PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 1, 2010
Prohibits the use of federal funds appropriated or made available to the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture to prohibit, limit, or control, based on material composition, the type of firearm ammunition or fishing tackle used on federal lands managed by such Departments, except: (1) if the best scientific evidence available demonstrates that the material composition of the ammunition or fishing tackle is having or is likely to have a substantially detrimental effect on the health of a local fish or wildlife population; or (2) to the extent that a specific regulation is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Broun, Paul C. [R-GA-10] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to House Agriculture
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Natural Resources
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5672 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5672 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5672 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5672 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.