Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: OSHA to make ammunition super expensive

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    I think it's important that they hear our voice and that this is wrong!!



    http://www.packing.org/community/general/listview/25076


  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Sounds extreme to say the least.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    www.gunowners.org
    Jul 2007
    GOA Comments On Proposed OSHA Regulations Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032
    To: OSHA Docket Office
    From: Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America
    Re: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032
    Date: July 3, 2007




    "As a Second Amendment organization representing 300,000 members, we are writing to express our concern over Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032.

    Those in the industry who are familiar with the process of manufacturing ammunition are contending that "the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear -- essentially collapsing the industry." They contend that the cost of the regulation will exceed $100 million, and that, for example:

    * A factory would have to be shut down and evacuated every time a lightning storm approached; and
    * Customers would have to be searched for matches and lighters before approaching an ammunition display.
    Suffice it to say, such a result would be not only a "significant regulatory action," but also a crippling blow to American firearms ownership -- and would be directly contrary to the spirit and letter of the McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, which was intended to deregulate ammunition.

    At a time when anti-gun zealots in Congress have temporarily backed away from the vigorous pursuit of at least some of the gun control agenda, what an irony it would be if an agency of the Bush administration were to devastate the Second Amendment through an unconstitutional backdoor effort.

    We would encourage you to back away from such an exercise."

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    This is really stupid on the face of it. Modern smokeless powder is not explosive unless it is contained in a strong container. Even then it is just fast burning. As long as it is stored in the proper container it is safer than a can of gasoline around the home.

    As for other issues, unless you are casting bullets there is no issue with lead, unless there is improper ventilation.

    I wonder on what grounds they would regulate these things if they were manufactured and sold within the same state.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Hmmm, intriguing! A firearms and/or ammomanufacturer with a plant in each state selling only to state residents could effectively negate the federal interstate regulation of firearms, which is in truth only based on taxation.Hmmmm....

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    As long as it is stored in the proper container it is safer than a can of gasoline .
    A minor quibble, the powder contains its own oxydizer since it is a monopropellant while gasoline must combine with the oxidizer, typically in air, and the rate of combination determines much of the burning rate.

    This in reference to the recent news coverage of fuel 'bombs.'

    Safety is a good tool for tyrants. No one can be against safety. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense. Either we are equal or we are not good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. ******* NRA

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Have you ever heard of an issue at a retail outlet or anyplace else for that matter involving this material.

    I haven't

    Control the ammo control the guns.



  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Point taken on the oxidizer, but the stuff still does not explode, it burns. Black power will actually explode. But the point was that a lot of other more common household stuff is far more likely to discharge catastrophically than smokeless powder that is properly stored.

    There was a fire at Clark Brothers years ago. But the subsequent explosion was from the Black powder not the smokeless. There are events from time to time but they are VERY rare. The most common event is the discharge of a stack of primers when proper care is not used in reloading. But these events rarely cause more than a little ear ringing, and a lot of subsequent yelling from the nearest spouse.

    regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  9. #9
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    The nanny state at it again... with a solution to something that is not a problem.

    Of course, it's not about safety, it's about control. How better to eliminate guns from private hands than to make them all useless. Naturally, the black market will always make some ammo available, but that's a crap shoot - and lots more expensive.

    http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/07/09/nathan.htm for directions on how to thread through the complex process of leaving your electronic comments.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3145 :

    "Proposed “Safety” Regulations Would Dry Up Ammunition Sales

    Tuesday, July 03, 2007

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed new rules that would have a dramatic effect on the storage and transportation of ammunition and handloading components such as primers or black and smokeless powder. The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as “explosives.” Among many other provisions, the proposed rule would:
    Prohibit possession of firearms in commercial “facilities containing explosives”—an obvious problem for your local gun store.
    Require evacuation of all “facilities containing explosives”—even your local Wal-Mart—during any electrical storm.
    Prohibit smoking within 50 feet of “facilities containing explosives.”
    It’s important to remember this is only a proposed rule right now, so there’s still time for concerned citizens to speak out before OSHA issues its final rule. The National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute will all be commenting on these proposed regulations, based on the severe effect these regulations (if finalized) would have on the availability of ammunition and reloading supplies to safe and responsible shooters.

    The public comment period ends July 12. To file your own comment, or to learn more about the OSHA proposal, click here or go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and search for Docket Number OSHA-2007-0032”; you can read OSHA’s proposal and learn how to submit comments electronically, or by fax or mail.

    -----------------------------

    OSHA Docket Office Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210

    Re.: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Explosives—Proposed Rule)

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    I am writing in strong opposition to OSHA’s proposed rules on “explosives,” which go far beyond regulating true explosives. These proposed rules would impose severe restrictions on the transportation and storage of small arms ammunition—both complete cartridges and handloading components such as black and smokeless powder, primers, and percussion caps. These restrictions go far beyond existing transportation and fire protection regulations.

    As a person who uses ammunition and components, I am very concerned that these regulations will have a serious effect on my ability to obtain these products. OSHA’s proposed rules would impose restrictions that very few gun stores, sporting goods stores, or ammunition dealers could comply with. (Prohibiting firearms in stores that sell ammunition, for example, is absurd—but would be required under the proposed rule.)

    The proposed transportation regulations would also affect shooters’ ability to buy these components by mail or online, because shipping companies would also have great difficulty complying with the proposed rules.

    There is absolutely no evidence of any new safety hazard from storage or transportation of small arms ammunition or components that would justify these new rules. I also understand that organizations with expertise in this field, such as the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Association, will be submitting detailed comments on this issue. I hope OSHA will listen to these organizations’ comments as the agency develops a final rule on this issue.

    Sincerely, "

    =======================================

    And after you get through submitting your own comment, please make sure to email whatever gun store you do business with to make sure they have the head's-up on this and are going to respond (emailing them is more effective because you can give them the actual links).

    And how in the world did I miss this one?

    "Among many other provisions, the proposed rule would:
    Prohibit possession of firearms in commercial “facilities containing explosives”—an obvious problem for your local gun store.
    " (And, yeah, it's there - I checked). Pete


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3151

    OHSA Grants 60 day extension on Proposed "Safety" Rule That Would Address Ammunition Sales

    Monday, July 09, 2007

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has extended the comment period on its proposed rule for 60 days until September 10. The proposed new rules would have a dramatic effect on the storage and transportation of ammunition and handloading components such as primers or black and smokeless powder. The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as “explosives.” Among many other provisions, the proposed rule would:

    * Prohibit possession of firearms in commercial “facilities containing explosives”—an obvious problem for your local gun store.
    * Require evacuation of all “facilities containing explosives”—even your local Wal-Mart—during any electrical storm.
    * Prohibit smoking within 50 feet of “facilities containing explosives.”

    It’s important to remember this is only a proposed rule right now, so there’s still time for concerned citizens to speak out before OSHA issues its final rule. The National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute will all be commenting on these proposed regulations, based on the severe effect these regulations (if finalized) would have on the availability of ammunition and reloading supplies to safe and responsible shooters.

    The public comment period was originally scheduled to end July 12 but has been extended sixty (60) days until September 10, 2007. To file your own comment, or to learn more about the OSHA proposal, click here or go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and search for Docket Number OSHA-2007-0032”; you can read OSHA’s proposal and learn how to submit comments electronically, or by fax or mail.

    -----------------------------

    OSHA Docket Office Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210

    Re.: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Explosives—Proposed Rule)

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    I am writing in strong opposition to OSHA’s proposed rules on “explosives,” which go far beyond regulating true explosives. These proposed rules would impose severe restrictions on the transportation and storage of small arms ammunition—both complete cartridges and handloading components such as black and smokeless powder, primers, and percussion caps. These restrictions go far beyond existing transportation and fire protection regulations.

    As a person who uses ammunition and components, I am very concerned that these regulations will have a serious effect on my ability to obtain these products. OSHA’s proposed rules would impose restrictions that very few gun stores, sporting goods stores, or ammunition dealers could comply with. (Prohibiting firearms in stores that sell ammunition, for example, is absurd—but would be required under the proposed rule.)

    The proposed transportation regulations would also affect shooters’ ability to buy these components by mail or online, because shipping companies would also have great difficulty complying with the proposed rules.

    There is absolutely no evidence of any new safety hazard from storage or transportation of small arms ammunition or components that would justify these new rules. I also understand that organizations with expertise in this field, such as the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Association, will be submitting detailed comments on this issue. I hope OSHA will listen to these organizations’ comments as the agency develops a final rule on this issue.

    Sincerely,

    ===============================================

    Now that we all have ample time to do so is the time to add your own comments there. Please do so! And make sure whatever gunshop(s) you do business with does, too! Pete

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Now wemight begetting a clue to what is going on.Here is an excerptfrom an OSHA press release, emphasis mine:

    Significant changes in the proposed rule include: updating the definition of explosives so it is consistent with the Department of Transportation (DOT) definition; incorporating the DOT/United Nations-based classification system in the explosives definition; updating references to DOT regulations; requiring package labels to be in accordance with OSHA's Hazard Communication standard and to use the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS); eliminating storage magazine requirements because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has adopted and enforces such regulations; and adding provisions to ensure that employees are properly trained in hazard recognition and safe work practices.


    http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...amp;p_id=14100

    I found this linked at the JPFO website (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership).

    It seems the public comment period has been extended into September according to some info on JPFO attributed to another pro-gun organization.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Now wemight begetting a clue to what is going on.Here is an excerptfrom an OSHA press release, emphasis mine:

    Significant changes in the proposed rule include: updating the definition of explosives so it is consistent with the Department of Transportation (DOT) definition; incorporating the DOT/United Nations-based classification system in the explosives definition; updating references to DOT regulations; requiring package labels to be in accordance with OSHA's Hazard Communication standard and to use the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS); eliminating storage magazine requirements because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has adopted and enforces such regulations; and adding provisions to ensure that employees are properly trained in hazard recognition and safe work practices.


    http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...amp;p_id=14100

    I found this linked at the JPFO website (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership).

    It seems the public comment period has been extended into September according to some info on JPFO attributed to another pro-gun organization.
    This also caught my eye: the word "harmonized", which is a term used frequently in Europe since the forming of the EU. It's where they force each country in the EU to adopt the same tax structure, farming regulations, environmental regs, etc. in order to make sure that say, German farmers don't have an advantage over French farmers or whatever. That word has no business in a U.S. government regulations-related document, any more than "United Nations".

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Now wemight begetting a clue to what is going on.Here is an excerptfrom an OSHA press release, emphasis mine:

    Significant changes in the proposed rule include: updating the definition of explosives so it is consistent with the Department of Transportation (DOT) definition; incorporating the DOT/United Nations-based classification system in the explosives definition; updating references to DOT regulations; requiring package labels to be in accordance with OSHA's Hazard Communication standard and to use the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS); eliminating storage magazine requirements because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has adopted and enforces such regulations; and adding provisions to ensure that employees are properly trained in hazard recognition and safe work practices.
    This also caught my eye: the word "harmonized", which is a term used frequently in Europe since the forming of the EU. It's where they force each country in the EU to adopt the same tax structure, farming regulations, environmental regs, etc. in order to make sure that say, German farmers don't have an advantage over French farmers or whatever. That word has no business in a U.S. government regulations-related document, any more than "United Nations".
    Thank you for the info. Verrry interesting.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    Labor Department Announces It Will Revise
    Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule



    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will significantly revise a recent proposal for new “explosives safety” regulations that caused serious concern among gun owners. OSHA had originally set out to update workplace safety regulations, but the proposed rules included restrictions that very few gun shops, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with.



    Gun owners had filed a blizzard of negative comments urged by the NRA, and just a week ago, OSHA had already issued one extension for its public comment period at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. After continued publicity through NRA alerts and the outdoor media, and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA has wisely decided to go back to the drawing board.



    Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this Wednesday when the House considers this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce this OSHA regulation.



    Such an amendment is no longer necessary since Kristine A. Iverson, the Labor Department’s Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, sent Rep. Rehberg a letter, dated July 16, stating that it “was never the intention of OSHA to block the sale, transportation, or storage of small arms ammunition, and OSHA is taking prompt action to revise” this proposed rule to clarify the purpose of the regulation.



    Also, working with the NRA, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) gathered signatures from 25 House colleagues for a letter, dated July 11, expressing concerns about this proposed OSHA rule. The letter calling the proposal “an undue burden on a single industry where facts do not support the need outlined by this proposed rule” and “not feasible, making it realistically impossible for companies to comply with its tenets.”



    The OSHA proposal would have defined “explosives” to include “black powder, … small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant,” and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives.



    Under the proposed rule, a workplace that contained even a handful of small arms cartridges, for any reason, would have been considered a “facility containing explosives” and therefore subject to many impractical restrictions. For example, no one could carry “firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives … except as required for work duties.” Obviously, this rule would make it impossible to operate any kind of gun store, firing range, or gunsmith shop.



    The public comment website for the proposed rule is no longer accessible. The Labor Department will publish a notice in the July 17 Federal Register announcing that a new rule proposal will soon be drafted for public comment.Needless to say, the NRA monitors proposed federal regulations to head off this kind of overreach, and will be alert for OSHA’s next draft.

    We will post the letter to Congressman Rehberg shortly.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Is anyone stocking up on ammo due to this?


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Yes and no - I'm always looking for ammo deals generally, but not specifically because of this. I doubt it would affect mil-surp stock in any case, which is to say that I doubt the surplus wholesalers would care if they were compliant or not - they tend to be a laid-back crowd. If their stuff has been lying around since Korea or WWII without incident, then I rather doubt that anyone will impress upon them that their practices are unsound.

    -ljp

  18. #18
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    I tried to leave a comment on line. That page is no longer available. This is what I got when I asked what happened to it.

    The docket has been closed for electronic submission of public comments on 7/13/07. However you can submit comments (three copies) as follows:
    FAX 202-693-1648

    Mail:
    OSHA Docket Office
    Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032
    U.S. Department of Labor
    Room N-2625
    200 Constitution Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20210
    Seems they will not accept on-line comments anymore, even with the extension, so we'll have to do it by fax or mail.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  19. #19
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Received this update from the NRA-ILA:



    Labor Department Announces It Will Revise
    Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule


    Dang it, spy beat me to it!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Hmm.......

    http://www.ohsonline.com/articles/49155/

    Backing down in the face of strong opposition from black powder shooters, the National Rifle Association, and allied groups, OSHA on July 17 announced it has closed the comment period for its April 13, 2007, proposed revisions in the existing explosives standard. A check of the www.regulations.gov site indicated 2,284 comments had been submitted, overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal.

    The NRA's Web site posted a report indicating a friendly member of Congress, Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., planned to offer an amendment barring use of federal funds to enforce the proposed rule; the amendment would have been offered to the Labor Department's 2008 appropriations bill when the House debates it July 18, according to the NRA report, which also said another congressman had gathered 25 House colleagues' signatures on a July 11 letter opposing the rule.

    The OSHA announcement that the comment period is closed simply says the department the department "intends to re-propose the Explosives NPRM at a later date in order to clarify the intent of the rulemaking." Opponents' comments said the proposed rule would effectively have ended motor carriers' ability to ship black powder ammunition and would have severely reduced gunsmiths' and gun shops' business.
    Looks like they're hoping we'll forget.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Lower End of NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    719

    Post imported post

    THIS JUST IN



    Labor Department Announces It Will Revise
    Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule

    [size=][/size]

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will significantly revise a recent proposal for new “explosives safety” regulations that caused serious concern among gun owners. OSHA had originally set out to update workplace safety regulations, but the proposed rules included restrictions that very few gun shops, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with.



    Gun owners had filed a blizzard of negative comments urged by the NRA, and just a week ago, OSHA had already issued one extension for its public comment period at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. After continued publicity through NRA alerts and the outdoor media, and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA has wisely decided to go back to the drawing board.



    Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this Wednesday when the House considers this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce this OSHA regulation.



    Such an amendment is no longer necessary since Kristine A. Iverson, the Labor Department’s Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, sent Rep. Rehberg a letter, dated July 16, stating that it “was never the intention of OSHA to block the sale, transportation, or storage of small arms ammunition, and OSHA is taking prompt action to revise” this proposed rule to clarify the purpose of the regulation.



    Also, working with the NRA, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) gathered signatures from 25 House colleagues for a letter, dated July 11, expressing concerns about this proposed OSHA rule. The letter calling the proposal “an undue burden on a single industry where facts do not support the need outlined by this proposed rule” and “not feasible, making it realistically impossible for companies to comply with its tenets.”



    The OSHA proposal would have defined “explosives” to include “black powder, … small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant,” and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives.



    Under the proposed rule, a workplace that contained even a handful of small arms cartridges, for any reason, would have been considered a “facility containing explosives” and therefore subject to many impractical restrictions. For example, no one could carry “firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives … except as required for work duties.” Obviously, this rule would make it impossible to operate any kind of gun store, firing range, or gunsmith shop.



    The public comment website for the proposed rule is no longer accessible. The Labor Department will publish a notice in the July 17 Federal Register announcing that a new rule proposal will soon be drafted for public comment.Needless to say, the NRA monitors proposed federal regulations to head off this kind of overreach, and will be alert for OSHA’s next draft.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    899

    Post imported post

    If by "Just In" you mean "previously posted by spy1 on 16 July" then you are correct Just giving you a hard time DeadCenter!!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Lower End of NoVa, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    719

    Post imported post

    Ok -- My Bad -- I did not look before posting.

    DC



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •