« Vote counting on the Supremes | Main | Create your own gun-free zone »
OSHA rule update
I'd posted on the OSHA ammunition and components rule earlier, and some commenters pointed out that the electronic comments page appears to be nonfunctional. I just received an email (no link attached) indicating that OSHA has withdrawn the proposed rule and intends to substantially rewrite it before submitting it for comment again.
[UPDATE: just got a link.]
(Agencies can finalize a rule if the majority of comments are against it -- regulatory law isn't democratic -- but like all humans, prefer not to stir up a big controversy unless they think it's really important. Also, they do have an obligation to respond to the substance of comments, to answer at least the major arguments against what they proposed doing, so if comments raised logical issues, beyond just stating an opposition, that might have been a big worry. It's quite possible that OSHA, which probably knows little about guns, ammo, and gun stores, didn't know what it was doing here. Or that the low-level staffer who wrote the proposed rule did know, and was antigun, but the bosses who approved it didn't know and are now aghast at the public response.
When I worked at Interior, a rule would be drafted by a Fish and Wildlife biologist who knew what they were doing. It'd go thru maybe 3 of their supervisors, who knew what they were doing, but would usually just give it a very quick read. It'd then be approved by me, my boss, and his boss, who were attorneys who knew little of wildlife biology or management, and assumed that the FWS folks were correct on those issues. Then it'd go thru 2-3 levels of political appointees for approval, most of whom knew little either of law or of wildlife, and had only a few minutes to read maybe 3" of rule and supporting materials.
So what might have happened here is either (a) the higher levels heard of the controversy and got upset or (b) the lower levels, who clearly would know of it, got worried that the top levels would get upset if they let the proposed rule stand and tried to send up a final rule for approval.)
6 Comments | Leave a comment
I doubt there was a plot. But the people who wrote the rule were thinking of potential workplace hazards and not the consequences of their rules. They saw danger and tried to eliminate it by imposing onerous conditions. Remember, this is the organization who tried to make office workers wear gloves lest they get a paper cut. The cost of those rules was not considered or was unclear until the comments came pouring in. However, the potential result of this rule was to destroy the workplace. When faced with a risk, government workers seek to eliminate any accountability for it. So they come up with draconian and unworkable rules. In this situation, the accountability turned on them. The comments obviously were so prolific that accountability for destroying business and denying a constitutional right became and issue. That will terrify any bureaucrat. Big picture and unintended consequences are not strong suits for bureaucrats. Now they have to try to avoid being held accountable for someone being injured handling ammunition and also avoid being held accountable for destroying businesses and de facto denying 2nd amendment rights.
I think JKB has it spot on here. I know gobs of people in DC who work for the beast and I suspect they literally had no idea of the cost of compliance and the volume of ammunition that moves in this country.
I would still maintain that this was being driven by certain members sitting on the senate labor committee - kennedy, obama, schumer.
And I bet those faceless oshit bureaucrats have a whole lot better understanding of the size of their problem now.
Sec. Chao was the one who quashed this. She called senior DOL staff the Monday after this hit the grassroots news and told them that this thing was causing a lot of trouble for the administration. The word got down the chain of command and OSHA yanked the rule.
Chao runs a tight and fearful ship at Labor; no one screws around with her decisions. I know one of the women on her staff who told me what happened.
I think it was just a poorly written set of regulations. There was no grand conspiracy here, just a bunch of insulated safety bureaucrats who got in over their heads and didn't think of the politics involved.
And just think how many more of the ridiculous regulations that we are living with slipped by, just as poorly considered as this one, because they didn't trigger such an immediate wave of response.
I'm not sure that I agree that this was just "poorly written." The nanny state types use indirect regulation as a common tool to chip away at their selected targets. This may well have been more of the same...but with enough overreaching to be counter-productive.
Since the obvious intent of this regulation was to severely curtail or prohibit ammunition sales to the public, it's progenitors must have known that they were attempting to cancel the Second Amendment (in practice).
My question, to a former insider, Counselor, is how can a Federal Agency retain people who have such callous disregard for the Constitution?
I would hope that the staffers who came up with this rule have either been terminated or transfered to work at the Great Plains Red Ant Close Observation Station, no protective equipment or clothing allowed in THAT workplace.