close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Extremely serious threat to gun rights, take heed...

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Lokt, Jul 5, 2007.

  1. Lokt

    Lokt

    36
    0
    311
    We gotta take action against this threat, it's a particularly serious one. At the following link, there is a letter and a fax/e-mail add. Use them.
    http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=BP070207.cfm
    This is another one of those 'back door' gun grab efforts and there's a good chance they may pull it off.
    This is no time to be sittin' on our hands. As ol' Gov Ron once said, "If not us, who? If not now, when?"
    Do it-now!
     
  2. athensfishin'

    athensfishin' Fighting the Man

    317
    0
    371
    I cannot read that article and help but feel that is propaganda, there is no link to or presentation of the actual regulation change, so one is supposed to jump to action by a very very extreme paraphrasing of the regulation? It's this kind of blind following that leads to such disastrous choices... I'd try to research the policy further before I'd sign my name to anything, even just an extension.

    After reviewing this a little bit if you read over the actual docket here http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&d=OSHA-2007-0032-0001
    The petition came from your website and a few other "gun rights" evangelists asking OSHA to remove much of it's regulation of work place safety around explosives, after reviewing the code they did discussed with the other agencies dealing with explosives(ATF, DOT, ETC) and updated their standards in compliance with them. Since the ATF only covers sale, distribution and storage of explosives and the DOT only deals with the transportation of it, the repeal of OSHA regulations would allow for unsafe work conditions or improper training for employees which is probably the largest cause of work place accidents. When your dealing with explosives accidents are a bit larger than slipping on the floor. Over all I feel safe in assuming that your website largely over exaggerates the cost and effect of these regulations they are not being held to anything stricter than any other explosives producer and the price of ammo will probably not even change, though the name might companies that fail to properly equip and prepare will fail but then again perhaps they should. I should clarify I have no ties to any of this just merely like to see both side of an issue and hate to see propaganda floating about. Just seems to me that ammo manufactures tried to gain the ability to make stuff cheaper it didn't work now they will try to get people fired up and try to turn words to get them for their cause.
     

  3. Lokt

    Lokt

    36
    0
    311
    Well Athensfishin', It's good, I suppose, that you "feel" no threat from this "propaganda". However, if your reading and comprehension capacity equals that of your writing skills, (your post/reply is dern near understandable), then your reliance on feelings, instead of facts, is no suprise.
    The issue entails "PROPOSED" regulatory rule changes dictated by OSHA in an effort to forego/bypass legislative, (congressional-e.g. voters), procedure.
    One can imagine that OSHA "feels" that these rule changes are for our own good. After all, the carnage from all those small arms ammo, primers, and black powder explosions has been truely catastrophic. Apparently at least, that's how OSHA "feels". One wonders though, how all this carnage and human tragedy, (that has apparently been occurring for the last 150 years or so), has escaped the scrutiny of the media, and everybody else for that matter. Perhaps it's been somehow covered up by a vast "gun rights evangelists" conspiracy.

    Dern those right wingers, they're at it again. Hahahaha.....

    Seriously though, your assertion that you "feel" the regulatory costs have been "exaggerated" has absolutely no basis in fact. Feelings rarely do.
    But then maybe your psychic and your psychic feelings have a greater capacity for cost projection than those in business who actually deal with the cost of government regulation. If that's the case, you should hook up with Warren Buffet and start a hedge fund. No doubt he'd be impressed with how you "feel".

    At any rate, just in case your actually interested, here's a list of the proposed regulations, http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=151495
     
  4. It never ceases to amaze me....

    This is a BLATANT misrepresentation of what OSHA is trying to do. Here is a quote directly from OSHA's notice of proposed rules change:

    "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."

    Let me translate for those of you who do not wish to read all of that:

    1. They want to define explosives the same way DOT does. In other words, be consistent with another agency which is ALREADY REGULATING EXPLOSIVES THIS WAY.

    2. They want to ELIMINATE regulations which duplicate ATF regulations.

    3. They want to ensure training (which is already required under 29CFR1910) for employees working with the explosives.

    WOW!!!! Sure sounds like a gun grab to me!!!!!!!

    Do some research....the proposed regulations are a response to a request to re-evaluate the regulations from......wait for it.....

    The Institute of Makers of Explosives.....and......The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute! WOW! They want to regulate themselves out of business!!!!!

    Here is a quote from an article I found in a workplace safety blog to give you the reverse view (that is the "gun grabber" view of the regulation):

    "While the proposed rule does include some small improvements involving harmonizing with some existing requirements and training requirements, the “de-regulatory benefits” are designed to reduce compliance costs for employers and providing no benefits to workers. In the only example given by OSHA for “safety benefits” that might be felt by workers, the agency cites one incident involving the death of two workers, indicating that the new training requirements could have potentially prevented the incident. When the agency explained how that might be so, it provided no evidence on how training might have helped but instead indicated that the workers were not provided with the proper equipment (protective clothing and nonsparking devices)."

    Regarding the supposedly onerous requirement for moving folks in an electrical storm, here is a quote (emphasis added by me) straight out of the federal register:

    "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).
    "

    In other words, THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS AND THEY WANT IT TO BE A REGULATION!

    Poor guys.
     
  5. athensfishin'

    athensfishin' Fighting the Man

    317
    0
    371
    Hm, I guess it is typical to resort to personal attacks rather than make a decent dialogue. You act as if OSHA is going out of its bounds in its proposed regulation but OSHA was enacted by the congress to oversee workplace conditions and there is no going through congress in its bureaucracy. Perhaps the judicial system, but if you think every piece of regulation gets voted on you need to brush up on your understanding of the government system in America. Congress empowered OSHA and so long as they do not act against the law then there is no issue. I read over the proposed changes and if you could point out one that is unacceptable to the basic safety standards you would want in your job feel free to do so. And I present unbiased federal documentation and you give me a link to a website, which based on the responses is 1 step away from being a Montana militia, honestly.

    If you would look at the basic working of most government regulation there are countless grants and re-equipping grants to help businesses transition through new regulation. I have taken enough economic and regulation classes to "feel" just right about my assertion that these changes will have minimal effects on the industry. All industries go through changes such as these with safety issues and there are no screams, yet as soon as it touches guns people go nuts. I suppose all those mining safety regulations are not really needed either we can always go back to the way it was in the 50's, I'm not a miner, who cares.
     
  6. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    creo,it's beyond me why you always feel the need to insult and talk down to people when they enter a discussion with you and don't happen to agree with your conspiracy theories:confused::rolleyes:
     
  7. ezbite

    ezbite the Susan Lucci of OGF

    LOL>>>>>>>>
     
  8. Lokt

    Lokt

    36
    0
    311
    Missfit et al,
    Notice there was no rhetoric in my original post. So, "it's beyond me" why you get all bent outta shape when I respond to rhetorical assertions with rhetorical replies. It's really a no brainer. If ya don't wanna hear it, don't dish it out. It's that simple. Get it? Got it? Good.

    Now maybe we can get on with the discussion in spite of the non-sensical and baseless rhetorical assertion of a "conspiracy theory".



    The fact is, OSHA is wanting to dictate 'corrections' to a so-called safety prob that not only does'nt exist, it never has in over 150+ years of firearms products handling.
    Why?


    Here's a c&p'd list of the purported "corrections".


    Osha to regulate ammo and components

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

    Below is pasted the proposed Osha regulations. These are regulations and have the force of law but it doesn't go through congress. Basically, they want to define ammunition, powder and primers as explosives and them regulate any business that deals with them in the name of worker safety. This, I suppose, is because of all the accidents, explosions and worker deaths due to exploding ammo. This could make it quite expensive to deal in any of these items.

    Comments and bold are by someone else.

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

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main
    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.
    __________________
     
  9. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    why even make the original post if you didn't wanna hear others' opinions?if you don't like people disagreeing with you,why do you constantly throw out your "doctor doom" theories and respond to opposing views with your rhetorical obnoxious,arrogant,insulting remarks?
    no need to answer because like a good lawyer,i never ask a question i don't already know the the answer to;)
     
  10. Hatchetman

    Hatchetman Senior Member

    723
    67
    833
  11. ovlo

    ovlo

    58
    0
    311
    wow what a bunch of bs better start stocking up on ammo NOW! ha ha ha
     
  12. the countdown to thread lock has begun ...5 4 3 2 ...
     
  13. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

  14. The info posted is fine... It's the personal attacks when being discussed that are the issue. Keep a handle on that stuff, and there's no issue at all.

    Misfit is in charge. :D