Hello, a couple of thoughts on this,
One is that I think these California ammo regs as they stand today are fairly ridiculous and shouldn't exist for a variety of reasons,
Two is that (and this second point is the main point of this particular post) I am curious about a couple different things:
a) reloading possibilities
b) manufacturers that have produced 7.62x54r "CA non-lead" ammo
Something I have found in this area is this:
Mosin CA legal hunting ammo [Archive] - Calguns.net
From that I have discerned the following:
Ammo Brothers
Custom Cartridge, Inc.
Seems these are the only two certified companies (unless I am mistaken) that are producing the CA non-lead for Mosins as per
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/Nonlead-Ammunition/Certified
Time to learn more about reloading, apparently...
Apparently CA's implementation of AB 711 is basically, this (per the DFG's website):
"Phase 1 – Effective July 1, 2015, nonlead ammunition will be required when taking Nelson bighorn sheep and all wildlife on state wildlife areas and ecological reserves.
Phase 2 – Effective July 1, 2016, nonlead shot will be required when taking upland game birds with a shotgun, except for dove, quail, snipe, and any game birds taken on licensed game bird clubs. In addition, nonlead shot will be required when using a shotgun to take resident small game mammals, furbearing mammals, nongame mammals, nongame birds, and any wildlife for depredation purposes.
Phase 3 – Effective July 1, 2019, nonlead ammunition will be required when taking any wildlife with a firearm anywhere in California.
Existing restrictions on the use of lead ammunition in the California condor range remain in effect while implementation proceeds."
So basically the plan of the California Legislature, evidently, is to screw people all over the state while Gavin Newsom launches his loathsome proposition to try to keep people from even being able to buy ammo at all - for more on that (and to help stop it) go to About FPC Second Amendment Defense Committee - Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee
I want to take a moment to talk about the issue of lead as the passage of AB 711 and the banning of lead ammo was portrayed as a must-pass issue based on... the harm that can be done by lead. Lead is, of course, a known toxin that we have already removed from everything from paint to gasoline, and pencils to pipes. However, AB 711 is not the way to address this issue properly, and we should challenge AB 711's implementation, despite the fact that it has been passed into law.
There are all kinds of ammunition this impacts so it's not a black and white issue of "lead vs nonlead," but rather, limits the permissible market to only that which the state will allow which is an incredibly limited range of ammunition on an approved list of manufacturers. This is inappropriate and wrong.
First, the bill comes into conflict with federal law. 10 USC Sec 4684, as an example, which allows surplus ammunition to be sold to patriotic organizations. 10 USC Chapter 443, etc. States can adopt their own laws that provide for more detailed restrictions and regulation but I believe they get into trouble when banning the use of things that are commonly purchased by people across the entire United States. In addition, the federal Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) expressly exempted ammunition from the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the time of passage of AB 711. Yet, the State of California feels its wardens have oversight to analyze lead content of ammo and to initiate such assessments in the field, even suggesting that this would include "seiz(ure) (of) the weapon for removal of the projectile under controlled conditions or fir(ing) (of) the weapon into a medium to retrieve the projectile." This would obviously be an unconstitutional and warrantless type of property seizure by the state which would likely be legally actionable by a large number of persons, potentially in a lawsuit against the state.
Then there was a ruling that came out of the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia on May 23, 2013 just before the time of passage of AB 711, dismissing a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity and six other groups demanding the Environmental Protection Agency ban traditional ammunition containing lead components. Although that was not binding on the California Legislature, it is hard to imagine that AB 711 would hold up under legal scrutiny if it were to ban all ammunition containing lead components across the entire State, were this bill to be challenged.
Second, if the State wants to reduce the use of lead ammunition during hunting, which the law supposedly intends, it should work with manufacturers to provide incentives for a shift in manufacturing to accomodate that. When people buy anything (or at least when they buy ammo), they look for the possibility of buying in bulk to reduce cost. However, the State does not incentivize anyone, instead, it simply attacks people's rights while discouraging manufacturers and driving businesses out of the state.
Even before the passage of AB 711, the cost of doing business was high in this regard. The excise tax dollars (11 percent) manufacturers paid on the sale of ammunition – the very ammunition some groups chose to demonize – was, at that time, a primary source of wildlife conservation funding in the United States and the financial backbone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The bald eagle’s recovery, a truly great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition. I am no longer sure that this is the case given the Legislature's attacks on both consumers and manufacturers of ammunition.
Finally, there is the US Constitution: "“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges ... of citizens ... nor ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny ... the equal protection of the laws.” We can thus say, if people have traditionally obtained ammunition through purchase, or made ammunition in their own home, as a part of the exercise of their 2nd Amendment right for sustaining their family through hunting, it is not legal for the state to deprive them of that property nor the use of it. A statewide ban, such as that which is part of AB 711 (in particular, via the State's "Phase 3" which begins July 1, 2019) would raise federal legal, and Constitutional problems, that will make the law one which will not be legally supported. And furthermore, I would also submit that in remembering the history of the Prohibition era in this country, we can see that the Legislature has failed to learn from history, and that we can continue to assert our rights simply by noncompliance with their efforts to remove our rights.
One is that I think these California ammo regs as they stand today are fairly ridiculous and shouldn't exist for a variety of reasons,
Two is that (and this second point is the main point of this particular post) I am curious about a couple different things:
a) reloading possibilities
b) manufacturers that have produced 7.62x54r "CA non-lead" ammo
Something I have found in this area is this:
Mosin CA legal hunting ammo [Archive] - Calguns.net
From that I have discerned the following:
Ammo Brothers
Custom Cartridge, Inc.
Seems these are the only two certified companies (unless I am mistaken) that are producing the CA non-lead for Mosins as per
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/Nonlead-Ammunition/Certified
Time to learn more about reloading, apparently...
Apparently CA's implementation of AB 711 is basically, this (per the DFG's website):
"Phase 1 – Effective July 1, 2015, nonlead ammunition will be required when taking Nelson bighorn sheep and all wildlife on state wildlife areas and ecological reserves.
Phase 2 – Effective July 1, 2016, nonlead shot will be required when taking upland game birds with a shotgun, except for dove, quail, snipe, and any game birds taken on licensed game bird clubs. In addition, nonlead shot will be required when using a shotgun to take resident small game mammals, furbearing mammals, nongame mammals, nongame birds, and any wildlife for depredation purposes.
Phase 3 – Effective July 1, 2019, nonlead ammunition will be required when taking any wildlife with a firearm anywhere in California.
Existing restrictions on the use of lead ammunition in the California condor range remain in effect while implementation proceeds."
So basically the plan of the California Legislature, evidently, is to screw people all over the state while Gavin Newsom launches his loathsome proposition to try to keep people from even being able to buy ammo at all - for more on that (and to help stop it) go to About FPC Second Amendment Defense Committee - Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee
I want to take a moment to talk about the issue of lead as the passage of AB 711 and the banning of lead ammo was portrayed as a must-pass issue based on... the harm that can be done by lead. Lead is, of course, a known toxin that we have already removed from everything from paint to gasoline, and pencils to pipes. However, AB 711 is not the way to address this issue properly, and we should challenge AB 711's implementation, despite the fact that it has been passed into law.
There are all kinds of ammunition this impacts so it's not a black and white issue of "lead vs nonlead," but rather, limits the permissible market to only that which the state will allow which is an incredibly limited range of ammunition on an approved list of manufacturers. This is inappropriate and wrong.
First, the bill comes into conflict with federal law. 10 USC Sec 4684, as an example, which allows surplus ammunition to be sold to patriotic organizations. 10 USC Chapter 443, etc. States can adopt their own laws that provide for more detailed restrictions and regulation but I believe they get into trouble when banning the use of things that are commonly purchased by people across the entire United States. In addition, the federal Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) expressly exempted ammunition from the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the time of passage of AB 711. Yet, the State of California feels its wardens have oversight to analyze lead content of ammo and to initiate such assessments in the field, even suggesting that this would include "seiz(ure) (of) the weapon for removal of the projectile under controlled conditions or fir(ing) (of) the weapon into a medium to retrieve the projectile." This would obviously be an unconstitutional and warrantless type of property seizure by the state which would likely be legally actionable by a large number of persons, potentially in a lawsuit against the state.
Then there was a ruling that came out of the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia on May 23, 2013 just before the time of passage of AB 711, dismissing a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity and six other groups demanding the Environmental Protection Agency ban traditional ammunition containing lead components. Although that was not binding on the California Legislature, it is hard to imagine that AB 711 would hold up under legal scrutiny if it were to ban all ammunition containing lead components across the entire State, were this bill to be challenged.
Second, if the State wants to reduce the use of lead ammunition during hunting, which the law supposedly intends, it should work with manufacturers to provide incentives for a shift in manufacturing to accomodate that. When people buy anything (or at least when they buy ammo), they look for the possibility of buying in bulk to reduce cost. However, the State does not incentivize anyone, instead, it simply attacks people's rights while discouraging manufacturers and driving businesses out of the state.
Even before the passage of AB 711, the cost of doing business was high in this regard. The excise tax dollars (11 percent) manufacturers paid on the sale of ammunition – the very ammunition some groups chose to demonize – was, at that time, a primary source of wildlife conservation funding in the United States and the financial backbone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The bald eagle’s recovery, a truly great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition. I am no longer sure that this is the case given the Legislature's attacks on both consumers and manufacturers of ammunition.
Finally, there is the US Constitution: "“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges ... of citizens ... nor ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny ... the equal protection of the laws.” We can thus say, if people have traditionally obtained ammunition through purchase, or made ammunition in their own home, as a part of the exercise of their 2nd Amendment right for sustaining their family through hunting, it is not legal for the state to deprive them of that property nor the use of it. A statewide ban, such as that which is part of AB 711 (in particular, via the State's "Phase 3" which begins July 1, 2019) would raise federal legal, and Constitutional problems, that will make the law one which will not be legally supported. And furthermore, I would also submit that in remembering the history of the Prohibition era in this country, we can see that the Legislature has failed to learn from history, and that we can continue to assert our rights simply by noncompliance with their efforts to remove our rights.