The National Rifle Association (NRA) issued a release recently confirming it has filed a motion to “intervene to fight for hunter’s rights in a lawsuit brought by self-proclaimed environmentalists that seeks to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the manufacture, processing, and distribution of lead shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers throughout the country.”


NRA, joined with Safari Club International (SCI), seeks to enter into the case to defend the rights and interests of hunters, competitive shooters, and other firearm owners who would otherwise likely not be adequately represented in the case.


The NRA said an adverse ruling could have “far-reaching impacts regarding lead and its role in traditional forms of American outdoor recreation.” NRA is joining the lawsuit, along with SCI, to fight against the effort to ban traditional lead ammunition.


The lawsuit follows the EPA’s recent denial of a Petition that was filed to force EPA to pass regulations banning certain lead-based sporting products, including ammunition and fishing tackle. The Petition and the subsequent lawsuit were both filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and joined by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and “Project Gutpile.”

Though the EPA correctly denied the Petition, the NRA said CBD and the other plaintiffs refuse to accept that decision. They brought this lawsuit hoping to have the EPA’s decision overturned by a court.


The legal argument being used to try to force EPA to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle is based on a nonsensical interpretation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which includes a specific exclusion for ammunition, according to the release. Furthermore, the NRA said TSCA, section 3(2)(B)(v)) precludes the EPA from regulating ammunition.


But CBD wants a court to hold that the TSCA ammunition exclusion does not apply to bullets and shot, because neither bullets nor shot are actually “ammunition” (i.e., a shell, primer, and projectile, etc., in one cartridge or unit). CBD’s argument is founded on an inapplicable interpretation of a tax ruling issued by the IRS in 1954 that distinguished the sale of “separate parts of ammunition” and complete ammunition for taxation purposes only.