A United Nations agency is proposing a ban on lead ammunition worldwide, which would serve as backdoor gun control by making ammo prohibitively expensive.
The United Nations Convention on Migratory Species, operating under the U.N. Environment Programme, is meeting in Quito, Ecuador on Nov. 4-9 to discuss and act on the lead ban recommended by a scientific council.
Reference material for the conference 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.”
“With respect to lead ammunition, the most effective way of reducing risks to migratory birds is to create legislative processes to restrict sale, possession and/or use of lead ammunition to ensure lead ammunition is not left unretrieved within the environment,” the document states.
The document also claims the economic impact of such a ban will be minimal to hunters, which is patently false given that a research firm found that such an existing ban in California will likely lead to a 300% increase in the price of ammo sold in the Golden State.
“Based on a survey of California hunters, higher ammunition prices will drive 36% of California hunters to stop hunting or reduce their participation,” the 15-page report by Southwick Associates and the National Shooting Sport Foundation states. “Thirteen percent of California hunters report they would stop hunting [entirely] as a result of the higher prices.”
“An additional 10% were unsure if they would continue to hunt and another 23% said they would likely hunt less than in recent years.”
And because a large percentage of ammunition currently made contains some form of lead, the proposed ban would effectively cut the supply of ammo well below global demand.
“…Given the ongoing national shortage of ammunition, manufacturers report very little extra capacity and specialized machinery are available to expand production of alternative [non-lead] ammunition,” the report specifies in regards to California’s lead ban, which is also applicable to the U.N.’s proposed ban. “Manufacturers report production of alternative ammunition can only increase 5.5% for centerfire and that is not possible to increase production for rimfire rifle ammunition.”
This won’t be an unintended consequence of the proposed ban but rather its true intent considering that the U.N. has spent years trying to eradicate gun rights globally.
This time the anti-gun organization is hiding behind the guise of environmental concerns in its proposed ammo ban, which, if implemented, will have an exponentially larger effect on gun ownership than the environment.