Video Highlights
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit involving the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
- The lawsuit was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity against the US Forest Service for allowing hunting with lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest
- The court ruled that the Forest Service is not responsible for banning lead ammunition and dismissed the lawsuit
- This decision is a victory for gun owners and hunters, as it supports the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including hunting
- The court's decision also sets a precedent for holding gun companies not responsible for the criminal acts of third parties using firearms.
Video Summary
In a major victory for gun owners and hunters, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a lawsuit involving the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), also known as RICKRA. The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, alleged that the United States Forest Service was liable under RICKRA for allowing hunting with lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest.
The Kaibab National Forest, a popular hunting destination, is owned by the United States government. The plaintiffs argued that the use of lead ammunition violated RICKRA and required the Forest Service to ban hunting with lead ammunition on federal property. However, a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that the lawsuit failed to state a claim.
The court's decision is significant because it upholds the right to keep and bear arms, even though the case does not directly address the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's Heller decision recognized the right to use firearms for all lawful purposes, which includes hunting. By attempting to ban the use of lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest, the plaintiffs were effectively infringing on this right.
The plaintiffs' argument was based on the claim that lead ammunition posed a danger to certain animals in the forest, as they could ingest lead from carcasses or field-dressed animals. However, the court found that the Forest Service's refusal to regulate or ban the use of lead ammunition did not constitute contribution to pollution or toxicity under RICKRA. Therefore, the court concluded that the federal district court did not have jurisdiction to require the Forest Service to ban hunting or lead ammunition use.
The court's decision is not only a victory for gun owners and hunters but also has broader implications. It sets a precedent that could be beneficial for gun companies facing lawsuits over criminal acts committed by individuals using firearms. Just as the court rejected the argument that the Forest Service should be held liable for the acts of hunters using lead ammunition, it suggests that gun companies should not be held responsible for the actions of criminals using their products.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is an environmental statute that governs the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. The court's decision clarifies that the Forest Service's decision not to regulate lead ammunition does not constitute a violation of this act. The court's ruling emphasizes that the Forest Service did not contribute to any alleged pollution caused by third parties, such as hunters or gun users, over whom they had no control.
This decision is a setback for the anti-gun movement, as it thwarts attempts to impose more regulations on lawful activities involving firearms. Anytime the rights of gun owners and hunters are protected and unnecessary regulations are prevented, it is a positive outcome. The decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supports the Second Amendment and is a significant win for gun owners and hunters.
To read the full decision of the court, please follow the link provided. For more Second Amendment content, you can also follow the Four Boxes Diner on Twitter.
