Uh oh. Someone in the government just banned certain firearm activites.
So far I've only seen one stupid reaction from the 2A people. However, it's pretty early on still, and we are talking the truly gun nut state of Utah.
Not that this particular banning action originated with Utah State Government, but it did originate in a federal agency in Utah, so I have a feeling that seeds of controversy have been sown.
And one bullet manufacturer questions the fairness and practicality of the ban. Jessica Brooks-Stevens, marketing director for Barnes Bullets is quoted in the A Section of the 7-26-13 Salt Lake Tribune as saying "Bans don't work". Of course, of course.
So, apparently, as of the other day, target shooting on BLM land in Utah is now banned if being done with steel bullets, the ammunition of choice by firearms afficianados engaged in this type of activity. It's a cost thing. The steel stuff is far more affordable, enabling far more lead - er uh "rounds" to be recreationally fired.
Here's the setting. Target shooters started some 18 wildfires in Utah in 2012, burning nearly 11,000 acres. One Fed states that she has personally looked at bullet started fires every summer for the 13 years that she has investigated such things. It's also said that since 2010 target shooting has ignited at least 30 fires in the Tonto National Forest of Arizona, so we're probably looking at a target shooting thing, and not a Utah thing.
Well, actually, the issue was at least nominally up in the air until a study was just done on the subject. There was suspicion, there was evidence, but only just now do we have scientific certainty. A team from the Missoual Fire Sciences Laboratory was assembled, and a test sequence was designed. "We had no guidence. There has been no study like this before. We didn't even know if we would get any ignitions...We put it up, and, by golly, when we started shooting, we would get ignitions every time." Turns out, you get a ricochet, and fragments of metal can reach temperatures of 1,500 degress, even if only briefly. And who knew that fires really love high temperatures.
So now we're arguably a far safer country, even if, nominally, less free.
With the lone "official" respose being oh so predictable. "Shooters should be aware, but so should someone starting a campfire or parking their can in dry grass". Meaning, presumably, "how can you expect people to enjoy a little down time in nature if we force them to stay away from shooting the cheap stuff"?