By Daniel Stefanski |
Second Amendment advocates recently had something to cheer thanks to a judicial decision from a federal appeals court.
Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion against the Center for Biological Diversity in a case that featured a legal question over lead ammunition. The United States Forest Service and the National Rifle Association of America were defendants in the matter.
The case has tarried in the judicial system since 2012, bouncing back and forth from the district and appeals court levels. The plaintiffs filed the legal pleadings over their contention that California condors were ingesting and perishing from lead ammunition left behind by hunters in the Kaibab National Forest.
“This NRA victory is a significant setback for gun control and anti-hunting advocates who see ammo bans as a pivotal leap in their agenda,” said Michael Jean, the Director of the Office of Litigation Counsel with the Institute for Legislative Action.
According to the summary of the decision from the Ninth Circuit, “The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of an action brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and others alleging that the United States Forest Service was liable as a contributor under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by failing to regulate the use of lead ammunition by hunters in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona.” The opinion added, “Although the Forest Service has broad authority to regulate hunting and fishing activities, it rarely exercises its authority to preempt state laws related to hunting and fishing; hunting activities are primarily regulated by the State of Arizona.”
U.S. District Judge Stephen M. McNamee, in his July 2013 ruling, highlighted that even if the plaintiffs received the opinion they were seeking, the California condor might very well still be at risk due to its migration habits. He wrote, “The Court also notes that the behavior and feeding habits of the California condor and other avian species make it unlikely that even if Defendant were to ban lead from being discarded within the KNF, the condor would no longer suffer from the lead poisoning that causes Plaintiffs’ alleged aesthetic injury. The California condor is known for long distance travel. Their longer trips consist of arching loops that reach from eastern Nevada, through southwestern Arizona, to the New Mexico border. They are also known to fly into Utah in pursuit of carrion. The condors could easily fly and subsequently feed outside the borders of the KNF and therefore outside of the area managed by Defendant. Plaintiffs give no indication that any of these other states ban the use of lead ammunition. Because of the extensive range of the California condor, it is likely that those birds that inhabit KNF will travel to those areas in search of carrion and ingest lead ammunition in the same manner as lead ingested within KNF borders.”
In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News, Arizona Representative Austin Smith shared his thoughts on the Court’s opinion, saying, “The recent 9th Circuit decision is an important victory for hunters, sportsman, and shooting enthusiasts across Arizona. I’m pleased to see this attempt to regulate ammunition by the radical gun control and anti-hunting lobby failed. As a 5th generation Arizona hunter and angler, this will serve as great precedence in preserving our Second Amendment and hunting heritage on the Kaibab.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
