« Richmond gun show: it was proper, but we won't do it again | Main | Jesse Jackson plans protests for Aug. 28 »
OSHA proposed rules for shipping ammo & components
The Occupational Safety and Health Admin. has proposed rules for transportation of ammunition and components. Here's the NSSF's take on them. The paragraph that caught my eye:
"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."
Here's a discussion, and at the top a link to where you can file an electronic comment (a rather complicated process).
UPDATE: one commenter points out that OSHA cites, as a reason for the rule, a 1947 explosion. As OSHA admits, that was a huge detonation of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. I know a bit about it because it gave rise to a Supreme Court case construing the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Basically, in order to get fertilizer to Europe after WWII, the federal government cut a lot of corners. It allowed the stuff to be bagged when it was too hot for safety, allowed it to be put in waxed sacks (more waterproof, but if the wax melts it becomes the equivalent of fuel oil in a ANFO bomb), etc., etc.. The port of Texas City was full of boxcars of the stuff when some of it spontaneously ignited, then detonated -- the resulting explosions essentially levelled the town.
Some people sued the government -- it had, after all, ignored all the standard industry safety standards. They lost because the Supreme Court ruled that the situation fell under the "discretionary function exception" to the FTCA. The agencies that ignored the safety standards had discretion to do so, and had essentially made judgments that speed of production was worth the risk to life, and that was that.
A rather strange case to invoke for an argument that government regulation is necessary in order to make us safer.
11 Comments | Leave a comment
I was little more gullible than JKB. I actually wasted a few minutes skimming the first few pages of the OSHA document linked at NSSF's page. OSHA gives no facts for the increased regulation. They do happen to mention two huge explosions aboard ships in harbors--in 1947 and earlier!! And say that "many" are injured.
Looks like a back-door attack on 2A to me.
I hope you don't mind that I posted on this. (Credit Attributed)
http://2ndwatch.blogspot.com/2007/07/osha-and-ammo.html
But to bring up ancient history, Remember this:
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said today that he would insist that President Clinton's health-care plan include a huge increase in Federal taxes on handgun ammunition that would make some especially destructive bullets unaffordable.
The New York Democrat has often contended that the best way to attack gun violence would be to restrict the sale of ammunition, not guns. Today, for instance, he noted that the nation has a 200-year supply of guns but only a 4-year supply of ammunition.
"Guns don't kill people; bullets do," he told the Senate as he introduced his legislation today. "It is time the Federal Government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence."
To comment direct to OSHA:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=OSHA-2007-0032
Just another back door tactic for the liberals to try and control guns.
I can't wait for someone to snap and start shooting these fuckers.
Lw
The 9 July 07 Federal Register had a notice saying that OSHA has extended the comment period until 10 Sept 07. That is good news.
A friend of mine works there and said to me that DOL Sec Chao knows about this and is ticked that this is alienating the Republican base. Hopefully that means OSHA may be rethinking the whole thing.
This is a back door scam we need to unite and stop this nonsense the time is coming
I am in total agreement with comments above. This is just a sneaky way to try and get rid of our 2nd Constitutional Amendment. Well, what are we going to do with guns that have no bullets? Reload!!! Stock up on supplies and equipment before it is too late. The "Revolution" is here!
First off Bush established directive 51 saying in case of a national or international trajedy he will take over the goverment. Second now osha is trying to make it hard for Americans to get ammo. First the illegal eavesdropping and now taking away are abilities to arm ourselves, then directive 51. Open your eyes people!!!!!
Has the government site for public comment been shut down? I can't get my message accepted.
Alternative and easier means of submitting comment to OSHA are listed below.. I filed my initial comment via their web form but it is a pain in the butt; my guess is that the Gov. believes that if people can't file via computer, that they will give up. I intend to file the petition cited in early September.
By FAX: (202) 693–1648
RE: OSHA Docket Office Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Explosives—Proposed Rule)
By Snail Mail
RE: OSHA Docket Office Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Explosives—Proposed Rule)
U.S. Department of Labor
Room N-2625 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
You must include three copies when sending via mail.
Ah, the crazies are back. This from the people who proposed in the 90s that all office workers wear gloves lest they get a nasty paper cut.
Of course, we can't be sure this isn't someone's bright idea as a sideways attack on guns.