I stumbled across a letter to the editor at mariettatimes.com wherein one Sam Ludtman claimed that the United Nations wants to ban lead ammunition. “The United Nations wants to ban the use of lead ammunition for firearms worldwide, discussing the possibility of imposing sanctions against smelters and manufacturers of lead bullets or outright bans during the upcoming Nov. 4 to 9 U.N. Convention On Migratory Species [CMS] in Quito, Ecuador. Material for the meeting suggests that ‘voluntary approaches to restricting use of lead ammunition’ do not work on a national level and for a proposed ban to work, a ‘range of societal issues’ would need to be addressed, including ‘philosophical issues regarding gun rights and increased government oversight of shooting.'” Despite the fact that the story appeared on infowars.com, it seems semi-legit. It included this . . .

link to the review materials for the conference, which does indeed contain the quotes quoted. A little Google-Fu later, and I found a 2002 (yes 2002) CMS publication which delved into the [alleged] need for a lead ammo ban. Browsing its glossy e-pages, it’s clear that U.N. members have embraced the prospect like a returning American GI hugging his kids. In slow motion. That said, the report doesn’t say anything about banning lead ammunition in general. It’s scope is limited to waterfowl hunting.

Anyone who thinks that the United Nations will produce a signed treaty banning lead ammunition is bananas. For hunters, sure. For civilians generally, maybe. If so, the U.S. Senate would never pass it and even President Hillary Clinton wouldn’t dare sign it. (Would she?) More to the point, U.N. member nations need lead ammunition to shoot each other, or proxies or whatever. LOTS of it. Global News Wire:

“Ammunition (Defense, Homeland Security and Others) Market – Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast, 2013 – 2019”, states that the global ammunition market, which valued US$9,235.8 million in 2012, will grow at a CAGR of 1.3% between 2013 and 2019, to acquire net worth of US$10,093.1 million by 2019. Territorial disputes in many nations in the recent years coupled with rising crime rates across the globe are fueling growth of the ammunitions market.

Sure, rising crime rates account for rising ammo sales. Anyway, what are the chances that the U.N. can force this market to switch to lead-free-only ammo? Nil. Still, California hunters will tell you: the ban on lead ammo is not without its costs. Why wait? Do it for the condors!

Recommended For You

52 Responses to U.N. to Ban Lead Ammunition?

  1. Yep they need to shoot each other cheap…BREAKING NEWS! Black man shoots .45 caliber black rifle on Chicago’s subway.The rifle appears to be a HiPoint. It is described as an “assault rifle”:-)

  2. Lead is super cheap and what else are we going to use it for (other than batteries which typically get recycled anyways). Also, copper is super expensive and has a million more uses than lead. Also, when you are shooting at someone keeping that person alive isn’t on your priority list – keeping yourself alive is – so why not throw poisonous lead at them? So what is the problem? Is this strictly an environmental issue? Should we talk about the US gov’s total debacle regarding tungsten bullets. They should at least do some research before hand. Lead metal and lead oxide are quite immobile in soil, don’t typically leach, and don’t normally cause issues. Lead salts on the other hand are quite mobile, that said, copper salts are very toxic as well and also mobile. I would like to see their proposed solution, because my guess is it isn’t going to be much better if at all and its going to be a lot more expensive, and it is going to criminalize people with bullets made out of metal “A” instead of metal “B.”

    • We’re talking about an international meeting of environmentalists who want to save migratory birds – do you really think they care to do any research or even read the stuff plopped in front of them by aides?

      • No, we are dealing with a bunch of fascists and communists who want to ban firearms and ammunition from civilians world wide.

    • Pesticides kill far more migratory bird species than literally anything else combined. Why isn’t there a meeting to stop that crap? Oh, that’s right, it would be preductive and we couldn’t have that.

    • The stupid environ-Nazis and their patsies in the UN have no clue. One of the other demands they have is that the world be 40% renewable energy by 2050. Wind, solar and other such technology requires lots and lots of copper and lead. Banning lead will force the use of copper in many applications or other toxic alternatives. It is already estimated there is not enough copper to do what they want and that miners would have use much lower yield ore to meet demand which overall would have much higher impact to the overall environment not to mention the cost of making and repairing wind and solar equipment thus doing the exact opposite of what they are hoping to accomplish.

      The whole UN is a waste of money and simply a boondoggle for many of its corrupt representatives.

    • Its not about the environment, its about disarming people especially americans. After all besides the US who is actually going to adhere to the treaty? No one. And damned few people actually hunt waterfowl so the whole thrust of this is pure BS>

      Besides with the few hundred billion rounds of AK ammo sitting around out there waiting to be shot this treaty if expanded to all ammo will not make a dint in any environmental impact it might have.

    • > keeping that person alive isn’t on your priority list – keeping yourself alive is

      But the point of banning lead ammunition would be so that *you* don’t get lead poisoning, not so the person you’ve shot doesn’t get lead poisoning.

  3. The lead shot ban for waterfowling (and some other hunting use as well) is a prime example of a solution to a non-existent problem. I would guarantee that number of migratory birds crippled, lost, not retrieved and later died is in the millions compared to the undocumented and non existent numbers of migratory birds and other wildlife that were impacted by the supposed lead poisoning from shotshells. It is easily one of the great injustices imposed on the North American outsdoorsman. Sorry, I’m a bit bitter on this one. Anytime I see a “lead ban” it brings about a very, very negative response.

    Complete and utter bullsh$t.

  4. I’d be all for it, IF they threw open the doors of the U.N. for a week and let us go in and expend all our lead ammunition. Fair is fair.

  5. All this in spite of the fact that the sources of any lead in the blood of wildlife have nothing to do with ammunition, since metallic lead is largely insoluble, even when digested. In fact if you wanted to help wildlife you would be better off insisting that no metals EXCEPT lead be used for ammunition, as copper, bismuth, and other metals occasionally found in ammunition can actually be toxic.

    But hey, the U.N always just makes up the science it needs to push its agenda of choice. Nothing new there.

    • But you’re saying that the new GREEN round the US Army is using is worst for the environment than the old lead ammo!

      Kind of like the new Freon that was forced down our throats turned out to be worse for the environment than the old Freon. But it made the enviro whackos feel good so it was worth it.

  6. Yeah, there isn’t another element besides lead with comparable density for price. Tungsten has greater density but costs a ton of money. This would pretty much be strong armed gun control.

  7. I don’t mind lead ammo being banned for waterfowl. Though I would be careful since that is how they got shotguns in Norway. They banned all lead ammo for shotguns due to “environment concerns”. If you are concerned about the environment all that is needed is to not hunt waterfowl with lead ammo since waterfowl swallow pebbles at the bottom of the water to help them digest food.

  8. Whatever bullet substitute might emerge if lead were ever banned, there would be a host of reasons to ban that new substitute material.

    * Police would be at a disadvantage.
    * Terrorists use it.
    * It causes disease.
    * It is too deadly.
    * It harms the environment.
    * It takes precious resources away from other “benign” industries.

  9. They drink out of that river a half a block East, and, like the foolhardy they represent, they eat, shave, bathe, wash their clothes and bury their dead in the same damn river.

    The only thing the UN can put together that works (Really “WORKS”) is a rape-murder crew. Build a fence around that zoo.

    City of NY [claims it] wants to protect its citizens from firearms, then invites the Moss Eisley spaceport crew to East Mid-Town.

    Gimme some Billy Joel’s Miami 2017.

  10. And total copper or steel bullets do not work very well plus cost lots more…would make reloading must more hard would change all load data and lots R & D would have to be done by ammo makers this ups cost too…all back door gun controls…22 L.R. would become history………..

  11. Yes, they want to ban lead bullets because Red China (who the UN chose over Nationalist China) needs more lead to put in their toothpaste and dog food. IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

  12. “UN ban” basically means that if you don’t comply, they’ll send you a sternly worded letter of complaint.

  13. In CA we currently have a ban on lead ammo in condor areas for hunting. It’s still legal to target shoot with lead ammo in those areas. By 2019 a lead ban will be statewide for hunting.

    Federal law has long banned lead shot for water fowl. As for hunting copper bullets are more expensive than lead based bullets. But by the time you buy an appropriate vehicle, guns and other assorted gear for hunting the cost of a box of copper bullets is a pretty minor expense. How many shots do you take at a given animal?

    Do condors deserve all this protection. Who knows? Just an ugly buzzard on steriods in my opinion. But where I hunt it’s the law. Either follow it or face the music.

  14. Yet another example of mission creep. Wasn’t the UN formed to provide a forum for nations to reconcile grievances and prevent war? I guess failing on that front they seek ‘issues’ to address in order to stay relevant. We really need to think about disbanding the UN before it grows to a point that it can’t be disbanded, if it’s not too late already…

  15. The slow steady progressive march continues….they have a short and a long game. All under cover of “for the children”, “for the environment”.

    casting lead slugs yourself is easy…can’t have that
    its cheap and available…can’t have that
    its not abrasive on your barrel…can’t have that

    and on and on.

  16. As usual, the U.N. is so powerless to effect real change on the world that they just start nit-picking at small stuff in a pathetic attempt to find meaning to their existance.

    Instead of burning time & money on these kinds of idiotic “environmental/for-the-children” fake campaigns, they should first get the middle east to stop their islamo-fascist bullshit and african guvments to actually take care of their people. But noooooo! Let’s ban lead boolits.

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?!

    Jeez. Sometimes I agree with Professor Farnsworth when he said “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.”

  17. The world is on the verge of another world war, and the UN barely lifts a finger. But yet, they focus their attention on banning lead. I am not too worried though, for the UN is destined to follow the League of Nations into a footnote of history.

  18. ‘philosophical issues regarding gun rights and increased government oversight of shooting.’

    Translation: The UN says you have no gun rights, you stinkin’ peasants! And by “increased government oversight of shooting” we mean the government gets to ban all shooting except by government agents.

    Recommendation: Buy lead and tin now, get a casting furnace and bullet molds for all of your favorite cartridges. Buy the Lyman “Cast Bullet Handbook”. (Reloading capability is assumed.)

  19. NOTHING, I say again NOTHING that appears on infowars can be taken seriously. They make their money and get their kicks out of scaring the pants off of the ignorant. Whether they believe it themselves or not makes no difference. Alex Jones and his followers are nothing but fear mongerers masquerading as patriots. They pretend to be enlightened or no longer ‘sheeple’ but they are nothing more than political partisan asshats and ignorant conspiracy theorists who are wrapped up in the intrigue of conspiracies because facts and evidence are far to boring for their simple little minds. As far as lead bullets, this is nothing new. Banning lead isn’t necassarily a bad thing. Many ranges do not allow the use of lead ammo necause of the toxic effects. Yeah, yeah I know tough guys want to oppose anything that might harm people or the enviroment but oh well, get over it. Lead is not something to mess with.

    https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0307%20Tranel.pdf

    Just one of many. Don’t be douche bags and do something good for our home for once.

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Human_Health_Risks_from_Lead_Ammunition.pdf

    Lead is not something to play with and it certainly is not needed for our ammunition. Like I said many ranges, including my range that was the top range in the country, has banned the use of lead ammo because it has proven negative effects to humans and the enviroment. Of course if its a DGU who cares but the vast majority of us will fire thousands upon thousands of rounds before we ever use our guns in self defense if ever. Stop and think about our home for once and our children and grandchildren who will inherit it from us.

  20. On top of that, when you fire a lead round combined with the primer the heat vaporizes the some of the lead and you breathe that in. That is why many ranges are banning lead rounds. At least with a jacketed round the inner lead is protected. But lead has tremendously negative effects on the body and exposuehas been prioven to contribute to violent behaviour, ADHD, and mental impairment. It is why our military has switched to lead alternatives that are just as effective. Lead essentially act like calcium in the body and is absorbed all throughout. It has tremendously negative effects on the brain. So I am all for a ban on lead in ammo and any other platform in every day use. We banned it in paint for this very reason and the same thing applies to ammo especially because of the heat involved. Of course anti any kind of regulation people will say ‘oh I want lead everything, I don’t care what it does to other people, It’s my choice’. Get over yourself. We live in a society and the things we do affect other people. I am not for a U.N. ban but I am for a U.S. ban. Even if the U.N. did ban lead we are not obliged to follow. We have a constitution and a means to ratify such things. Of course infowars like to promote the idea that our Constitution means nothing and we are all slaves to the U.N. and the new world order but infowars is full of shit and has never had any respect for logic, reason, or facts.

  21. I’m against any unnecessary regulation, but when you look at the studies investigating the correlation between the prevalence of lead paint and leaded gas and the crime rate, it’s pretty easy to make a case for limiting the amount of lead in the environment.

    • Lead was in the paint and gas for almost 100 years so your theory is flawed. Try correlating the rise in crime and mental retardation with Johnsons great society programs and the rise of drug use.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *