TWO ANTI-LEAD AMMUNITION LAWSUITS DISMISSED; BOTH LOSSES APPEALED
ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2013. POSTED IN LATEST NEWS, LEGAL NEWS
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed paperwork on August 22, 2013, giving notice that it is appealing a recent loss in Arizona’s District Court (Arizona Court). The ruling being appealed is the order completely dismissing CBD’s lawsuit CBD v. U.S. Forest Service. In that action, CBD alleged U.S. Forest Service (USFS) was legally obligated to regulate the use lead ammunition under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA is a federal law governing the disposal of hazardous waste. Specifically, CBD alleged that USFS violated RCRA by allowing hunters to use traditional, lead-based ammunition (lead ammo) in the Kaibab National Forest.
The Arizona Court ruled that CBD’s claims were not “redressable.” That is, the District Court held that it likely did not have the power to grant relief that responds to CBD’s alleged harm, which meant that, under federal court rules stated in the Constitution, the District Court could not decide the case. The National Rifle Association (NRA), Safari Club International (SCI), and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) all filed paperwork requesting they be allowed to intervene in this action. Because the Arizona Court decided to throw the case out at a very early stage, it avoided having to go through the process of reviewing NRA, SCI, and NSSF’s requests.
In a second case, CBD has appealed the dismissal of a lawsuit whereby CBD sought to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the manufacture, processing, and distribution of lead ammo. The lawsuit was brought in an attempt to overturn the EPA’s denial of a petition by CBD and others that was intended to force the EPA to ban lead ammo and fishing sinkers made of lead. The National Rifle Association (NRA), Safari Club International (SCI), and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) all intervened in the case and they collectively defended the rights and interests of hunters, recreational shooters, and others with firearms-related interests.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed CBD’s lawsuit on May 23, 2013, finding that CBD’s current petition was nothing more than an attempt to seek reconsideration on a similar petition filed by CBD, which EPA had denied. By ruling on procedural grounds, Judge Sullivan was not required to address CBD’s flawed legal argument in his ruling. CBD claimed that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides EPA with the authority to ban lead ammo, notwithstanding the fact that TSCA has an exclusion that puts “shells and cartridges” (i.e., ammunition) outside the regulatory scope of TSCA. CBD contended, strangely, that the bullets and shot could be regulated under TSCA because they are not within the exception for “shells and cartridges,” notwithstanding the very obvious fact that shells and cartridges are where bullets and shot are found.
Both cases are being tracked by HuntForTruth.org and information regarding the current status of the first appeal can be found here and as to the second appeal, here.