Court Backs NRA, Hunters In Ammunition Battle
In a decisive legal win that has far-reaching implications for gun rights and hunting in America, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday in favor of the National Rifle Association (NRA), hunters and the U.S. Forest Service against a group of environmental organizations. The court unanimously rejected efforts by the Sierra Club, the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, and the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity to ban lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest, a popular hunting location near the Grand Canyon.
“The question is whether a person who has some power to prevent someone else from contributing to the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of hazardous waste is liable,” the court noted in its ruling. It concluded that the Forest Service has no such liability, dealing a blow to the environmentalists’ case.
This isn’t a mere courtroom skirmish; it’s a battle over the principles that guide land use, hunting, and states’ rights. The case started in 2012 when the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit, alleging that lead ammo left by hunters was ingested by animals, causing environmental harm. But as the court noted, the Forest Service is “not the source of any lead ammunition found in the Kaibab.”
The decision also strengthens the role of states in regulating hunting. Judge Jay Bybee pointed out that while the Forest Service owns the land and “has the right to regulate hunting and fishing activities,” it “rarely exercises its authority to preempt state laws related to hunting and fishing.” In short, this is a matter for Arizona to decide, not some federal agency that environmentalists wish would interfere.
This ruling aligns well with common-sense approaches to governance and conservation. It’s not just a victory for the Forest Service but also for organizations like the NRA, the Safari Club, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who intervened to stifle the litigation. As the NRA noted on X, formerly Twitter, “This NRA victory is a significant setback for gun control and anti-hunting advocates who see ammo bans as a pivotal leap in their agenda.”
While environmental concerns can be valid, they must be balanced with the rights of hunters and gun owners. Arizona’s Game and Fish Department has already made strides by asking hunters to use non-lead ammo in two north Kaibab National Forest game management units. However, there is no outright ban respecting the rights of hunters and state regulations.
The court’s decision echoed a reality that some have forgotten: Agencies can’t be held liable for simply not regulating. As Michael Jean, the Office of Litigation Counsel director with the NRA’s legal and lobbying arm, put it, “Courts will not entertain ‘failure-to-regulate’ lawsuits against the federal government for merely honoring state hunting laws.”
In an era where the temptation to federalize everything from healthcare to education often proves irresistible, the court’s ruling is a bulwark for states’ rights and individual freedoms. It upholds the idea that not every issue calls for federal intervention and keeps the door firmly shut against agendas aimed at backdoor gun control or restrictions on hunting.
