Do You Doubt The PRB?
12-21-2015, 06:02 PM
#201
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9,557
a REAL mountain man Pete, not some old guy dressing up. No mountain man had a gut like that in the real day LOL. The guy I did some trading with last year at ronnyvoo snickered and said he'd stock normal size clothing but it seems the mountain men get bigger each year and size of clothing he brings in, increases 
Not to shock you, but i'm not an original MM either.
12-22-2015, 03:50 AM
#202
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,408
OK, but how does this prevent her from doing an end run and issuing an executive order banning future use of lead in sporting ammunition?
There is lots of hype, misinformation, and outright lies associated with the "banning" of lead bullets.
The current administration has refused to to along with the crazies who want the EPA to ban lead in bullets. The EPA has consistently stated that the agency lacks the authority to ban lead bullets.
Federal courts have ruled that the EPA lacks the authority to ban lead bullets:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot regulate lead ammunition used by hunters, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.
A group of environmental organizations was seeking to force the EPA to regulate spent lead bullets and shots under the Toxic Substances Control Act. They argued the lead from bullet fragments is harmful to animals and hunters who eat those animals.
But the EPA rejected the groups’ petition, saying the agency is not allowed to regulate gun cartridges and shells under federal law.
The environmental groups sued the EPA, but a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected their claims.
A group of environmental organizations was seeking to force the EPA to regulate spent lead bullets and shots under the Toxic Substances Control Act. They argued the lead from bullet fragments is harmful to animals and hunters who eat those animals.
But the EPA rejected the groups’ petition, saying the agency is not allowed to regulate gun cartridges and shells under federal law.
The environmental groups sued the EPA, but a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected their claims.
If anyone wants to debate the "banning" of lead bullets by "executive order" take it to the political forum of this site and i'll willingly oblige.
Last edited by falcon; 12-22-2015 at 03:54 AM.
12-22-2015, 06:32 AM
#203
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 146
Oh, really?
The president of the US lacks the authority of Mickey Mouse dictators.
There is lots of hype, misinformation, and outright lies associated with the "banning" of lead bullets.
The current administration has refused to to along with the crazies who want the EPA to ban lead in bullets. The EPA has consistently stated that the agency lacks the authority to ban lead bullets.
Federal courts have ruled that the EPA lacks the authority to ban lead bullets:
http://thehill.com/regulation/227972...ets-court-says
If anyone wants to debate the "banning" of lead bullets by "executive order" take it to the political forum of this site and i'll willingly oblige.
There is lots of hype, misinformation, and outright lies associated with the "banning" of lead bullets.
The current administration has refused to to along with the crazies who want the EPA to ban lead in bullets. The EPA has consistently stated that the agency lacks the authority to ban lead bullets.
Federal courts have ruled that the EPA lacks the authority to ban lead bullets:
http://thehill.com/regulation/227972...ets-court-says
If anyone wants to debate the "banning" of lead bullets by "executive order" take it to the political forum of this site and i'll willingly oblige.
Yeah, like the NSA lacks the legal grounds to monitor your phone calls, your emails, your forum postings, including this one.
The purpose of executive orders seems to include circumventing the will of Congress, or bypassing the regulations of government agencies. I don't want to debate this, and I surely hope my concerns are not prophetic, but I think keeping our heads stuck in the sand is not a good option.
OldBob
12-22-2015, 06:43 AM
#204
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 146
T7,
I read a story in a book where Someone told a man to build a big boat, This wasn't so he could save his 50 closest neighbors. Someone had come to despise mankind so much that he was willing to destroy everything else that he had created, and loved, just to get rid of that one species.
OldBob
I read a story in a book where Someone told a man to build a big boat, This wasn't so he could save his 50 closest neighbors. Someone had come to despise mankind so much that he was willing to destroy everything else that he had created, and loved, just to get rid of that one species.
OldBob
12-22-2015, 07:34 AM
#205
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 12,746
I've also had pass throughs with my 300 gr .429" XTPs.
Having taken about a dozen or so deer with my MLs the only time I didn't get a pass through with my ML is using a .490" PRB on a large doe at a distance of somewhere around 75 yards shooting 80 gr of FFg.
12-22-2015, 08:23 AM
#206
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,703
falcon
I believe you are correct on the Federal ban but States can and have been. And more States are considering the use of the California regulations. There are a number of States that now follow the California regs. Washington was close to years ago and Oregon now moving that direction.
I believe you are correct on the Federal ban but States can and have been. And more States are considering the use of the California regulations. There are a number of States that now follow the California regs. Washington was close to years ago and Oregon now moving that direction.
12-22-2015, 10:02 AM
#210
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9,557