ARIZONA: NRA WINS RIGHT TO DEFEND HUNTERS AGAINST LAWSUIT SEEKING TO BAN LEAD AMMUNITION

ON JANUARY 14, 2010. POSTED IN LATEST NEWS, LEGAL NEWS

Phoenix, Az. – Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt has ruled that the NRA has a right under federal law to intervene in a lawsuit filed, in the plaintiff’s own words, as part of a campaign “to ban the use of lead bullets[.]” NRA will now be able to defend hunter’s rights against the claims of the lead ammunition ban proponents that filed the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed January 27, 2009, by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), alleges that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) are illegally mismanaging federal lands in Arizona. CBD’s lawsuit claims that California condors in Arizona are becoming ill or dying as a result of eating lead in scavenged game shot by hunters using lead shot or bullets. Based on that claim, CBD contends BLM and FWS are violating the Endangered Species Act by allowing hunters to use lead shot and bullets in areas where California condors may feed. CBD also contends BLM and FWS violated federal law by making land management decisions without considering the potential impact on local wildlife that supposedly results from authorized activities like off-road vehicle use and livestock grazing.

The Judge’s ruling addresses each of the requirements for intervention “as of right,” citing evidence that plainly shows NRA has a right to become a party to CBD’s lawsuit to protect the right to hunt in the area. Specifically, Judge Rosenblatt held that NRA has a “significantly protectable interest . . . in protecting hunting rights[;]” intervention of right cannot occur unless this type of interest is established. The Judge also held that the resolution of CBD’s lawsuit may impair NRA’s ability to protect its interest in protecting hunting, noting NRA’s contention that CBD’s lawsuit could result in an injunction or settlement that restricts the use of lead-based ammunition. Finally, the Judge confirmed that current defendants to CBD’s lawsuit (BLM, FWS) do not adequately represent NRA, stating that “[t]he NRA is focused on the hunting aspect and protecting its members’ rights and all hunters’ rights to hunt with lead ammunition . . . . This is not the objective of the current Defendants.”

NRA is especially interested in defending against CBD’s lawsuit because California condors were introduced to Arizona based in large part on express promises by FWS, among others, that the reintroduction of condors would not be allowed to impact hunting.

View copies of the Court’s Order of January 13, 2010, and the filings upon which it is based, by clicking here.