In my original post which started this thread I focused on Mosin Nagant 7.62x54r CA lead free hunting and the issues and problems surrounding the supply given the loathsome and arguably unconstitutional ammo laws that have evolved in California.
However, it occurred to me that there is also some additional information that may provide a solution, as follows:
AB 711 is, of course, an unconstitutional ammo ban bill (bans all use of lead ammo for hunting across all of California) which disregards case law and fails to provides any habitat-specific nexus to its ammo requirement. This bill is now law. It is in direct conflict with case law on this issue. The new law contains (in part) the following language:
"(b) Except as provided in subdivision (j), and as soon as is practicable as implemented by the commission pursuant to subdivision (i), but by no later than July 1, 2019, nonlead ammunition, as determined by the commission, shall be required when taking all wildlife, including game mammals, game birds, nongame birds, and nongame mammals, with any firearm."
The reference to subdivision (j) in the language of AB 711 calls one's attention to another section of language in the bill:
"(j) (1) The prohibition in subdivision (b) shall be temporarily suspended for a specific hunting season and caliber upon a finding by the director that nonlead ammunition of a specific caliber is not commercially available from any manufacturer because of federal prohibitions relating to armor-piercing ammunition pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code."
While the 7.62x54r lead-free hasn't been rendered commercially unavailable due to federal prohibitions on AP ammo, it has nonetheless been made nearly unavalable because there are now only two companies that make the lead-free ammo, and California's lawmakers are now proposing to make it illegal to purchase ammo online (thus, if we were to follow their logic, we would have to buy from only two manufacturers, to obtain their approved ammo for 7.62x54r, and the transaction would have to take place in person). (Remember, it's also these gun banners' desire to make all semiauto centerfire guns illegal in the State, so then you'd basically only be hunting with your bow or your bolt action rifle, and then they'll get to work on banning those too - and if they can't, they'll get the regulators to ban your ammo / calibers, which is where we are right now and why I'm writing this post.)
Note that even extinguishing the ammunition availability and requiring in-person sales only for ammo wouldn't be enough for California lawmakers, because under AB 711, their adopted language made sure that if there ever was a suspension of the ammo ban, that the suspension itself would be rendered invalid by yet another unconstitutional provision:
"(2) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to paragraph (1), nonlead ammunition shall be used when taking big game mammals, nongame birds, or nongame mammals in the California condor range, as defined in subdivision (a)."
Clearly, the lack of availability of lead-free ammunition as described above and the inability even to meaningfully suspend the prohibition on use of lead ammo, coupled with Gavin Newsom's ballot proposition which if passed would outlaw online sales, make California legislator's activities unconstitutional, and certainly make AB 711 (as a bill which has become law) unconstitutional.
The most recent and relevant ruling that I know of on this issue came out of the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia on May 23, 2013, dismissing a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity and six other groups that were demanding the Environmental Protection Agency ban traditional ammunition containing lead components. Federal judges dismissed the anti-2nd amendment groups’ serial petitioning and rejected those groups’ attempts to ban commonly available ammunition and hobble gun owners.
In California, the Safer Consumer Products regulations were approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on August 28, 2013 (OAL File No. 2013-0718-03 S) and have been filed with the Secretary of State. The regulations took effect on October 1, 2013. [AB 711, which is a law (completely distinct from the regulations approved by the State OAL on Oct. 1, 2013), was approved by the Governor on Oct. 11, 2013, and was filed with the Secretary of State (chaptered) on Oct. 11, 2013.]
These OAL-approved regulations regulate lead (though the regulations are not limited to regulating only lead). In full, these regulations are oriented towards 164 chemicals. Instead of targeting specific chemicals, they try to prevent companies from simply swapping in one hazardous compound for another with unknown or potentially toxic effects.
According to these regulations, "The Final AA (alternatives analysis) Report must identify and describe the alternative(s), if any, selected to replace the Priority Product." It should be made clear here that there will be products, including, but not limited to ammunition products -- and some of those products will be surplus ammunition -- for which there will be NO alternatives, and there will NEVER be any alternatives. Furthermore, Californians have the Constitutional right to cast their own bullets. This does not allow the State of California to stop businesspersons from selling those products to interested persons in the State, nor does it allow the State of California to keep Californians from casting their own bullets using lead, for example, and using those bullets to hunt.
Like many gun owners across the State of California, I own only curio and relic and antique firearms. For many curio and relic weapons, as well as antique weapons, there are, by any assessment, nearly zero nonlead options -- (certainly not in surplus form, which is allowed by federal law to be transferred to the general population) for such weapons that is 100% nonlead, though the quantity of lead varies from one ammunition type to another (with the most expensive types having involving the least use of lead) -- and furthermore, there is no legal basis for banning commonly available ammunition (which contains lead) across the State, whether for hunting or for any other purpose.
Thus, the State law known as AB 711 is clearly unconstitutional, and the OAL-approved regulations referenced above, will also be unconstitutional to the extent that they are used in attempts to regulate ammunition.
US (Federal) Constitutional Amendments Violated: I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI
I urge readers with an interest in this issue to contact the OAL, CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which adopted the regulations discussed above. These regulations clearly need to be revisited and revised, or just plain overturned, along with AB 711 itself.