Gun Club Can be Sued for Lead Pollution

-Cp

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2004
2,911
362
48
Earth
Conn. Gun Club Can be Sued for Lead Pollution
By RAE THEODORE, Andrews Publications Correspondent

A group of homeowners who live near a gun club have standing to sue the club for dumping lead and other ammunition-related pollutants into the surrounding area, a Connecticut federal court has ruled .

The court dismissed one of the homeowners' claims under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, concluding that lead shot is not "hazardous waste" at the time it is discharged from a firearm because it is being used for its intended purpose.

The court's ruling permits the homeowners to press their remaining claims under the RCRA and the Clean Water Act.

The Metacon Gun Club Inc. has operated a shooting range in Simsbury, Conn., for 15 years, court filings say. Members and guests are permitted to use large and small firearms, including shotguns, assault rifles and anti-tank guns at the site. The club borders the Farmington River, as well as a golf course, riding stable and Talcott Mountain State Park.

The Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society LLC, composed of six homeowners who live near the site, claims the gun club causes water and soil contamination from chromium, lead, ammunition fragments and other pollutants. It alleges that "thousands of pounds of lead" were deposited into the environment since 1980 and the area shows a lead presence well above that allowed by state environmental laws.

Simsbury-Avon and its individual members sued Metacon for violations of the RCRA and the CWA. Specifically, it maintains that Metacon violated the RCRA by open dumping lead and lead debris. It further alleges that Metacon, an owner and operator of a waste facility, has engaged in hazardous waste disposal without obtaining a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency or the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

In addition, Simsbury-Avon claims that Metacon violated the CWA by discharging lead bullets and debris into the Farmington River and its wetlands without an EPA or DEP permit. The homeowners' group has requested declarative and injunctive relief as well as civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each RCRA and CWA violation.

Metacon moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the group lacks standing to sue. Metacon contends that when the suit was filed May 13, 2004, the Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society did not legally exist. Further, the defendant maintains that adding individual plaintiffs does not cure the original defect.

Judge Janet B. Arterton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut disagreed. Although the group was officially incorporated five days after the complaint was filed, Simsbury-Avon and its individual members have standing to sue, she found. The judge noted that the group was a de facto corporation May 11, 2004, when its articles of incorporation were first submitted.

The judge dismissed one of the group's RCRA claims, which asserted that Metacon disposed of hazardous waste without a permit. In so ruling, Judge Arterton relied on a January 2001 EPA publication in which the agency concluded that lead shot is not hazardous waste subject to the RCRA at the time it is discharged from a firearm because it is being used for its intended purpose.

Judge Arterton found the EPA's exclusion of lead shot and bullets from the definition of "solid waste" in the RCRA reasonable.

"At the time a target shooter fires a bullet, the shooter is not intending to 'abandon' the bullet but rather to use it to hit a target. He or she is putting the lead bullet to its intended use," she said.

http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/pl/gun/20050711/20050711simsbury.html
 
so then does that mean we can sue everyone whose vehicle is spewing smoke for putting pollution in the air?
 
Granny says dat's prob'ly what dem whisperin' oaks been tryin' to tell us...
:eek:
Tree Bark Shows Global Spread of Toxic Chemicals
March 15, 2013 — The chemicals used to retard fire in consumer products such as furniture and clothing can become toxic pollutants when they wind up in the environment. And they are in the environment - all over the world - in the water, the soil, the plants, and the air. Tracking the spread of these chemicals has been a major challenge, but it just got easier.
On the campus of Indiana University, Amina Salamova studies polybrominated diphenyl ethers [PBDEs], and other chemical environmental pollutants. PBDEs are widely used as flame retardants… but have been associated with adverse effects on human health. “They can have an effect on neurological development, on reproductive system, and they can effect your thyroid endocrine system,” said Salamova. Concerns about those effects have prompted regulatory agencies and some manufacturers to phase out the use of many flame retardant chemicals. But PBDEs can persist for years in the environment, and scientists do not know precisely where or how they spread.

Novel tool

That’s why Salamova and her co-researcher Ronald Hites developed a new technique to measure the presence and concentration of flame retardant chemicals in the air, by sampling the bark of trees. “The tree’s ideal because it’s sitting there passively soaking up these compounds out of the atmosphere,” said Hites. A tree’s bark provides a large surface area that takes in chemicals as both vapor and particles. Also, because a layer of bark remains on the tree for five years or so before being shed, it provides a unique record of the environment over time.

Salamova said the tree-bark approach has many advantages over the current, more complex sampling method, which involves pumping air through expensive equipment, and requires plenty of manpower, and electricity. “So what I see in future for tree bark is the ability to use this method in developing countries which don’t have a lot of funding for elaborate atmospheric studies. Also we can use this method in remote sites where there is no power,” said Salamova.

Global initiative

With the help of the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling network, an international monitoring initiative, Salamova and Hites received bark samples from 12 locations around the world, including Norway, the Czech Republic, South Africa, Nepal, Indonesia, the United States and Canada. “So this way, you collect about 50 gram of bark, you can collect it from either side of the tree,” said Salamova. Researchers use a chisel and hammer to tap out a few pieces of bark, wrap them in foil and ship them back to Indiana University for chemical analysis.

Pervasive evidence
 
so then does that mean we can sue everyone whose vehicle is spewing smoke for putting pollution in the air?

No, because car manufacturers hold the responsibility for environmental control. There is some room for exception, like a car owner that refuses to fix a leaky exhaust.

As for the gun club, liability is entirely up to the court to decide, but it would be in their best interests to find a way to keep their waste out of the water supply - barriers between the site and the water table, or some guys with metal detectors cleaning up the site every night.
 
Looks like all those laws mandating that infant and children's clothing be flame retardant will be repealed.
 
I see this thread is from 2005 but I can't remember ever firing lead bullets in my lifetime.

Are there such things? 100% lead ammunition?

I don't think so.
 
Those who pollute their surroundings should be required to clean up their mess
 
Those who pollute their surroundings should be required to clean up their mess
Who uses Lead Ammunition these days?

Only Americans are ignorant and stupid enough to believe that ammunition is pure lead.

Oh wait a minute, I just realized this is a way to pass Laws against ammunition based on EPA rules.

In that case never mind, I'm all for it! :clap2:
 
Those who pollute their surroundings should be required to clean up their mess
Who uses Lead Ammunition these days?

Only Americans are ignorant and stupid enough to believe that ammunition is pure lead.

Oh wait a minute, I just realized this is a way to pass Laws against ammunition based on EPA rules.

In that case never mind, I'm all for it! :clap2:

If I live nearby and my well is contaminated with lead......guess who should have to pay to clean it up?

What ever happened to the party of personal responsibility?
 
Those who pollute their surroundings should be required to clean up their mess

That faux outrage too a while to get up a head of steam, huh?

Moron.

Republicans think they should be able to foul local water supplies and not have responsibility?

No wonder people won't vote Republican
The best part is that Stupid Americans don't know that Bullets aren't pure lead!

It's brilliant! :clap2:

AND they won't ask if bullets have fouled water supplies anywhere!
 
That faux outrage too a while to get up a head of steam, huh?

Moron.

Republicans think they should be able to foul local water supplies and not have responsibility?

No wonder people won't vote Republican
The best part is that Stupid Americans don't know that Bullets aren't pure lead!

It's brilliant! :clap2:

AND they won't ask if bullets have fouled water supplies anywhere!

Oh...I get it now

Unless it s PURE lead it can't possibly foul the water system

Republicans and science.......perfect together
 
I saw several stories about ranges being sued, have yet to find one that has the Courts ruling, So since this is from 2005 someone wanna find the result?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here,but I didnt read anything about water tests being done. I would think you would have to prove harm.
Or is there actually a problem or are these people just trying to get rid of the gun range because they're sick of hearing the gunfire.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here,but I didnt read anything about water tests being done. I would think you would have to prove harm.
Or is there actually a problem or are these people just trying to get rid of the gun range because they're sick of hearing the gunfire.

One could assume based on the fact NO ONE has provided a court ruling agreeing with any of the claims made against ranges like this over the years that the Courts either threw them out or ruled in favor of the Range.
 

Forum List

Back
Top