Kalifornia's Latest Diabolical Scheme!

[Suvorov]

In case you all haven't heard, the Kalifornia Assembly is proposing the latest in their effort to eradicate the gun culture within the state as well as deprive all Kalifornian's of their 2nd Amendment Rights.

What has just been proposed is a BAN on the use of ammunition containing lead at all indoor and outdoor ranges within the state (LE and .Mil ranges excluded of course). The authors (one of whom is from my district) claim it to be for "public heath reasons", but it is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 10 that it is nothing more than a thinly veiled anti-gun scheme.

Details of the proposed bill can be found here:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2020...hooting-ranges

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01920200AB3071



Because this bill is being proposed by my so called "representative" I have the opportunity to attend a "meeting with him" this Friday. Embolden by the efforts of my brothers in Virginia I fully intend on letting him know my displeasure with his latest assault on our natural rights.

What I am asking you all is some analysis and well constructed arguments to put this guy on the spot should I have the chance to speak.

Obviously if this bill succeeds it will prove to be a example for the tyrants in other states to follow.

Thanks!

[AlwaysLearning]

1. Making it expensive to practice means people can't shoot well and are a threat to others in a self defense situation. Politicians say that they support people owning guns for self defense, just not "assault weapons." They usually mean granddad's six shooter or a Joe Biden Special double barrel SG. Okay fine, well without lead ammo how are they going to practice with those guns when non lead ammo is so expensive. Example number one
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/unde...874021955.html
1.50 a round for .38 Special is literally 5 times more expensive than Blazer TMJ which shouldn't put lead into the air, assuming non-lead primers
https://usarmorment.com/38-special-c...se-p-2438.html
This means people will shoot 5 times less. If we figure that a person on the tightest budget can only shoot 50 rounds once a month to maintain proficiency (probably the minimum necessary), then with the new law they'll literally only be able to afford to shoot once every 5 months. There's no way anyone can stay proficient at 50 rounds every 5 months.


2. Making it expensive to shoot basically says only rich people can afford to practice enough to protect themselves. But, we know that in general the wealthier the neighborhood, the faster the police come to calls. Wealthier people are also more likely to live in gated communities with professional, armed, security. The people who would be hurt the most by the proposed law are working people in marginal neighborhoods who face long police response times. Why is it okay to put this kind of burden on people whose lives are already difficult?

3. Making its expensive to shoot endangers bystanders in areas where concealed carry permits are widely issued. That would be most areas of California. Aside from the core Bay Area counties and LA County, most California counties are now widely issuing concealed carry permits.
See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1236204
For example, Fresno has over 15,000 permits
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local...232198382.html
Many of those people will no longer be able to afford to maintain their current competency levels if ammo prices increase. Why do the sponsors of the bill want to make it harder for people to lawfully protect themselves by reducing the risk to innocent bystanders?

4. Owning a firearm for self defense in the home is a constitutional right, (Heller) and if the concern over lead is so great, why are we not offering state funds to mitigate economic impact on shooting ranges, subsidize ammo, etc? Certainly if tomorrow we discovered that paper in library books caused cancer, and we decided to eliminate paper books, we would make sure to spend money to mitigate transition costs and ensure wide access to books, which, after all , are protected under the 1st Amendment. Why therefore would the new bill not make the same type of accommodations for the 2nd Amendment?

Obviously we all know the answer to these questions is that the Democrats pushing these bills don't actually believe that people have a right to self defense with a firearm; many of them probably believe that people don't have a right to self defense at all, and this bill is one way of making a backdoor attack on the 2nd amendment.

Which brings me to some much more pointed questions for your rep:
5. Have you been strategizing with other elected political leaders regarding gun safety bills?
6. If so, which ones and in which states?
7. Have you attended any meetings, phone calls, screen shares or conferences with NGOs that work on gun safety issues?
8. If so, which ones?
9. Are you on any listservs or chat groups regarding gun safety?
10. If so, with whom?

I'll post more if I can think of any. Thanks for doing this.

[Bigghoss]

If it's a "public health concern" why are mil and LEO ranges exempt? Is their lead magically not a health hazard?

[Hambo]

In case you all haven't heard, the Kalifornia Assembly is proposing the latest in their effort to eradicate the gun culture within the state as well as deprive all Kalifornian's of their 2nd Amendment Rights.

What has just been proposed is a BAN on the use of ammunition containing lead at all indoor and outdoor ranges within the state (LE and .Mil ranges excluded of course). The authors (one of whom is from my district) claim it to be for "public heath reasons", but it is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 10 that it is nothing more than a thinly veiled anti-gun scheme.

Details of the proposed bill can be found here:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2020...hooting-ranges

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01920200AB3071



Because this bill is being proposed by my so called "representative" I have the opportunity to attend a "meeting with him" this Friday. Embolden by the efforts of my brothers in Virginia I fully intend on letting him know my displeasure with his latest assault on our natural rights.

What I am asking you all is some analysis and well constructed arguments to put this guy on the spot should I have the chance to speak.

Obviously if this bill succeeds it will prove to be a example for the tyrants in other states to follow.

Thanks!

Your rep gives zero fucks about your rights, so I doubt appeals to follow the Constitution will move him.

I would go after his science, or lack of it. In the list, item G states that the only way to protect people in ranges is to not use lead. I doubt that is true. The range I shoot at has a system that completely cycles the air out of the range every eighty seconds combined with filtration. Which studies did he use? Are they valid? Are there studies disproving or questioning their results?

[hufnagel]

wait'll they decide to ban the materials firearms are made from. the SCOTUS ruling about "in common use" says nothing about materials after all. you ban plastic you'll wipe out 3/4 or more firearms right then and there.

[LittleLebowski]

That seems like it will pass, unfortunately. The environment is the ultimate tool for control by liberal fascists.

[RevolverRob]

Point C is demonstrably not true.

OSHA - You know the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration - run by the government that these folks seem to love - notes:

Employers are required to protect workers from inorganic lead exposure under OSHA lead standards covering general industry (1910.1025), shipyards (1915.1025), and construction (1926.62). The lead standards establish a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 μg/m3 of lead over an eight-hour time-weighted-average for all employees covered. The standards also set an action level of 30 μg/m3, at which an employer must begin specific compliance activities, including blood lead testing for exposed workers.

Source: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/lead/

Unless they can demonstrate that lead levels exceed 30µg/cubic meter than this efforts would appear to be largely useless.

The EPA - You know the Environmental Protection Agency - run by the government that these folks seem to love - notes:

In June 2018, the Agency [EPA] proposed to change the dust-lead hazard standards from 40 micrograms/square foot (μg/ft2) and 250 μg/ft2 to 10 μg/ft2 and 100 μg/ft2 on floors and window sills, respectively.

Source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...18-v11_web.pdf

Unless they can demonstrate that values exceed 10 µg/square foot - it would also seem a bit frivolous.

___

Furthermore the same EPA document above, provides an absolutely wonderful figure:



Which clearly demonstrates the efficacy of previous legislative efforts, that have reduced lead exposure levels such that children now have ~0.8% of 10 µg/dL lead levels in their blood streams (e.g., 8 µg/dL - BLL). Those levels have been deemed by the CDC and backed by scientific research to be below the 10 µg/dL that is safe for children of all ages (source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449809/).

___

This evidence supports the conclusion that this legislation is:

1) Redundant with other, more targeted, efforts to reduce lead exposure for Californians.
2) Designed specifically to target and limit the ability of California firearms owners to use their weapons for recreational, training, and all lawful purposes.
3) Exclusion of .LE and .MIL within the bill, represents an argument by the state, that government interests supersede public and private interests. Which is not the fundamental purpose of government.

[RevolverRob]

To follow on with my previous post - given the information there - I would challenge the representative to:

1) Demonstrate that lead dust levels exceed 10 µg/sqft and 30 µg/cubic meter

2) Explain how this legislation would be more efficacious than previous legislation, when lead exposure levels are at an all time low and children are now testing down below a recognized and scientifically backed lead level of < 10 µg/dL Blood Lead Level

Further - I would want to understand the water side of the equation - bearing in mind the EPA has standards for water assessment:

https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and...ing-water#regs

If more than 10 percent of tap water samples exceed the lead action level of 15 parts per billion, then water systems are required to take additional actions including:

Thus, question three:

3) Can the state demonstrate that lead levels in excess of 15 parts per billion are due to shooting ranges and ammunition and not other lead sources?

If in fact the state can -

4) Demonstrate that lead levels within water exceed 15 parts per billion.

___

If questions 1-4 cannot be answered adequately, it would seem that legislation is premature.

___

From an argument tactic point of view - if you can generate uncertainty about any of these facts you can press the Rep on the degree of their knowledge here. The goal is, of course, to get them to doubt not only themselves, but how they are viewed by their electorate. You do not want to be antagonistic so much as firm and resolute in the challenge. If the answers are there (I doubt they will be), then you may have to avail yourself of the tried and true tactic of stowing your fight for another day.

FWIW - Even though your objection is about limiting shooting and firearms rights - you and I both know such an argument will hold little water with your neighbors. Thus, you need to challenge the representative based upon the held culture of your neighbors, not yourself, which is to challenge and attack the factual and scientific basis for this bill.

[corneileous]

If it's a "public health concern" why are mil and LEO ranges exempt? Is their lead magically not a health hazard?

When not to mention they probably fire off 10 times as many rounds as an average public range does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TGS]

What @RevolverRob mentioned is what I was going to say, but he covered it quite nicely.

The only thing I'll add is that state parameters are often more strict than OSHAs. The OSHA PELs must be signed off on by Congress, so they haven't been updated in a few decades since everything becomes a political bargaining chip. So, if you go this route, check what the levels are for the state of California (both their state workforce safety plan as well as their state department of health, as they may differ). I'd bet money they are lower than federal OSHA's PEL, and you want to go in there with the most accurate, relevant info possible.

Source: my wife is an industrial hygienist for OSHA and has conducted lead inspections on ranges.