1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Proposed OSHA Legislation PLEASE LOOK!!!!

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by krieghoffkrusher, Jul 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. krieghoffkrusher

    krieghoffkrusher TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    298
    Please click on the link above to view the proposed legislation on the table at OSHA. If this passes the ammunition industry as we know it will be gone. This proposal includes non-sense laws like having to close down any ammunition factory if there is a threat of lighting and no person will be able to approach a display of ammunition without being serched for matches or a lighter. Slowly but not so Discretely the left is chipping away at our rights to have firearms!

    http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=BP070207.cfm
     
  2. SShooterZ

    SShooterZ Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    321
    LOL

    You might want to check out the 4 other threads on this topic here in the forum.
     
  3. krieghoffkrusher

    krieghoffkrusher TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    298
    SShooterZ

    Why don't you stick your LOL where the sun don't shine. Better yet, rather than taking the time to criticize someone trying to make and effort to help our pastime, why don't you print the letter of the link I provided and send it to OSHA.

    The fact is I hope 40 more people post this on the site because it cannot be ignored and we need all the help we can get because I'm afraid a large part of our shooting population would rather sit back and poke fun of the people who are making an effort.
     
  4. 870

    870 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,390
    Just to cut down on the confusion, 24str8's take on this above is not correct. The fact that it is not subject to ATF regulation is not the issue. The problem is that because it is not subject to ATF regulation, these draconian OSHA regs are trying to take it over.
     
  5. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    24stra8, you missed the main point. You got sidetracked by OSHA's comment about
    the BATF(E) - this has nothing to do with ATF - it's about OSHA regs for transport and retail sale

    The 55 page OSHA document DOES include ammunition and components like primers and powder.

    What the proposed regulations would do is this:

    1. Make it IMPOSSIBLE for UPS or Fed X to deliver ammo and/or components

    2. Severely limit the ability for retail gun shops to display and sell
    components:(i.e., limit to 20, 1-lb cannisters of powder at a time, or 100-lbs MAX if stored in OSHA approved wooden casks with walls 1" thick); limit to 10,000 primers MAX in a store for retail sale at one time.

    Each 100 -lb order would need to be a separate delivery charge, from a dedicated ammo/component delivery truck

    UPS and Fed X cannot operate this way at all.

    Last but not least, a comment by NSSF that ammo makers, retailers and transporters would need to spend in excess of $100 million to comply with the new regulations essentially putting the commercial ammo business - OUT of business.
     
  6. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    DEFINITION -(i) The term ``explosive'' includes all material included as a Class 1 explosive by DOT in accordance with 49 CFR chapter I. The term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite, black powder, pellet powders, detonators, blasting agents, initiating explosives, blasting caps, safety fuse, fuse lighters, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau detonant fuse, instantaneous fuse, igniter cord, igniters, pyrotechnics, special industrial explosive materials, SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION, small arms ammunition primers, smokeless propellant, cartridges for propellant-actuated power devices, and cartridges for industrial guns.

    Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(C) would require the employer to ensure that no more than 10,000 small arms primers be displayed in a commercial establishment.
     
  7. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    Please read the above it comes straight from the OSHA 55 page doc
     
  8. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "2. Severely limit the ability for retail gun shops to display and sell components:(i.e., limit to 20, 1-lb cannisters of powder at a time, or 100-lbs MAX if stored in OSHA approved wooden casks with walls 1" thick); limit to 10,000 primers MAX in a store for retail sale at one time. "

    You're missing the point. These quantitites refer to *display*. So, gun shop displays 20 # of powder and 10K primers, but has more in the storage room or under the counter. No problem. You are aware, aren't you, that there are already limits on the amount which can be *displayed*; those limits have been in effect for years and have bothered no one.

    The sky is not falling, no matter how loudly the chickens cluck.
     
  9. Jwints525

    Jwints525 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    24
    jnoemanh,
    No offence, but please read the proposed rule further. The new rules severly restrict the storage of primers and smokeless powders kept in storage and require new storage cabinets, etc. that will cost retailers money that will increase costs.
    In addition the requirement to evacuate the facility in the event of a thunderstorm is just unbelieveable. Add to that the requirement that firearms not be allowed in facilities that store "explosives" would require separate ammo facilities separate from gun shops. That's like going to your favorite restaurant for breakfast and having to go to a separate facility to buy coffee!
    On teh other hand OSHA moves slow and they are requesting comment and requests for a hearing so hopefully these rules can be derailed.
     
  10. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "On teh other hand OSHA moves slow and they are requesting comment and requests for a hearing so hopefully these rules can be derailed."

    You're certainly right about that. I worked in the metal finishing industry for 40 years, and I can't count the times a proposed OSHA reg had the Chicken Little's predicting the total and of the business. It never happened. Whatever OSHA proposes, they are required to solicit public comment and to give due consideration. In the end all OSHA regs have been manageable, have put no one except the truly evil out of business, and have saved some number of lives and injuries.

    OSHA is also a nearly toothless tiger. A few years ago, a woman who worked at a local food manufacturer was killed when she fell into a cooking vat. OSHA investigated, found the company guilty of violating safety rules, and fined them $400.

    You may be interested to know why OSHA was created in the first place. Here's the story.

    There was a business in Chicago which reclaimed silver from old film. In their process, they used large quantities of potassium cyanide. They also employed non-english speaking people, mostly Polish refugees. The workers couldn't read the safety warnings on the cyanide containers, but they did understand the skull-and-crossbones logos, and they questioned the company about safety. The companie's response was to remove the labels. Several people were killed. This was the straw which broke the camel's back, and now we have OSHA, which requires labels on all haz materials, and safety training for employees who work with haz materials.

    Yeah, OSHA makes some dumb proposals - lots of them, but history shows that the regs which are finally issued after comment, discussion and negotiation are usually reasonable. AFAIK OSHA has not put anyone out of business except those you and I might agree needed to be put out.

    Other posters have claimed that this is all some sort of liberal plot to get our guns. That's just plain nonsense. It's just OSHA doing what they always do.

    I'm a liberal, and I'm not about to give up my guns. If the g'mint ever tries to take them, you'll find me right alongside the right-wingers in opposition. I don't, however, see any point in raising alarms about some foolish OSHA proposal, probably written by a 23 year old intern. Cooler and more experienced heads will prevail.

    Go bust some targets and don't loose any sleep. Cheers.
     
  11. Bomber61

    Bomber61 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    615
    Guy's

    Rush just mentioned this on the air as a way for people to back door us with firearms. At least we are getting the word out.

    Gary
     
  12. jnoemanh

    jnoemanh TS Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    "Rush just mentioned this on the air as a way for people to back door us with firearms."

    You're getting back-doored alright, by fearmongers like Limbaugh.
     
  13. larryjk

    larryjk Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    519
    jnoemanh, You are wasting your time by asking people to be patient while OSHA is tying the hangman's noose around their neck. The proposed rule making is so stupid in some areas it is obvious they are playing the game of going for the whole bananna and hope we get a little or they aren't awake and we nail them with the whole works. I have seen how OSHA works and this is not some stupid intern writing this rule but some cute bastard hoping they can get away with it.
    I don't want anyone, whether or not they are called Clinton to have a hard-a-- rule at their disposal to cran down my throat.
    You want us to ignore them so they can do what they propose. Is Ms. Brady your benefactor?
     
  14. timb99

    timb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,330
    Location:
    Shawnee, Kansas, USA
    jnoemanh,

    You said, "I'm a liberal, and I'm not about to give up my guns."

    I know liberals who own guns (my brother is one), who talk tough about THEIR guns but are just fine with banning other people's guns. You know, those guns THEY have no need for. Like those evil handguns and "assault rifles" (a.k.a. nothing more than any other semi-auto...just looks scary.)

    The question is, will you be willing to fight to preserve the rights of those other people who do choose to own those guns? You know, those ones you have no need for?

    If not, you're part of the problem.

    By the way, I know Chris Hodgdon of Hodgdon gun powder company, and have spoken with him about this OSHA issue. Chris definitely has his ears perked up about it, because it could directly affect his industry. If he's concerned about it, I don't think this is an "oh, never mind" kind of thing.

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.