New OSHA Rulemaking-Black & Smokeless Powder, Primers, Ammo

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Car Knocker, Jun 27, 2007.

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

    skinnyguy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    511
    Location:
    Tooele, Utah
    OSHA, the very same organization that said that pushing a 72-inch dustmop is dangerous. Problem is, we can no longer get 72-inch dustmops.

    no further comment, my thoughts are off-topic and not very High Road.
     
  2. donttellthewife

    donttellthewife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Oregon
    Here is more from OSHA. It's this kind of stuff that gets the blood boiling. Soon we won't need borders, anyone can come and anyone anywhere can govern us.
    This is just busy work to justify their jobs at the expensive of our way of life.



    U.S. Department of Labor
    Occupational Safety & Health Administration
    www.osha.gov MyOSHA [skip navigational links] Search Advanced Search | A-Z Index

    OSHA News Release
    2007 - 04/12/2007 - OSHA Issues Proposed Rule on Explosives

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

    OSHA News Release - Table of Contents
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Trade News Release
    April 12, 2007
    Contact: OSHA Office of Communications
    Phone: (202) 693-1999


    OSHA Issues Proposed Rule on Explosives

    WASHINGTON -- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the Explosives and Blasting Agents standard in the April 13, 2007 Federal Register. The proposed rule aims to enhance the protections provided to employees working in the manufacturing, storage, sale, transportation, handling, and use of explosives. The agency is accepting public comments on the proposed standard until July 12, 2007.

    "OSHA's standard has been largely unchanged since the Agency adopted it in 1971," said OSHA Administrator Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., "and it is important that we update our standards so they reflect advances in technology and work processes that have increased workplace safety."

    The proposal updates and clarifies the regulatory language, revises the standard to be consistent with other Federal regulations, incorporates updated consensus standards, and provides the regulated community with greater compliance flexibility.

    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.

    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.

    Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthful workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to assure the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.


    ###

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Labor Department news releases are accessible on the Internet at www.dol.gov. The information in this news release will be made available in alternate format upon request (large print, Braille, audio tape or disc) from the COAST office. Please specify which news release when placing your request at (202) 693-7765 or TTY (202) 693-7755. The U.S. Department of Labor is committed to providing America's employers and employees with easy access to understandable information on how to comply with its laws and regulations. For more information, please visit www.dol.gov/compliance.

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

    OSHA News Release - Table of Contents




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

    Back to Top www.osha.gov www.dol.gov

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Contact Us | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey
    Privacy and Security Statement | Disclaimers
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Occupational Safety & Health Administration
    200 Constitution Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20210
     
  3. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    So where's the NRA on this?
     
  4. joe4702

    joe4702 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    340
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    So now OSHA is gonna take a crack at trashing gun rights? I guess if you can't get what you want via Congress or the Courts, try using regulatory agencies. Where's the Bush "the 2A is an individual right" Administration on this?

    PS
    Where are the stats on the number of employee deaths and injuries due to the current way primers and powder are manufactured, transported, displayed and sold?
     
  5. scout26

    scout26 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,622
    Location:
    Illinois - The Deadbeat State
    Should we send them a copy of Hatcher's Notebook ????
     
  6. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    I'm looking at this more closely, and among the comments at the beginning are:
    Now that's as far as I've gotten, and things are not always as they seem, and I plan to read further, and carefully, but with language like this is it possible we're overreacting?
     
  7. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Reading on, there is lots of gobbleygook about OSHA's authority vis-a-vis BATF and DOT. Then we come to this:
     
  8. EOD Guy

    EOD Guy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    What do you think UPS, FedEx and DHL are?

    They are common carriers.

    The US has been using those systems for many years and has made life a lot easier for those of us who ship hazardous materials.
     
  9. EOD Guy

    EOD Guy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    It's not only possible, but apparant that most of the people panacking have not read or do not understand the proposed rule. There is very little being proposed that is not already in other regulations. The main purpose seems to be elimination of overlaping and duplicative regulations.
     
  10. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Reading on, I see lots of language that seems simply to bring the regs into conformity with current NFPA codes. However, this one alarms me:
    Wouldn't this prevent the sale of 5 and 8 lb canisters of smokeless powder?
     
  11. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    There's a great deal in "Issue's" 19-21 that go beyond my ability to quickly comprehend, but which I think would be of interest/concern to any gunshop or commercial vendor that retails smokeless powder and primers. I would think that these vendors surely have an industry group to review these regs and comment on their behalf. And should!

    But for those of us who are concerned about being able to continue to buy powder and primers and have them shipped by FedEx, UPS, or DHL, I have yet to find the language in this proposal that indicates that. I'm not saying it is not there. But I am saying that alarmists have a responsibity to back up their alarms, and so far, I'm not seeing it.
     
  12. EOD Guy

    EOD Guy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    No, they just couldn't be displayed. They would be stored in a place not accessable to the public, like a back storeroom. An empty container or signage indicating availability could be displayed.
     
  13. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Moderator In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    46,725
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Primers: Large and small rifle; large and small pistol. Then, same for magnum. That's eight kinds of primers. Next, you have CCI, Winchester, Remington and Federal. (Plus?) Anyhow, just to have one of each showing on a shelf, that's 32 cartons of 1,000.

    Similar problem with powder--except much, much moreso.

    Might's well just put up a sign saying, "Yes, we have XXXXX; just ask."

    Gotta pay somebody to be asked, right? Or, it's time used up in answering questions that otherwise would be self-explanatory.

    IOW, raises stores' cost of doing business. That means higher prices to us.

    Art
     
  14. ArcherandShooter

    ArcherandShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Llano, TX
    Not legal-ese, but here's what I posted...

    *****************************************
    I do not believe these regulations are well thought-out or even necessary. They have no protection for individuals engaged in the lawful, personal collection and use of firearms, or for the already over-regulated businesses manufacturing, buying, selling and maintaining firearms and ammunition (i.e., our friendly neighborhood gun shops, gunsmiths, hunting supply stores, and shooting ranges, as well as the American industries supporting them).

    The proposed regulations ought, in fact, to state that they pertain solely to the industrial use of significant quantities of explosives for purposes such as structural demolition, mining, quarrying, and road or tunnel construction, which are OSHA's traditional areas of concern.

    In the absence of such limitations, these proposed regulations are so broad as to potentially be a potent weapon for a non-legislated assault on American's Second Amendment freedoms.

    I do not claim they are intended for that purpose, but the possibility is chilling enough to warrant specific exclusion in the language of the regulations themselves.

    Respectfully,

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

    I noticed that the page where you submit comments also asks for the name of your congress-critter. Which reminded me to send him (Ted Poe, a real hero) a copy along with a note asking his help.

    Now, if you agree that these are a bad idea, go do thou likewise.
     
  15. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    From the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

    Proposed OSHA Regulation Threatens
    Firearm and Ammunition Industry

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.

    As written, 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 our industry. This is not an exaggeration. 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 and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

    NSSF and SAAMI have already had a preliminary meeting with OSHA officials to begin the process of explaining to them the major problems this proposed rule presents for all levels of the firearms and ammunition industry. Furthermore, NSSF and SAAMI are each seeking a 60 day extension of the public comment period (currently scheduled to expire July 12).

    NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(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.

    Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:

    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

    Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

    Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.
    http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=BP070207.cfm
     
  16. joe4702

    joe4702 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    340
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
  17. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Now we are getting somewhere, finding out about the real problems with these regs. I went back and found the section about no matches or lighters within 50 feet of explosives. Just as alarming to me was a section that followed:
    Now they've defined explosives as:
    So, on a strict reading of (C) we cannot carry a firearm into a place that has ammunition? Forget concealed carry into Gandar Mountain. They wouldn't even be allowed to have firearms and ammo under the same roof? Or similarly, how could a gunstore sell both firearms and display/sell firearms or powder?

    Okay, I'm going to join the protest. I'll email the request asking for more time. Plus, I'll ask my congress critters to look into this, as well as NRA.
     
  18. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    I've emailed and left a voice message with NRA-ILA encourating them to get involved. I've used the NRA-ILA action site to send letters to my congress critters (well, one Senator and my Representative; the other Senator is too much the joke for me to take seriously).
     
  19. mec

    mec Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,568
    here is the comment page. Right now USSF and others are meeting with OSHA commisars regarding the impact of the proposal I couldn't tell if my letter went through or not.
    http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

    Here is a template letter being circulated by the industry Notice there is no raving about anti-americans or communists. They know what they are and it doesn't bother them:
    July 3, 2007

    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,
     
  20. mec

    mec Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,568
    and The NRA letter:

    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. For instance, the rules against leaving any vehicle containing “explosives” unattended would make it impossible for companies such as United Parcel Service to deliver ammunition to businesses or consumers without massive changes in their operations (such as putting a second driver on any truck that might happen to deliver a case of shotgun shells).

    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,
     
  21. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    From another thread, someone posted the following link to NRA-ILA:

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

    So it looks like my call worked. :) (Okay, probably mine and a horde of others.)

    But I'm confused, because the NRA, and others, are saying that the regs would affect transportation, despite the language I cite and highlight above where OSHA says otherwise. I'm going to nail this down, and if the proposed regs will indeed affect the shipping of ammo, powder, and primers, play this against the OSHA quote as evidence that the regs are internally inconsistent and ill conceived, in my comments on the proposed regs.
     
  22. Buck Nekkid

    Buck Nekkid Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    392
    Location:
    Deep in The Heart of Texas
    Folks this is not a benign threat, but a very real affront to our Second Amendment rights! OSHA MUST be stopped from implementing these proposals. It seems that an alphabet agency will accomplish with the stroke of a pen what the Brady Campaign has been attempting for all of these years.

    If NSSF, SAAMI and now the NRA are concerned, then pardner we better all be too!!
     
  23. Jacka L Ope

    Jacka L Ope Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    Washington State
    Submitted comment against this "rule" + emailed to all my family and friends. thumbs.gif
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2007
  24. mec

    mec Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,568
    The nra thing is in the read column on the right side of the page
    www.nraila.org

    they also have a search function to find your legislator for write/ e-mail links.

    One of the first things the Consumer Products Safety commission did was propose banning handgun ammunition. We overloaded their switchboard on that one and the Legislature came back and took all gun regulations out of their jurisdiction. The leftists are complaining about that now too.
     
  25. scout26

    scout26 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,622
    Location:
    Illinois - The Deadbeat State
    Youbetcha.


    49 CFR http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/49cfrv2_01.html
    Covers the handling and transportation of Hazmat. DOT writes 49 CFR. Anyone here beleive that if one part of the government (say OHSA) says that ammo is an "Explosive" the other part (say the DOT) won't say "Yep, you right it is an 'Explosive'."

    Right now ammunition is considered ORM-D (Consumer Commidity), basically the same as any HAZMAT you have under the kitchen/bathroom sink, or out in the garage like bleach, ammonia, laundry detergent, scrubbing bubbles, motor oil, and other cleaning/automotive products. No real special rules for Shipping, Handling or Storage, other then "Don't spill it, and if you do call the pro's to clean it up."

    Here's ways why these proposed rule changes are evil:
    1. You need a permit from the .gov to have "Explosives", you don't need one for ORM-D or Consumer Commidities. The key is that you can currently go and buy these over the counter without a permit. Try going to buy some "Explosives" anywhere without a permit. If you're not immediately arrested, then you'll sure be on at least one "Watch List".

    2. Insurance:
    Call your homeowners agent and see if you have coverage if you suffer a loss (fire/burglary) and there were "Explosives" involved.

    3. Transport:
    I work in the Logistics field. I've worked for Trucking and Air Freight companies. You want to ship 40,000 lbs of ORM-D ??? Heck yeah, we'll take it. Standard rate + $35-$50 additional for HAZMAT fee. What's the fee for you ask ?? To pay for our Hazmat and cleanup insurance. Guess what class of Hazmat we didn't have insurance for ??? Yep, Class 1 Explosives (along with all Class 6 Poison and Class 7 Yellow-II and Yellow-III Radioactive). Why ??? Way to expensive to justify the cost. The trucking company I worked for picked up ammo from CMP all the time and shipped it all over (including to Boy Scout troops in Alaska.) That would pretty much end. Same with DHL/UPS/Fedex. I worked for DHL back when it was Airborne Express. Same story, you want to ship Ammo, no problem it's ORM-D just follow the packaging and weight restrictions in IATA or 49 CFR for Cargo Aircraft and you're good to go. Ship "Explosives" sorry, bud, no can do. No more Yellow/Purple/Brown Truck of Happiness for shooters and reloaders, and pretty much forget about buying/selling/trading ammo/reloading supplies among individuals, like at gun shows.

    So what do we end up with:
    Well, to own ammo you'll need a permit (probably several, from Fed, State, County/Municipal .gov's) to keep it in your home. That will cost $$, a background check, blood and DNA sample and letters of recommendation from your Priest/Rabbi/Guru, Teachers, Boy Scout Pack leader and CLEO signoff. After you taken the Approved Course of Instruction at $75 per hour (40 hour min) Then there's probably a zoning commitee hearing at the local the level where anyone within 20 miles of your home (refered to in the documents as "Ground Zero") can say "No". If you want to reload just think of the above, only 20x worse.

    2. You'll have to get an "Explosives Storage" rider to your homeowners policy. That's gonna be big $$$, if they cover it. If you shoot and/or reload, have a fire/burglary and then your "regular" homeowners insurance will deny coverage because you had "explosives" in your home. Now if you just only had the 2 gallons of bleach, 5 gallons of gasoline, 14 gallons of house paint/wood finish/deck stain/watersealants when the natural gas furnace blew up you'd be covered. But since they found a sleeve of 100 primers (not one of which detonated in the fire) and bottle of Unique with less then 1/4 lb in that melted, but didn't burn, you're SOL.

    3. You think ammo/reloading supplies are expensive now. Just wait. Oh, and be prepared to put "EXPLOSIVES" placards on you car/truck (Front, back and both sides) everytime you go to the range or go buy ammo or even have one lonely .22LR rolling around on the floor boards. Keep the Hazmat paperwork on the Right front seat of the vehicle also. Oh, and don't get pulled over with "Explosives" in the car with out the right placards and paperwork with you.

    This is BAD, BAD, BAD......
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice