would protect this and future laws now under consideration that would allow minor children to have medical procedures and receive medications without parental consent. Yet parents will remain legally responsible for managing the emotional consequences and physical side effects impacting their minor children.

• Passage of Prop 1 will prohibit schools from barring biological males from participation on female sports teams, jeopardizing the fairness of such contests. Girls who are vying for athletic scholarships will be disadvantaged as a result. Prop 1 goes further than impacting school sports teams as it will disallow all single sex activities –in locker rooms, bathrooms, and sororities. Prop 1 would question the viability of single sex public or private education• Prop 1 will also govern free speech -- for religious organizations and charitable groups providing medical,
educational, and other services including adoptions and foster care. Multiple reports exist from other states where children are being denied to loving foster care parents because of the parents’ religious beliefs on gender expression and other faith-based teachings.

• Governor Hochul and the legislature enacted a law to protect minors from abuse on social media. Yet she is a proponent of Prop 1. Why? Because by falsely portraying abortion rights as under threat, there will be enhanced voter turnout for their side – and at the cost of our kids.

NYS GOP - ERA Fact Sheet - July 1 - PDF with Banne_240702_135424.pdf

How States Can Use Existing Laws To Find Foreign Nationals On Their Voter Rolls

BY: BRIANNA LYMAN

JUNE 25, 2024

To find foreign nationals on their voter rolls, states can use two little-known federal statutes to verify whether a registered voter is an American citizen through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to America First Legal (AFL).

AFL sent letters on Monday to each state’s chief election official — along with a copy to their respective governors and attorneys general — highlighting two statutes that the legal group says allow states and localities to request information about a person’s citizenship and immigration status. If requested, AFL contends, DHS is required to provide such information.

AFL first points to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), which requires the former Immigration and Naturalization Service — which was replaced by the DHS — to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.”

AFL also points to 8 U.S.C. § 1644, which states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

“Accordingly, States and localities should submit requests to DHS to verify the citizenship or immigration status of registered voters on voter rolls where there are any reliable indicators that a voter may not be a U.S. citizen,” AFL summarized in a press release.

AFL President Stephen Miller pointed to the record-high number of illegal aliens crossing the border under President Joe Biden, calling it an “extraordinary threat to our elections.”

“Any leader who wishes to protect the franchise of their citizens must act to implement these recommendations with haste,” Miller said in a statement. “Patriotic officials must act at once to stop Biden’s illegals from voting — and this action plan from AFL tells them exactly what they must do.”

Alien voting in federal elections is illegal, but the federally-mandated registration process doesn’t meaningfully prevent it. A potential voter who registers via a federal registration form simply must check a box affirming he is a U.S. citizen. Republicans have introduced the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act which would require documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

Currently, Arizona is the only state that has some mechanism in place besides the honor system to keep foreign nationals from registering to vote. The state requires potential voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in state elections. But thanks to federal government interference, individuals who cannot prove their citizenship for state registration can still register as federal-only voters.

New York: End-of-Session Typically Means More Gun Control

NRA-ILA Wednesday, June 5, 2024
New York is entering the final days of the 2024 legislative session and a flurry of gun control is swirling in Albany. With anti-gun super majorities and limited debate, the unrelentless appetite to penalize gun owners and ignore actual criminals continues. It's critical that gun owners engage by using the take action button below to contact their Assembly members to help stop this last-minute surge.

On Tuesday, the Senate passed several more gun control bills which include:

S.4818 establishes a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm. The bill passed the Senate 42-19. The Assembly companion bill, A.5696, is still in an Assembly Committee.

S.8479 requires payment card networks to use certain merchant category codes for firearms dealers. This intrusive bill is dangerous and a massive invasion of privacy. This type of data collection is used to create registries and blackball gun owners. The Assembly companion bill, A.9862, is still in committee in the Assembly.

S.2086 establishes a voluntary waiver of the right to purchase firearms, rifles, and shotguns. The Assembly companion bill is A.565 and is still in committee.

S.138A, which strikes a blow to NRA-certified instructors, requires certification of instructors to be done by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Assembly companion bill, A.6663A is still in an Assembly Committee.

S.7392A relates to the creation of a public nuisance created by the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, and marketing of firearms. This bill and its Assembly counterpart, A.7555A, have both passed.

S.8589/A.7717B relates to extreme risk protection orders. New York already has an ERPO law, but this legislation expands the class of petitioners. The bill has passed both chambers.

There are other bills that remain in the hopper, which are equally bad. Among them, gun owners should be concerned about a lead ammunition ban on state public hunting lands and legislation to certify “personalized firearms” or “smart guns” as technologically viable. This, of course, is nothing more than an attempt to ban the new sale of traditional handguns.

Again, contact your Assembly Member and urge them to oppose any new gun control in the final days of the 2024 session!

Insufficient Gun Owner Involvement in Unsuccessful Herrera Race Will Not Go Unnoticed    Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 1, 2024 by David Codrea

Establishment Republicans have spoken. Gun owners have responded. And Democrats couldn’t be happier. (Team Tony/Facebook)

“U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales prevails in primary runoff over gun influencer Brandon Herrera,” The Texas Tribune reported Wednesday. “The race became a referendum on the San Antonio Republican’s vote to support a bipartisan gun control package after the Uvalde school shooting.”

It also became a referendum — and a bellwether — for how involved gun owners are willing to involve themselves in the political process, and the results will no doubt encourage Democrats looking to this and the upcoming races for weaknesses to exploit, as well as Republicans looking to maintain the status quo.

Per The New York Times, with 95% of the vote tallied, Gonzales got 15,023 votes, and Herrera got 14,616. The difference between victory and loss was a mere 407 votes.

Per the U.S. Census, there were over 575,000 people over 18 in District 23 at last count. Even factoring out foreign nationals and illegal aliens who aren’t supposed to vote, that’s still an order of magnitude of eligible citizens voluntarily disenfranchising themselves.

“Measuring ownership is tricky, but there are snapshots,” The Texas Tribune noted in a 2022 analysis. “From 1980 to 2016, 46% of Texans, on average, had a firearm in their household…” Then factor in the District 23 majority is Republican down the line, president, senators, and congressman, and it’s hardly a wild leap to conjecture that 408 more votes for Herrera were more than doable.

Especially considering what big business area gun shows are. (Don’t get me started.)

Frustratingly, getting the right candidate depended on what gun owners were willing to do, and in this case, it wasn’t enough. But the community is not a monolith, so perhaps looking at types of gun owners will give clues as to where the potential for better participation exists. It’s also relevant to recall a quote attributed to the ancient Greek statesman Pericles:

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”

First there are Fudds, hunters and sport shooters who either aren’t involved in politics, don’t get involved unless it’s their ox being gored, are willing to throw EBR (Evil Black Rifle) owners under the bus, and worst of all, Fudds for Biden and their ilk. If they’re not persuaded by now that their turn in the barrel will come, chances are efforts to recruit them will fall on deaf ears.

Another group resistant to persuasion are the TINVOWOOTers, those who maintain “There is No Voting Our Way Out of This.” Ultimately, they may be right, who knows? And that’s the point. We don’t know when, we don’t know where, and in the meantime, we see signs that participating in citizenship and using the remarkable framework bequeathed us by the Framers can yet bear fruit: The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision on the Second Amendment and just now unanimously siding with the NRA on the First are but two examples. And regardless of the way things ultimately go for Donald Trump in court (if some government actor doesn’t take him out), perhaps enough outraged Americans, realizing that Joe Biden is an irredeemably corrupt dolt, will make a stolen election too risky to try. In any case, we could all use more time to prepare before things fall apart, and gun owners dropping out now serves no one whose intentions are good.

A third group offers promises for improvements, gun owners who attempt in various degrees to stay informed and involved. We’re talking a mixed bag, though, with some immersed in activism, joining national and state gun groups and spreading the word, and others limiting their contributions to angry comments under articles. Everyone in this group knows work needs to be done, but not everyone lends a shoulder to the wheel, so we’ll see grassroots efforts where 10% of the members do 90% of the work, and we’ll see the same ratio sharing links to important articles via emails and ADVOCACY media (“social” media is for kitten pictures).  Unfortunately, an even smaller number actively involve themselves in political campaigns and donate or do the necessary grunt work (precinct walking, campaign  banks, poll monitoring, etc.)

The Democrats beat “us” at organizing just about every time, and while there’s a bit of validity to the “we have jobs and families” excuse, in the end that’s what it is—an excuse. Plenty of us have jobs and families and still manage to do what we consider our civic duty with the time, resources, and talents that we have, and to join with like minds, find what we can do and do it. And that brings us to the fourth group, one I have no answer for.

“We have no shortage of expectations and strong opinions about what we want. But when it comes time to step up to the plate, things get awfully quiet,” I wrote in my January 2007 Rights Watch” column for Guns Magazine, “Profiles in Apathy.”

In it, I recalled three endeavors where gun owner involvement was needed, electing one of ours against a gun-grabber, supporting a man persecuted by the Democrat political establishment for his efforts to recall an “assault weapon ban” author, and a national advertising campaign to spread the word on the Second Amendment. All ultimately mirrored the story of “The Little Red Hen,” where plenty wanted to eat the bread, but good luck finding help planting wheat.

If this doesn’t change, correction, if we don’t change that, gun owners will be telling two supposedly opposite groups they can get away with more betrayals and infringements.

First will be establishment Republicans. Biden Bipartisan Gun Ban Bill backer Tony Gonzales got a big boost when NRA A-rated Gov. Greg Abbott endorsed him instead of red meat 2A Brandon Herrera. And now Tony’s out there doubling down on his betrayal – with CNN. So, when November rolls around, what are gun owners going to do? Vote for the gun-grabbing Democrat?

No wonder Vichycons feel like they can get away with feeding us anything and we’re going to keep eating it. Alternatively, why should true believers put their lives on hold and themselves out there if the people they’re trying to represent leave them hanging? (And don’t say “Libertarian” unless you’re good with “the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”)

The Democrats are also watching and taking note. Experts at Astroturfing, they know gun owners don’t have “angels” (wrong word?) like billionaire Michael Bloomberg to finance their subversion, and our efforts, from funding lawsuits against infringements to supporting candidates, and everything in between, depend on what individuals are willing to do.

They have to be encouraged by what they’ve just witnessed.
The question now is, is this what we — and they —
should expect from now until November?!

Ruger SR22 Product Safety Bulletin

printable safety bulletin