In this series we are looking at ways the Biden/Harris administration may look to "Trump-proof" many of their executive actions restricting our Second Amendment rights. 

In the first article, I provided an overview of the steps that the Biden/Harris administration has taken since they took office in 2021 to curtail our Second Amendment rights.  From expanding ATF enforcement, influencing public perception by labeling gun violence as a public health crisis, and ignoring the Administrative Procedures Act, the Biden/Harris administration has left no stone unturned in their efforts to infringe on this civil right.  

In this article, I'll focus on the steps Biden/Harris are taking to extend firearms regulations beyond the ATF and to embed restrictions in other federal agencies. It's important for gun owners to understand the game being played.  A game that will only get more involved and serious if Kamala Harris is elected to the White House. Behind all of this is an effort to "Trump proof" their anti-Second Amendment policies.

The Biden/Harris administration took steps that could potentially have restricted the use of lead in ammunition, particularly on federal lands. While the effort might align with broader environmental and wildlife conservation goals, as lead ammunition has long been a concern due to its harmful effects on wildlife, ecosystems, and human health, this proposal by the Biden/Harris administration was only superficially aimed (pun intended) at environmental concerns.  It was an attempt to restrict the availability of lead ammunition for all gun owners.  

While framed as a move to protect wildlife and the environment, the administration's actions are part of a broader strategy to make ammunition more expensive and harder to find, thereby indirectly curtailing Americans’ access to their firearms. Under the guise of environmental regulation, this administration is effectively launching a backdoor assault on gun rights, aiming to burden law-abiding gun owners with higher costs and fewer options.

The Push for a Lead Ban on Federal Lands

In June 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed new regulations that would phase out the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on certain National Wildlife Refuges by 2026. The administration cited environmental concerns, arguing that lead poses significant risks to wildlife, particularly birds that can ingest spent lead shot or fragments, leading to poisoning and death. On the surface, this seems like a straightforward conservation effort. However, for those who value their Second Amendment rights, the implications go far beyond wildlife protection.

The reality is that lead-based ammunition is not just a minor component of the shooting sports—it’s the backbone. Lead is the most common and affordable material for ammunition, and a ban on its use, even if initially limited to federal lands, could have sweeping effects on the broader ammunition market. By restricting lead, the administration is not just targeting environmental impacts; they are making a calculated move to drive up the cost of ammunition, making it less accessible to the average gun owner.

Cost Increases and Accessibility Challenges

Non-lead alternatives, such as copper or steel, are not only more expensive to produce, but they also perform differently, often requiring adjustments to firearms or shooting techniques. For hunters and recreational shooters, this translates to higher costs across the board—from the ammunition itself to the potential need for new equipment. As prices increase, accessibility decreases, and this is precisely the crux of the administration’s hidden agenda.

Consider this: if the price of ammunition doubles or triples due to these regulations, fewer people will be able to afford to shoot regularly. Hunters may cut back on their outings, and recreational shooters might be forced to reduce their range time. This isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s a direct barrier to exercising a fundamental right. By making shooting sports less accessible through financial means, the administration effectively shrinks the gun-owning community and reduces the cultural presence of firearms in everyday American life.

Impact on Conservation and Public Lands Access

Proponents of the lead ban argue that it’s a necessary step to protect wildlife and ensure healthier ecosystems on public lands. However, this view overlooks the significant contributions that hunters and shooters already make to conservation through taxes and fees on firearms, ammunition, and other sporting goods. The Pittman-Robertson Act, for instance, has funneled billions of dollars into wildlife conservation and public lands since its inception, funded largely by the very people now being targeted by these regulations.

Ironically, by imposing restrictions that could price people out of shooting sports, the administration risks undermining this crucial funding source for conservation. If fewer people are buying ammunition because it’s too expensive or difficult to find, the revenue that supports public lands and wildlife management will also dwindle. The result could be a self-defeating cycle where both gun rights and environmental conservation suffer.

A Broader Strategy Against Gun Ownership

The lead ammunition ban fits into a larger pattern of actions by the Biden-Harris administration aimed at restricting gun rights through indirect means. While they have faced significant hurdles in passing sweeping gun control legislation, they’ve turned to regulatory agencies like the ATF and USFWS to achieve their goals. This strategy involves using environmental and public health justifications as a smokescreen to introduce gun control by another name. It's also an attempt to make unwinding regulations more difficult by embedding back-door gun control in the regulations of several federal agencies.  And this is something gun owners need to be aware of and take steps to push back.

By targeting ammunition specifically, the administration is going after the lifeblood of the Second Amendment. A gun without ammo is little more than an expensive paperweight. Restricting access to affordable ammunition is an underhanded way to achieve the same end goal as a direct assault on gun ownership: fewer guns in circulation, fewer Americans exercising their rights, and a gradual erosion of the gun culture that is so deeply rooted in American society.

What This Means for Gun Owners

For gun owners, hunters, and anyone who values their Second Amendment rights, this is a wake-up call. It’s not just about protecting access to lead ammunition; it’s about recognizing and resisting the broader strategy at play. The administration’s moves aren’t just about conservation—they’re about control. It’s about making it harder and more expensive to be a gun owner, to exercise your rights, and to participate in the shooting sports that are a cherished part of American heritage.

The pushback has already begun. Gun rights organizations, hunting groups, and even some lawmakers are sounding the alarm, arguing that the administration’s lead ban is a slippery slope that could lead to further restrictions. They’re fighting for transparency, for proper legislative oversight, and for the right of Americans to access affordable ammunition without bureaucratic interference.

The Road Ahead: Standing Firm for the Second Amendment

As Second Amendment supporters, it’s crucial that we stay informed and engaged. The lead ammunition ban might seem like a small, targeted measure, but it’s part of a much larger game plan that aims to chip away at our rights piece by piece. We must be vigilant, participating in public comment periods, supporting legal challenges to overreaching regulations, and holding our elected officials accountable.

This administration’s efforts to restrict lead ammunition are a clear indication that the fight for gun rights is not just about firearms themselves—it’s about every aspect of our ability to own, use, and enjoy them. By recognizing these tactics for what they are, we can better defend against them and ensure that the Second Amendment remains strong and vibrant for future generations. It’s not just about protecting lead ammunition; it’s about standing up for the freedoms that define who we are as Americans.