OSHA LAUNCHES & WITHDRAWS ASSAULT (C&P)
Copied from THE BULLET SEP/OCT 07 (The official publication of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association)
OSHA Launches and Withdraws Quiet Assault on Firearm and Ammo Industries
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is charged with assuring the safety and health of American workers. Unfortunately, OSHA sometimes goes at their job of protecting American workers so energetically as to pass regulations that virtually make the work impossible.
In the heat of the summer, OSHA turned its attention to the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants. Not a good thing for the industry - especially in light of their proposal to make the industry "safe".
As they were originally written, the firearms industry says, those new OSHA rules would have forced the closure of nearly all ammo manufacturers and forced the cost of small arms ammo to skyrocket, "beyond what the market would bear". Essentially closing down the industry.
The costs associated with compliance with the proposed rules could have easily exceeded $100 million dollars. Not a number that could be absorbed by ammunition makers, wholesale distributors and retailers. It's certainly not a cost that could be passed on to consumers without bringing the industry to a crashing halt.
The proposed new rules had some classic OSHA overstatements. Ammunition and smokeless propel/ant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory or retail location when a thunnderstorm approached - and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition - displayed or stored - without first being searched for matches or lighters.
It would also have prohibited possession of firearms in commercial "facilities containing explosives" - those facilities would include sporting goods stores and gun shops.
OSHA proposed prohibiting delivery drivers from leaving "explosives" unattended. That would have prevented UPS, FedEx or similar delivery services from delivering gunpowder or ammunition to individuals and dealers. The double-barrel impact of such a ruling would have effectively ended online and catalog sales as well.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) had a preeliminary 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."
They petitioned for a sixty-day extension of the public comment period to allow further input from those of us who would have been impacted by the decision.
Then NSSF is encouraging retailers to contact OSHA directly and request the comment period extension and the NRA encouraged members to contact OSHA. What followed was an unprecedented response to OSHA. OSHA received 1500 comments in just a few days. Now, you might say, "there are 70 million gun owners - 1500 responses are a disgrace." You have to understand that when regulations are posted for public comment, an agency receives few if any responses.
After continued publicity through NRA alerts and the outdoor media, and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA wisely decided to go back to the drawing board.
Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill when the House considered this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce the OSHA regulation.
Such an amendment is no longer necessary since Kristine A. Iverson, the Labor Department's Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, sent Rep. Rehberg a letter, dated July 16, stating that it "was never the intention of OSHA to block the sale, transportation, or storage of small arms ammunition, and OSHA is taking prompt action to revise" this proposed rule to clarify the purpose of the regulation.
Future revisions to the standard "will be subject to substantial review and scrutiny to ensure that the revisions are prudent and the intent is clear," Iverson further said in her letter.
Also, working with the NRA, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) gathered signatures from 25 House colleagues for a letter (http://www.nraila.org/image s/osha/tr.pdf), to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao dated July 11, expressing concerns about the proposed OSHA rule. The letter called the proposal "an undue burden on a single industry where facts do not support the need outlined by this proposed rule" and "not feasible, making it realistically impossible for companies to comply with its tenets."
The OSHA proposal would have defined "explosives" to include "black powder, ... small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant," and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives.
The public comment period was closed on July 17. The Labor Department published notice in the July 17 "Federal Register" announcing that it "intends to re-propose the Explosives NPRM at a later date in order to clarify the intent of the rulemaking." Over the past two years, we have observed on more than one occasion that the battle for firearms would be lost if opponents decided that, rather than fight the Second Amendment - a battle they have repeatedly lost, they attacked the ammunition that makes firearms useful.
Some observers remarked that the industry may be "overreacting" to the OSHA proposal and that, with the exception of the customer regulations, it's really not "that bad".
With the government's propensity to expand - ceaselessly - and never to release regulatory controls, there doesn't appear to be any wiggle room in this proposal. It had to die.
If it had not been stopped, it would have grown in scope and impact until we found ourselves with the Second Amendment protecting our rights to keep and bear arms, but OSHA having removed our ability to acquire ammunition.
Alert observers saw this for what it was - a backdoor trick. The way to go after guns is to make sure that you can't buy ammo for them, and this is just a federal agency. This is not legislation. This is just safety regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which would dry up ammunition sales. Gun owners must remain ever vigilant.
OSHA Launches and Withdraws Quiet Assault on Firearm and Ammo Industries
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is charged with assuring the safety and health of American workers. Unfortunately, OSHA sometimes goes at their job of protecting American workers so energetically as to pass regulations that virtually make the work impossible.
In the heat of the summer, OSHA turned its attention to the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants. Not a good thing for the industry - especially in light of their proposal to make the industry "safe".
As they were originally written, the firearms industry says, those new OSHA rules would have forced the closure of nearly all ammo manufacturers and forced the cost of small arms ammo to skyrocket, "beyond what the market would bear". Essentially closing down the industry.
The costs associated with compliance with the proposed rules could have easily exceeded $100 million dollars. Not a number that could be absorbed by ammunition makers, wholesale distributors and retailers. It's certainly not a cost that could be passed on to consumers without bringing the industry to a crashing halt.
The proposed new rules had some classic OSHA overstatements. Ammunition and smokeless propel/ant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory or retail location when a thunnderstorm approached - and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition - displayed or stored - without first being searched for matches or lighters.
It would also have prohibited possession of firearms in commercial "facilities containing explosives" - those facilities would include sporting goods stores and gun shops.
OSHA proposed prohibiting delivery drivers from leaving "explosives" unattended. That would have prevented UPS, FedEx or similar delivery services from delivering gunpowder or ammunition to individuals and dealers. The double-barrel impact of such a ruling would have effectively ended online and catalog sales as well.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) had a preeliminary 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."
They petitioned for a sixty-day extension of the public comment period to allow further input from those of us who would have been impacted by the decision.
Then NSSF is encouraging retailers to contact OSHA directly and request the comment period extension and the NRA encouraged members to contact OSHA. What followed was an unprecedented response to OSHA. OSHA received 1500 comments in just a few days. Now, you might say, "there are 70 million gun owners - 1500 responses are a disgrace." You have to understand that when regulations are posted for public comment, an agency receives few if any responses.
After continued publicity through NRA alerts and the outdoor media, and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA wisely decided to go back to the drawing board.
Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill when the House considered this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce the OSHA regulation.
Such an amendment is no longer necessary since Kristine A. Iverson, the Labor Department's Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, sent Rep. Rehberg a letter, dated July 16, stating that it "was never the intention of OSHA to block the sale, transportation, or storage of small arms ammunition, and OSHA is taking prompt action to revise" this proposed rule to clarify the purpose of the regulation.
Future revisions to the standard "will be subject to substantial review and scrutiny to ensure that the revisions are prudent and the intent is clear," Iverson further said in her letter.
Also, working with the NRA, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) gathered signatures from 25 House colleagues for a letter (http://www.nraila.org/image s/osha/tr.pdf), to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao dated July 11, expressing concerns about the proposed OSHA rule. The letter called the proposal "an undue burden on a single industry where facts do not support the need outlined by this proposed rule" and "not feasible, making it realistically impossible for companies to comply with its tenets."
The OSHA proposal would have defined "explosives" to include "black powder, ... small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant," and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives.
The public comment period was closed on July 17. The Labor Department published notice in the July 17 "Federal Register" announcing that it "intends to re-propose the Explosives NPRM at a later date in order to clarify the intent of the rulemaking." Over the past two years, we have observed on more than one occasion that the battle for firearms would be lost if opponents decided that, rather than fight the Second Amendment - a battle they have repeatedly lost, they attacked the ammunition that makes firearms useful.
Some observers remarked that the industry may be "overreacting" to the OSHA proposal and that, with the exception of the customer regulations, it's really not "that bad".
With the government's propensity to expand - ceaselessly - and never to release regulatory controls, there doesn't appear to be any wiggle room in this proposal. It had to die.
If it had not been stopped, it would have grown in scope and impact until we found ourselves with the Second Amendment protecting our rights to keep and bear arms, but OSHA having removed our ability to acquire ammunition.
Alert observers saw this for what it was - a backdoor trick. The way to go after guns is to make sure that you can't buy ammo for them, and this is just a federal agency. This is not legislation. This is just safety regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which would dry up ammunition sales. Gun owners must remain ever vigilant.
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
0 comments