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. Vermonter

    Vermonter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    416
    Sent a comment.
     
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,828
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Look at the NRA form letter that they want you to send off to OSHA and politicians. It contains an exaggeration.

    "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."

    This is the part that i have big heart burn with. For one, it is just not true. OSHA proposes no such thing and says so in their proposed rules. Secondly, it does not enhance the credibility of guns rights organizations to put this kind of exaggeration in a form letter and ask their members to send it out to politicians and OSHA. i sincerely hope that no pro-gun senator or pro-gun representative gets egg on their face when they go to bat for us over this one.

    i have been a loyal member of the NRA for 50 years and contribute heavily to our cause. But when they twist the truth it makes me wonder if anyone there knows what they are doing.

    Yes, OSHA is a tyrannical federal regulatory bureauracy. Yes, they can put you out of business. Yes, they do want to regulate ammunition retailers, but it ain't going to fly. No, they are not going to regulate the transportation of small arms ammunition and re-loading components: They make this very plain in their proposed regulation.

    Just read the NSSF form letter. It has the same trash:

    "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."

    Look, i do not want OSHA or anyone else to regulate ammunition retail sales. At the same time we need to be factual about this stuff. No one at the NRA-ILA studied this proposed regulation in detail, it is their job to do so. If they do not have anyone with the expertise to do so, they need to hire an SME. No, i have more work than i can handle.

    Same goes for the NSSF and SAAMI. Now they want us to get up in arms and support their exaggerations. i ain't drinking the Kool Aid.

    EOD Guy called this exactly right.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2007
  3. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,828
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Sorry for the double post.
     
  4. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Oak Run Ca.
    Ammo Prices after this is rammed down our throats (7.62x39= $1.72 per round) (7.62x54 =$2.08 per round) (9mm = $2.00 per round) (.380 = $2.19 per round) (25 auto = $2.49 per round) (38 spcl.=$2.29 per round) (5.56= Not Available Due to war efforts)... and im thinkin these are very Optimistic "LOW BALL" figures...:fire:
     
  5. .cheese.

    .cheese. Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,808
    how did I miss this thread when I started my own on the same thing?

    oh well.

    so what's the latest?
     
  6. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Westminster, MD
    I appolagise if this has been posted already, ive only got a couple minutes, but just recieved this from the NRA-ILA

     
  7. JLStorm

    JLStorm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,131
    Confused about who to write too??

    I am used to writing to my reps and to organizations alike, but I am a bit confused about who I should be writing too. I see I can leave a public comment on the OSHA website, but I think that would only serve as lip service at best. I can write to local and state reps, but I am also unclear which would be keeping tabs on this issue at this point.

    Any idea who exactly I should be targeting here???


    Also, why does it seem like relatively few people are freaking out about this???
     
  8. Blackfork

    Blackfork Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,219
    Location:
    East Texas
    Big Government

    This is what happens when we let government get too big.
     
  9. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    9,067
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    The "O" in OSHA stands for Occupational. I don't see any "P" for Public. Retail stores or their products within the realm of OSHA seems quite a stretch, especially without incidents of the stuff exploding.
     
  10. EOD Guy

    EOD Guy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    Maybe because they aren't buying the outright BS being put out by the NRA and SAAMI.
     
  11. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    The length of this thread, and the fact that it has been duplicated several times now, plus the existence of a viable thread in the Activism forum, not to mention the NRA-ILA and NSSF alerts, show that it is not being ignored.

    I do think you should leave a comment at the .gov link. It is not just lip service. I look at it this way: if we can get enough people to post comments in response to the rulemaking, and get various organizations like NSSF and NRA actively involved, then I think our elected representatives will sit up and take notice. I plan to file substantial comments this week. I will post them via the .gov link, mail them, and, probably, fax them. I fully expect there to be a flurry of comments filed at the last minute, many of them asking for an extension. Once that happens, I plan to contact my elected representatives -- actually again, as I've contacted them already -- to see what they are going to do about it. While OSHA is an administrative agency, and therefore an Executive branch part of .gov, the legislature controls their funding, and can turn up the heat in various ways.

    I think it is getting more notice than you acknowledge. At the same time, some of the notice is a little over the top, and that doesn't help. It just makes us look like kooks. We're actually at an early stage in this kind of thing, so there's plenty of reason to believe that we can make a difference.
     
  12. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    EODguy, it is not all outright BS. I agree that some of the claims are a bit far fetched, but they have polemic value in that these are institutions that get listened to, and if they think these regs can be construed as silly, then maybe it is prudent to take a closer look at them.

    In my comments I will be advancing some of these "nonsense" arguments, but simply to show how the proposed regs could be construed if applied to retail sales of ammunition, primers, and powder. I don't think OSHA intended them to be construed in this nonsensical fashion, but the fact is that OSHA is the one that opened up this pandora's box themselves by suggesting that at least some of the regs should apply to commercial retail sales. They haven't done the required economic analysis of the impact of the proposed regs on commercial retail sales, and thus I think they've failed to comply with Executive Order 12866.

    IANAL, but I wonder if failure to comply with Executive Order 12866 is legally actionable, and who would have standing to go after OSHA on that basis?
     
  13. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Westminster, MD
    Here's my message, feel free to plagarise any part you wish
    To post comments go to the regulations.gov site, enter OSHA-2007-0032 and "document id" in the last search line, and fill out form/enter message. The page will timeout after a minute or two, so I wrote my message, proofread it, and copy/pasted it into the message body. I did my part in tying up a little piece of the .gov e-mail server, now the obligatry letters to my reps will be sent tomorrow.

    best reguards, Jeremy
     
  14. NY Patriot

    NY Patriot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    NY
    OSHA is an agency of the United States Department of Labor. Here is a list of the Republican Senators on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions...


    Michael B. Enzi (WY), Ranking Member

    Judd Gregg (NH)

    Lamar Alexander (TN)

    Richard Burr (NC)

    Johnny Isakson (GA)

    Lisa Murkowski (AK)

    Orrin Hatch (UT)

    Pat Roberts (KS)

    Wayne Allard (CO)

    Tom Coburn (OK)



    Here is a list of the Republican Senators on the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety...


    Johnny Isakson (GA), Ranking Member

    Richard Burr (NC)

    Lisa Murkowski (AK)

    Pat Roberts (KS)

    Wayne Allard (CO)

    Tom Coburn (OK)

    Michael B. Enzi (WY)




    Get the Contact Info for these Senators by Clicking HERE


    You should also contact the Republican Members who are on the House Committee on Education and Labor.

    A list of who they are & their contact info can be found HERE



    Let's not take any chances on this one folks... contact these Senators & Congressmen, and let them know that OSHA needs to eliminate this change in regs. ASAP!


    Better safe than sorry...
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2007
  15. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Oak Run Ca.
    Please post about this or respond to other posts and give links at other Gun Boards & Forums you visit ! Especially now troll around and hit the ones you think are lame or not loaded with enough horsepower (THE WORD HAS GOT TO GET AROUND AND 85% OF THE Gunowners/collectors/Shooters are oblivious to this deadline and pending deathnell !:banghead:
     
  16. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,828
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Some Dudley Do-Rights at SAAMI and IME jointly asked for changes in the OSHA rules: OSHA made those changes. Now SAAMI does not like the new rules. SAAMI is hoping that comments from gun rights groups will now pull their chesnuts out of a very hot fire, so they exaggerate and tell outright lies. The part to be concerned about is the regulation of ammunition retailers.

    If you have not studied the proposed regulation, then print it out and study it carefully so that you can make informed comments. However, if you want to sign some form letter that is full of lies, feel free to do so: It does not enhance our credibility as gun rights folks when you do.
     
  17. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Comment period extension granted

    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net:80/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-13198.htm

    [Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 130)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Page 37155-37156]
    From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
    [DOCID:fr09jy07-16]

    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration

    29 CFR Part 1910

    [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Formerly Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665 and
    OSHA Docket No. S-031)]
    RIN 1218-AC09


    Explosives; Extension of Comment Period

    AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
    Department of Labor.

    ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

    SUMMARY: OSHA is extending the comment period for its proposed standard
    on Explosives for an additional sixty (60) days until September 10,
    2007.

    DATES: Written comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
    September 10, 2007.

    ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-
    0032, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
    electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

    eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making
    electronic submissions.
    Fax: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10
    pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
    You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the
    OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032, U.S. Department of
    Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
    telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627).
    Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are
    accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
    business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., E.T.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
    docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032). All
    comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
    the public docket without change and may be made available online at
    http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about

    submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
    birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus
    additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
    INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in
    response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-2007-
    0032 at http://www.regulations.gov or at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All comments and submissions are listed in the http://

    http://www.regulations.gov index, however, some information (e.g., copyrighted

    material) is not publicly available to read or download through that
    Web page. All comments and submissions, including copyrighted material,
    are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    For information on accessing exhibits referenced in the Explosives
    proposal, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
    INFORMATION section of this document.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
    at http://www.regulations.gov. Copies also are available from the OSHA

    Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
    Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;

    [[Page 37156]]

    telephone (202) 693-1888. This document, as well as news releases and
    other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at
    http://www.osha.gov.


    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
    inquiries: Kevin Ropp, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA,
    U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
    20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical inquiries: Donald
    Pittenger, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA,
    U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
    20210; telephone (202) 693-2255 or fax (202) 693-1663.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Extension of Comment Period

    On April 13, 2007, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
    to revise the Explosives standard (72 FR 18792). In that notice, the
    Agency provided the public with ninety (90) days to submit written
    comments, until July 12, 2007. Several interested persons have
    requested an extension of the deadline for submitting comments
    explaining that they needed additional time to gather information and
    provide a thorough review and response to the proposed standard. OSHA
    is providing an additional sixty (60) days for the submission of
    comments. Accordingly, written comments must now be submitted (sent or
    postmarked) by September 10, 2007. Granting additional time to comment
    on the proposed rule will allow these and other stakeholders time to
    provide more thorough comments on the proposed rule, which, in turn,
    will give OSHA a more complete record.

    II. Submission of Comments and Access to Comments

    You may submit comments in response to this document (1)
    electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

    eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
    comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name
    and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-
    0032). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document
    files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional
    materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must
    submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
    by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your
    comments.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
    cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information
    about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
    express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
    Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Comments and submissions in response to this Federal Register
    notice are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket

    No. OSHA-2007-0032). Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
    submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
    date of birth.
    In the Explosives proposal, OSHA referenced a number of supporting
    materials. Those references are posted in both Docket No. OSHA-S031-
    2006-0665 (which is available at http://www.regulations.gov) and OSHA Docket No. S-031 (which is available at http://dockets.osha.gov).

    Although all submissions in response to this Federal Register
    notice and all supporting materials cited in the Explosives proposal
    are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov and http://dockets.osha.gov
    indexes, some information (e.g., copyrighted material)
    is not publicly available to read or download from that Web page. All
    submissions and supporting materials, including copyrighted material,
    are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web page to submit

    comments is available at the Web page's User Tips link. Contact the
    OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
    through the Web pages and for assistance in using the Internet to
    locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
    at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases

    and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page
    at http://www.osha.gov.


    Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the authority of Edwin G. Foulke,
    Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
    U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
    20210, pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the OSH Act of 1970 (29
    U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
    65008), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160 (6/5/2007)), and
    29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 2, 2007.
    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
    Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. E7-13198 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]

    BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
     
  18. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    Thanks for the update, Car Knocker. This will give me time to dig up more ammo against the proposed regs.
     
  19. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Car Knocker done good work!
     
  20. boobap

    boobap Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    49
    Location:
    Nevada
    time to stockpile...a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire:
     
  21. cajun47

    cajun47 member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    450
    i used to wonder if i would see an american revolution.

    now i wonder when.
     
  22. madmike

    madmike Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    In a well-equipped suburban bunker
    Ahem.

    I LIKE rolling my socks all the way up. I also like fastening my pants so they don't fall off my butt like some low down trash or gangbanger.

    I used to have my name and last initial on my lunchbag, because "Mike" is woefully common in my generation.

    If you suggest I'm the kind of person who'd endorse this idiocy, we'll be fightin'.;)
     
  23. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    Looks like the old SLOPE is kinda bumpy just ahead. All the millions of small crevices oozing butter. The blood from billions of crushed toes mixing with the butter and swine grease.
    So who are the OSHA managers and admins who wrote this up and approved this current version of the proposed changes? I do not think I have said to much.

    Looks like a sig line to me.

    Currently there are 975 posted comments. Several in doc format more than 1page long. The first 116 where posted on 7/9/07. The rest where posted 7/10/07.

    Update Very few names listed at the .gov site. OSHA is a big part of Dep of Labor. As in HUGE.
    http://www.osha.gov/hsp/index.html
    http://www.osha.gov/dop/index.html

    Two related subdepartments that do reviews and analysis.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2007
  24. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,404
    Location:
    Michiana
  25. Jacka L Ope

    Jacka L Ope Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    Washington State
    Kinda wondering about that lately myself. If the politicians aren't ignoring We the People on one thing, it's another. The grumblings can be heard just about everywhere.
     
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