Go to the Option 4 drop down menu and select "Document ID"
Key this ID in to the action box ... OSHA-2007-0032
Click on the SUBMIT button

OSHA has proposed rules that may adversely affect the transportation of black and smokeless powder, primers and small arms ammunition, and may affect prices and availability. Below are some sections of the proposed rule (55 PDF pages) that I felt had a direct impact on shooters.

Comments in italics are mine. Bolding is also mine.

Explosive. This term would be defined to mean any device, or liquid
or solid chemical compound or mixture, the primary or common purpose of
which is to function by explosion. The term ``explosive'' would be
defined to include all material included as a Class 1 explosive by DOT
in accordance with 49 CFR chapter I. The term would include, but would
not be 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 (c)(1)(ii) would require the employer to ensure that only
persons trained in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section handle
or use explosives. Loading and unloading of explosives are examples of
handling, and blasting of slag pockets is an example of the use of
explosives. This is a new requirement that reinforces the importance of
training for all employees engaged in the handling and use of
explosives.

Paragraph (c)(1)(vii) would require the employer to ensure that no
person is allowed to enter facilities containing explosives, or to
transport, handle, or use explosives while under the influence of
intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or other drugs that may cause the
person to act in an unsafe manner in the workplace. Due to safety
considerations, OSHA is proposing that such persons be completely
restricted from access to a facility where explosives are manufactured
or stored as well as restricting them from the handling and
transportation of explosives.
This would appear to require some sort of drug testing to be in compliance.

Paragraph (c)(1)(ix) would require the employer to ensure that no
flammable cleaning solvents are present in facilities containing
explosives except where authorized by the employer and where their
presence does not endanger the safety of employees. This is a new
requirement and is based on a recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).
Due to their potential to create a fire and thus cause an explosion, it
is generally not safe to have flammable cleaning solvents in facilities
containing explosives.

Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require the employer to ensure that the
primary electrical supply to any part of the facility (e.g., building,
loading dock, etc.) containing explosives can be disconnected at a safe
remote location away from that part of the facility. A safe remote
location from a part of the facility containing explosives is a
location far enough away to ensure that, if all the explosives in that
part of the facility detonated, a person at the remote location would
not be injured by the explosion. In determining what a safe remote
location is, the employer will need to consider factors such as the
type and amount of explosives present.
This is a new requirement
Would this even be possible in a small gunshop?

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) deals with safety hazards caused by
electrical storms. During the approach and progress of an electrical
storm, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) would require the employer to ensure
that all explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are suspended,
and paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
employees located in or near facilities containing explosives, or in
blast sites, are withdrawn immediately to a safe remote location. A
safe remote location in this case would be a location far enough away
from all the explosives in the facility or blast site so that a person
would not be injured if there were an explosion. These proposed
requirements are based on therequirements in existing paragraph (e)(1)(vii)(a) which requires
employers to remove employees from the blasting area during the
approach and progress of an electrical storm. However, proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) has been expanded to require the suspension of
explosive manufacturing operations and proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B)
also requires the immediate withdrawal of employees located near
explosives. This reduces the time the employees are exposed to a
potential hazard. The expansion of the existing requirement is in
recognition that an electrical storm may be hazardous to employees at
facilities and blast sites containing explosives and that employees
need to be kept a safe distance away from a potential explosion. This
is standard practice in the industry and is consistent with a
recommendation in the Petition (Ex. 2-1).

Static electricity as a potential source of ignition is probably
the single greatest concern for facilities and blast sites containing
explosives. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) recommends new requirements for
static electricity protection that would require any new static
electricity protection system to comply with NFPA 77, Static
Electricity (Ex. 2-7). However, it recommended limiting the application
of the requirements only to systems installed after the effective date
of the new standard and would not require an existing manufacturing
facility to install a new system or modify an existing system to meet
the requirements of NFPA 77. IME informed OSHA that certain explosives
are not static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further
argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the
requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec. 1910.119, areas in an
explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection
systems may be needed should already have been identified through the
process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate
safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM
standard.
OSHA believes that static electricity protection systems can be
important safety features for facilities containing explosives. The
Agency considered proposing a requirement in paragraph (c) that would
require the employer to ensure that all facilities containing
explosives have appropriate and effective static electricity protection
systems, with suggested methods of compliance found in NFPA 77. The
Agency decided not to propose such language because it lacked
sufficient data and information on the types and effectiveness of
static electricity protection systems. OSHA is seeking additional
information on these issues through public comments.

The hazards of flame, matches, and spark producing devices are
dealt with in proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) by requiring the
employer to ensure that no open flames, matches, or spark producing
devices are located within 50 feet of explosives or facilities
containing explosives. As mentioned earlier, ``facilities containing
explosives'' refers to any building on a site where explosives are
manufactured, handled or stored.
Stripsearch customers?

Issue #4: OSHA seeks specific comments on the impact proposed
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) would have on the storage and retail sale of
small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants.
Do open flames, matches, or spark producing devices create a hazard
when located within 50 feet of small arms ammunition, small arms
primers, or smokeless propellants, or facilities containing these
products? Can employers involved in the storage or retail sale of small
arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants prevent
all open flames, matches, or spark producing devices from coming within
50 feet of these products or facilities containing these products? If
not, why not? Should proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) use a protective
distance other than 50 feet and, if so, what distance should it be and
why? Should OSHA exclude small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and
smokeless propellants from the requirements of proposed paragraph
(c)(3)(iii)?

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C) would require the employer to
ensure that no person carries firearms, ammunition, or similar articles
in facilities containing explosives
No armed employees in gunshops? No legally-armed customers? How about cops?

Issue #9: Should OSHA require lightning protection systems for any
facility that contains ammonium nitrate or explosives? What would these
systems cost?

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) addresses general provisions associated
with the transportation of explosives. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)
would require the employer to ensure that no employee smokes, carries
matches or any other flame-producing device, or carries any firearms or
cartridges (except firearms and cartridges required to be carried by
guards) while in, or within 25 feet (7.63m) of, a vehicle containing
explosives.

Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would require the employer to ensure that
explosives are not transferred from one vehicle to another without
informing local fire and police departments. This will help to ensure
that the transfer is performed in a safe manner. In addition, a
competent person must supervise the transfer of explosives. This is
applicable to all transfer work whether it is done within private
facilities or on public highways.
UPS, Fed-ex & DHL will just love this.

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require the employer to ensure that
small arms ammunition is separated from flammable liquids, flammable
solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with at least a
1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least 25 feet.
Small gunshops better get bigger.

Paragraph (h)(3)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that no
more than 20 pounds of smokeless propellants, in containers not to
exceed 1 pound, are displayed in a commercial establishment.

Paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) would require the employer to ensure that
small arms ammunition primers be separated from flammable liquids,
flammable solids, and oxidizing materials by a fire barrier wall with
at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating or by a distance of at least
25 feet.

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.

Issue #21: Proposed paragraphs (h)(3)(i)(B) and (h)(4)(i)(C) place
restrictions on the quantity of smokeless propellants and small arms
primers, respectively, that can be displayed in commercial
establishments. Should OSHA further clarify the quantity limitations
for smokeless propellants and small arms primers to allow multiple
displays in commercial establishments? If so, what quantities should be
allowed and should the quantities be based on the size of the
commercial establishment? Should there be a minimum distance between
displays to ensure employee safety? Should the same limitations placed
on commercial establishments also apply to gun shows?

Paragraph (j) Training. Proposed paragraph (j) is new and contains
proposed training requirements for employees in the explosives
industry.
This proposes training and re-training commensurate with each employee's duties and the requisite record-keeping.


We all need to get the NRA and GOA involved. It may be our only chance.

OSHA cant find ther ass with two hands and a flashlight.I expect this to go nowhere!!!!

quote:

OSHA cant find ther ass with two hands and a flashlight.I expect this to go nowhere!!!!

That's what we thought about H.R. 2640!!

Don't put it past the liberals to use this as a means to stop us. Inaction will only aid their cause. Remember the arsenel definitions of a few years back. Having a brick of 22 ammo would have put you in that catagory. Think what 10s of thousands of primers and lbs of powder would do!

It's beeen a number of years since I've read anything on the topic of the dangers of posed by loaded ammunition, loading components, etc., but IIRC black powder may be the only real culprit, although primers are also a possibility. The difference is the exposures to which they are exposed. Are primers dangerous in a fire? I don't know if loaded ammunition is a bad actor.

I would hope that the NRA is on the job!

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

Please take the time to click the above link. You can post comments pertaining to OSHA's proposed regulations. The deadline for doing so is July 12.

Once you get to the main page, scroll down the list till you see OSHA(near the bottom of the list}. Next to advanced search, type in explosives, then click submit. You will be taken to a page where you can submit your concerns.

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

Please take the time to click the above link. You can post comments pertaining to OSHA's proposed regulations. The deadline for doing so is July 12.

Once you get to the main page, scroll down the list till you see OSHA(near the bottom of the list}. Next to advanced search, type in explosives, then click submit. You will be taken to a page where you can submit your concerns.

Thanks for posting this important information.

Good shooting,
desmobob

OSHA is another agency that exist just to screw the public..

I am aware of a local firm, knowing the owner whom is a multi millionare...

But OSHA shows up about every 9 months to a year to his business...

He usually, intercepts them, take them up to his office, and opens his check book and asks how much.. writes them a check between $3k to $5,000 and they leave...
No inspections... just sign a form they present him with, give them a check.. and they are on their way until next year...

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:
I am aware of a local firm, knowing the owner whom is a multi millionare...

But OSHA shows up about every 9 months to a year to his business...

He usually, intercepts them, take them up to his office, and opens his check book and asks how much.. writes them a check between $3k to $5,000 and they leave...
No inspections... just sign a form they present him with, give them a check.. and they are on their way until next year...

Do you actually believe this?

I know personally that the FEC will threaten "alleged over-contributors" with legal charges unless they pay "X dollars" in "fines" to the FEC. The fines are frequently just a little less than retaining a good lawyer in DC. If the FEC does that, I don't doubt that OSHA does also.

The Sky is falling,the sky is falling!!!!!!

This was covered over at AR-15.com.

In a small nutshell...

The act will bring OSHA regulations up the the same as DOT. DOT sets regs for shipping hazmats.

The changes are at the request of SAAMI.

To the end user, nothing will change.

But feel free to panic anyways.

McCray, under the new regulations, only 20 lbs. of smokeless powder, in cannisters no larger than 1 lb and only 10,000 primers may be displayed in a commercial building at any time. Most of us like to buy our powder in 8 lb. cannisters. Well, not anymore if the new regs go through. There is also a provision that forbids anyone from possessing a firearm or ammunition in a building where powder or primers are stored. You think these aren't changes?

Guys,

The proposed rule is worth readying and commenting on as you are allowed to do.

The definition within the rule reads:

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.

The entire text of the proposed rule:

Link to proposed rule

Hope the interpretation from my reading turns out to be incorrect, but if it is not ... we have a very serious problem!

OSHA has destroyed more commercial businesses and even govenment entities than any of the other federal bureaucratic nightmares combined. Before I retired from the USAF in '75 they essentially closed down our weather maintenance detachment because we used mercury in our barometers and thermometers. (The details are far too complicated for this post but be assured we were in compliance with current regualtions and were very aware of the negative properties of mercury and used every reasonable precaution in handling and storing it.)Everyone had better be scared of the potential damage OSHA can bring down on us even if it defies logic, logic is not in their vocabulary.

For those of you who still refuse to believe, check out this link to the NSSF page

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

quote:

OSHA-2007-0032

off of the web site for this assholes..

Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the proposed rule by July 12, 2007. They may submit comments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal; by sending three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350; or by FAX to (202) 693-1648. Comments must include the Agency name and the Docket Number this rulemaking, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032. See the Federal Register notice for more information on submitting comments.

When are we going to have an armed revolt in this country?????

Is there ONE government agency that exists for something otherwise than screwing the public over????

quote:

McCray, under the new regulations, only 20 lbs. of smokeless powder, in cannisters no larger than 1 lb and only 10,000 primers may be displayed in a commercial building at any time. Most of us like to buy our powder in 8 lb. cannisters

Note the word "DISPLAYED". The shops can still carry bigger kegs, they are simply limited in how they display them. Most fire regulations demand large amounts be kept in a locker anyway and not on shelfs. There historicly has been a limit as to how much total wgt a shop can display and be legal under fire regs in most areas. As Molar said the idea is to make the laws more uniform and accually change little if anything.

Realizing that my comments to OSHA as a citizen will not carry much weight, I have decided to take another approach. I contacted several powder and primer companies in case they did not know the deadline for submission of comments is July 12. So far, I have contacted Hodgdon, Alliant, Western Powders, Vihtavhouri, ATK/CCI/FED, and magtech. Did I miss any? Notice I did not list Big Green and Winchester, as these companies do not give a shit about the customer, thus do not provide contact info. If this issue can be construed as a restraint of free trade then we might stand a chance.

I downloaded the 55 page proposal, and went to the site to try and file a public opinion on it...

you need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to even try to figure out the darn method for filing a statement...

Then they want an electronic statement in triplicate??? Send them 3 emails saying the same thing???? OSHA is a classic example of how screwed up the Federal Government has become..

and as said above.. how many businesses has this outfit destroyed? when they come to inspect a business.. you can just have them come into your office, write them out a check, and they will leave immediately, until same time next year...

they aren't protecting anything except their own personal job security.... creating problems that don't exist, so we 'need them' to solve them...

Jihad on OSHA....

Sounds like time to hassle a worthless congress critter or two to see how big their hands are.

Here is Hodgon's reply. I feel a little better about the issue.

Thanks for writing. This topic has been around for some time and we have been involved in educating OSHA about the issue. Not only are independent companies involved but the industry as a whole is involved through the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

We really do not think these proposals have much of a chance. They are now going after HUGE money with the ammunition industry. ATK, which owns Federal and CCI is the largest munitions contractor in the world and Olin, which owns Winchester Ammunition is one of the largest Chemical companies providing materials to the U.S. Government. These two big boys are in the fight and they are working with the rest of us to suppress this action

For a complete listing of all rifle, pistol and shotshell reloading recipes for Hodgdon, IMR and Winchester Smokeless Propellants, go to www.hodgdon.com and use the Reloading Data Center

Mike Daly
Customer Satisfaction Manager
The Hodgdon Powder Company Family of Propellants:
Hodgdon Smokeless powders
Pyrodex Muzzleloading Propellants
Triple Seven Muzzleloading Propellants
IMR Smokeless Powders
Winchester Smokeless Powders

The NRA just issued a Federal Action Alert concerning the new OSHA Prop[osed Rules. Proposed “Safety†Regulations Would Dry Up Ammunition Sales
Just becaust the Big Boys are involved doesn't mean they will be looking after your and my interest. If the change(s) are not excessive the firearms industry would pass any additional costs along to their customers. As an example I can just see UPS and FEDEX charging Haz Mat for ammo. To cover my ass I am going to send a comment to OSHA before the deadline and hope that forum members will to.

btt

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:
When are we going to have an armed revolt in this country?????

Is there ONE government agency that exists for something otherwise than screwing the public over????

Probably when we stop pussifying everyone and go back to being men.

There has been a long running thread on another board, "Shotgun World" on the same topic. Here is an excerpt from a post from a wise gentleman called Case that offers a easy way to post your opinions to OSHA. Reguardless of what big boys are in this fight, we owe it to ourselves and the sport to pick up the banner and fight this one.

Here it is:

****************

Here's an easier, more direct method for sending your support request for the 60-day extension for public comments:

Couch it in your own words if you like, but it won't be any weaker if you just use the NSSF form letter. Bureaucrats are used to this by now. Besides, the Submitter Information you fill in will tell OSHA who you're a specific idividual.

Go here:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

Ignore the first three steps and use Step 4.

Select Document ID as the category.

Enter OSHA-2007-0032 in the search field. Click Submit.

When the search results come up, go to the far right and click on the Comments icon:

Fill out the required fields (red asterisks) in the Submitter Information. In the required Company/Organization Name field, just put "Individual" or "Concerned citizen."

Copy and paste the bold text below in the comment area, optionally replacing those two inserts with the date and your name. If you don't want to include that information, just delete those entries. The system will record the message date.

Click Next step, which will send you to an Edit/Review of your submission.

Just click Submit on that page.

----------

[REPLACE WITH THE DATE OF SUBMISSION]

OSHA Docket Office
Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
U.S. Department of Labor
Room N–2625 200
Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on
“Significant Regulatory Action†as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Dear Secretary Chao:

I am writing to request an extension for public comment set to expire on July 12, 2007 for Preliminary & Initial General Observations on OSHA Explosives Proposed Rule (29 CFR Part 1910) - Published at Federal Register Vo. 72, No. 71, at P. 18792 (April 13, 2007).

After reviewing the proposed regulations it is my belief that the proposed rule is a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Sec. 1(f)(1) in that it will clearly "adversely affect in a material way" the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars.

Below is a bulleted list of what I am most concerned about:

* Massive Costs: The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached. The proposal mistakenly states that this is an industry standard practice. A retailer would have to do likewise. Thus retailers, such as Wal-Mart, selling ammunition would have to close down and evacuate customers. This is simply not realistic.

* Exacerbate Ammunition Shortage to DoD and Law Enforcement: The proposed rule has major National security and homeland defense implications. There is already a shortage of ammunition for our troops and law enforcement. The Department of Defense has contracted to purchase ammunition from the commercial market because the Department's arsenal cannot meet demand. The rule will delay production and massively increase prices, making the ammunition shortage even more severe. In addition, the rule applies to the DoD arsenal, which is run by a commercial manufacturer under DoD contract.

* Unrealistic Assumptions: Portions of the proposed rule are not feasible and cannot realistically be complied with. The concept of evacuation to "a safe remote location" in case of thunderstorms or accident is untenable to manufacturers and retailers and is in disagreement with the DoD Safety Manual for Ammunition and Explosives.

* One Size Fits All Approach: The provisions in this proposal treat all explosives as if they have the same degree of hazard to employees. Retail outlets for small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants, including massive facilities such as Wal-Mart, must maintain a fifty-foot barrier and specifically authorize all customers to enter only after searching them for matches or lighters (c.3.iii.A) and determining that they are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol (c.1.vii). This is despite the fact that small arms ammunition is extremely safe even when subjected to open flame, heat and shock. A customer still wouldn’t be able to purchase the ammunition because under this rule they are not allowed to carry it from the counter to the exit (c.3.iii.C). Even more damaging, the many “mom and pop†firearm outlets located in strip malls would be forced to shutdown as they have neighbor stores fewer than 50-feet away.

* Shipping is Halted: Proposed restrictions on transportation exceed current DOT Regulations. Mandating wood-covered, non-spark-producing material in trailers for small arms ammunition shipments would bring the transportation of ammunition to a near halt. There are simply not enough trailers in existence today that would be able to substitute for traditional, metal covered surfaces. Small package carriers such as UPS and Fed-Ex would be prohibited from carrying ammunition and components which would shut down mail order houses such as Cabalas and Bass pro shops and many business to business transactions. This section alone, with all it would entail (such as two drivers at all times), is capable of paralyzing our industry.

* National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) Rules Exceeded: Proposed restrictions exceed NFPA regulations and would, for example, reduce commercial establishment displays of smokeless propellant from 50 to 20 lbs with no commensurate increase in safety. This will only add to dramatically increasing the cost to manufacturers and consumers.

It bears noting that scientific testing and safety records clearly illustrate that small arms ammunition is inherently an extremely safe product. I cannot recall a single instance where fire, shock, heat or lightening has resulted in injury from the accidental detonation of small-caliber ammunition. Billions of rounds of ammunition are sold each year in the U.S. and records demonstrate that current production and safety requirements are working.

I urge OSHA to grant an extension to this critical regulatory process.
Sincerely,

[REPLACE WITH YOUR NAME]

----------

So far, OSHA has received very few comments on this proposal.

Even if you've already left a comment, leave this one, too!

Here is CCI/ATK's response

Adam: we are working the issue as is the whole Industry through SAAMI,
NSSF and NRA. It is buzzing over this proposal and the "political
rhetoric" is heating as we speak. I've had calls from other
manufacturers all day, seems this did not surface until about 6-28-07.
Thanks for letting us know!
Shoot Straight!
Coy Getman
2299 Snake River Ave.
Lewiston, ID 83501
(800) 627-3640
CCI/Speer Technical Coordinator


I am now convinced that this is another backdoor attempt at gun control by the left. The proposal was written back in April and it was hidden from a company as large as CCI until 6-28-07, a couple of weeks before public comment was set to expire. Sounds fishy to me.

I've been trying to send a comment on this issue since I first saw it last week. however, everytime I click the "next step" button, the site stalls and gives me a "IE cannot display the webpage"

Sombody send an extra one for me

quote:

Originally posted by CharlieHo:
I've been trying to send a comment on this issue since I first saw it last week. however, everytime I click the "next step" button, the site stalls and gives me a "IE cannot display the webpage"

Sombody send an extra one for me

I guess it doesn't matter now. OSHA grants extension!!!

LINK

It DOES matter now! We need everyone who can operate a computer or send a FAX to comment to the EPA that the proposed rule is NUTS.

Otherwise, it will very much adversely impact all participants in the shooting sports ... especially reloaders who are trying to support a costly endeavor (IPSC IDPA, SASS, etc) or who are providing themselves with dependable ammunition for unusual calibers (like us guys who are reloading for big game rifles)!

Just wanted to remind everyone to send comments to OSHA, as well as their representatives and senators. Just because their is a 6 month extension, we must not become complacent. We must fight this. Pass the word on to all your aquantainces whom might be interested.

OSHA contact fax# 202-693-1648
phone # 202-693-2350

Here is a sample letter that I just sent to my congressman.

Dear Senator Alexander,

I am writting to inform you of OHSA's proposed rule governing small arms ammunition, primers, and smokeless propellants. If enacted, the regulation would cripple the ammunition industry and shooting sports. The regulation would put an end to the shipment of ammunition and components by common carriers such as FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc. Also, retailers would only be allowed to display a very limited number of primers and powder cannisters. According to the NRA, the cost for retailers to comply with the new standards would far exceed 100 million dollars. Smaller retailers could not afford to comply and would be forced out of business. This proposal is a contradiction to the American idea of capitalism and should be construed as a restraint of free trade.
My initial reaction to the proposed regulation was that it was written by someone who simply lacks knowledge of the ammunition industry. However, after learning that Senators Clinton, Kennedy, and Obama are on the OSHA oversight committee, I am not so sure. These three are not friends of the second amendment. I believe this is just another backdoor attempt at gun control by the left. In any case, these proposed changes to the existing regulations are not warranted and are simply a solution to a problem that does not exist. Please use your influence to convince OSHA that these regulations are not acceptable.

Sincerely,

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

go to the far right part of the screen and click on Add a Comment...

As with anything to do with the government the entire thing is a cluster fuck!

I live in Illinois. No point in writing to my Senators. I DID post the comment though.
Rich Elliott

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
OSHA cant find ther ass with two hands and a flashlight.I expect this to go nowhere!!!!

OLBIKER, That's not quite correct. OSHA couldn't find their asses with a flashlight and a 10 man working party while seated! Jim

I have posted my thoughts on the OSHA site previously; however, I don't feel it serves any useful purpose to write the Sentaors and my District Congressman from the State of Maryland.

I have written these folks before and eiither receive no reply or worse a canned reply from a staffer that does not address the topic. In response to a message concerning the Constituional issues with the proposed Gonzales/Lautenberg bill I received the following from my representative. They did not read the mail, did not note the Contitutional issues, and failed to show any interest whatsoever!

"Thank you for contacting me to express your views about gun control legislation. I appreciate hearing from you about this important matter and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Sadly, gun violence is far too common in American society. While I acknowledge your view that law-abiding citizens should have the prerogative to own firearms, I believe it is important to put in place measures that prevent criminals from accessing dangerous weapons. As such, I support vigorous enforcement of background checks and other measures that prevent gun violence."

WTF?! For those of you that don't bother writing b/c you think it won't do any good, are you going to be OK with new laws when they take _ALL_ your rights away? United we stand people...Don't take a sideline approach.

Who specifically is sponsoring this bill? Is it just OSHA? Who is behind it? there has to be a name or names. Time to call them out.

quote:

Originally posted by Iron Buck:
Who specifically is sponsoring this bill? Is it just OSHA? Who is behind it? there has to be a name or names. Time to call them out.

Well, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Osama Bin Obama are all on the OSHA oversight committee. I think it is safe to say this proposed regulation is indeed an attempt at backdoor gun control. For those of you fortunate enough to have Republican senators, you might mention these three bastards role in OSHA in your letter.

Does any of this have anything at all to do with the fact that I can not buy bulk primers at the local sportsman’s warehouse? They are out of everything that has to do with rifles. I asked the guy that works there if they will be getting more, he could only say "he hopes so" They have people calling from all over Western PA trying to get primers from them & they have nothing

I also love the fact that it is SOOOO easy to officially comment on this proposed policy. Do they make it that hard on purpose or are they really that stupid? My bet is.............dumb like a fox. Yes I believe this is a back door attempt at gun control.

It is time to act. I only hope that it does matter. I think if the Dems see that they will be associated with the (or should I say as the?) "gun grabbers" during an election year that they will back off.

Government agencies exist to "help" us. They also like to help themselves by growing ever more bloated each year. Expanding demands they find new "hazards" to protect us from. When they run out of real hazards they try to become "proactive", meaning they seek to "correct" things BEFORE anything does wrong. This new effort is not aimed, per se, at hunters/shooters, it is intended to be pro-active in ways that will, if passed, force congress to expand their agency. That will, of course, open more doors for promotions for them, all so they can protect us from ourselves more effectively. And it feeds their government egos to be able to push the public around too.

I was a site Safety Officer at a federal agency operation for eight years. Not only did I have to put up with my customer agency's BS, I had to do it with OSHA too. I KNOW what I'm saying about their mindset and attitudes!