Kennedy 0 #1 July 2, 2007 http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=BP070207.cfm QuoteProposed OSHA Regulation Threatens Firearm and Ammunition Industry The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, is proposing aregulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants. 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. NSSF and SAAMI have already had a preliminary 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. Furthermore, NSSF and SAAMI are each seeking a 60 day extension of the public comment period (currently scheduled to expire July 12). NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly "adversely affect in a material way" the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars. Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows: RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032 Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on "Significant Regulatory Action" as Defined in Executive Order 12866 Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter). Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 July 2, 2007 I already have a pay a $20 hazardous materials fee just to get $100 worth of powder shipped to my home. And now they want to make it worse? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #3 July 2, 2007 >For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers >would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm >approached . . . . I'm amazed they don't do this now! They evacuate parts of airports during thunderstorms - and the potential of damage after a direct strike is a lot lower than in an explosives manufacturing facility. >customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition >(displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or >lighters. It doesn't say that. It describes how to protect explosives 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." Nothing about searching people, or telling vendors how to deal with customers. I'd be fascinated to know where the $100 million came from, or how it would "collapse the gun industry." This sounds like an attempt to frighten people rather than give input into this request. I'd recommend people actually read the NPRM. It's far less nefarious than the pro-gun article makes it sound. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #4 July 2, 2007 Do you honestly think that with all of the ties the weapons industry has to the government that it could really be regulated out of existence? Come on now. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #5 July 2, 2007 NEWSFLASH: SMOKELESS POWDER IS NOT AN EXPLOSIVE. Quoterequiring the employer to ensure that no open flames, matches, or spark producing devices are located within 50 feet of explosives or facilities containing explosives. And how, pray tell, would a retail outlet, you know, the "facility containing explosives" ensure that none of the verbotten item got within 50 feet? Bill, have you ever been to a place that works with real explosives? Converting the firearms and ammunition manufacturing industry, as well as warehouses, distributors, ad retailers, to meet those standards would run in the hundreds of millions easily.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #6 July 2, 2007 Do you honestly think that with all the private and governmental efforts to "snuff out" the gun industry and private gun ownership that it is safe without constant intervention? Come on now. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #7 July 2, 2007 Quote Do you honestly think that with all the private and governmental efforts to "snuff out" the gun industry and private gun ownership that it is safe without constant intervention? Come on now. BATFE is responsible for the bogus definition of "explosive".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #8 July 3, 2007 QuoteBATFE is responsible for the bogus definition of "explosive". Doesn't mean they're right, though.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #9 July 3, 2007 Quote Quote BATFE is responsible for the bogus definition of "explosive". Doesn't mean they're right, though. Well, that would be the general idea with respect to a bogus definition. BATFE is a primary emitter of bogons.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 July 3, 2007 BATFE should be a friggin convenience store, not a government agency...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #11 July 3, 2007 ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #12 July 3, 2007 Quote Well, that would be the general idea with respect to a bogus definition. BATFE is a primary emitter of bogons. Heh, just a harmless sarcasm check.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #13 July 3, 2007 >SMOKELESS POWDER IS NOT AN EXPLOSIVE. Well, then, you don't have to worry! Most of this rule does not pertain to items made with non-explosive materials. >And how, pray tell, would a retail outlet, you know, the "facility containing >explosives" ensure that none of the verbotten item got within 50 feet? Perhaps a sign? Sorta like a "no smoking" sign in a paint booth? >Bill, have you ever been to a place that works with real explosives? Yep, a solid rocket manufacturing facility. (Unless you don't consider solid rocket propellant a 'real explosive' either.) The precautions they took make nuclear-contamination precautions look careless. For good reason - there have been several quite-deadly accidents with such material, with causes as minor as static electricity. (Note that lightning is a pretty dramatic example of static electricity.) >Converting the firearms and ammunition manufacturing industry, as well > as warehouses, distributors, ad retailers, to meet those standards would >run in the hundreds of millions easily. I heard the same sort of nonsense when catalytic converters were first required on cars due to new emissions regulations. The car companies claimed (not suprisingly) that it would cost billions to comply with the new rules, that all automakers would be bankrupted, and no one would be able to afford cars. They were, of course, wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bdog 0 #14 July 3, 2007 Quote>For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers >would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm >approached . . . . I'm amazed they don't do this now! They evacuate parts of airports during thunderstorms - and the potential of damage after a direct strike is a lot lower than in an explosives manufacturing facility. >customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition >(displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or >lighters. It doesn't say that. It describes how to protect explosives 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." Nothing about searching people, or telling vendors how to deal with customers. I'd be fascinated to know where the $100 million came from, or how it would "collapse the gun industry." This sounds like an attempt to frighten people rather than give input into this request. I'd recommend people actually read the NPRM. It's far less nefarious than the pro-gun article makes it sound. and now we know!_________________________________________ ---Future Darwin Award recipient- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #15 July 3, 2007 Quote> >Bill, have you ever been to a place that works with real explosives? Yep, a solid rocket manufacturing facility. (Unless you don't consider solid rocket propellant a 'real explosive' either.) . APCP can not be made to explode even if you try to set it off with a detonator or wrap it with det cord. It just burns. It only burns fast if confined. Technically it deflagrates rtaher than explodes. It is far safer to handle than gasoline. Not only is APCP not a high explosive, it is not even a low explosive despite BATFE's bogus definitions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #16 July 3, 2007 QuoteQuote> >Bill, have you ever been to a place that works with real explosives? Yep, a solid rocket manufacturing facility. (Unless you don't consider solid rocket propellant a 'real explosive' either.) . APCP can not be made to explode even if you try to set it off with a detonator or wrap it with det cord. It just burns. It only burns fast if confined. Technically it deflagrates rtaher than explodes. It is far safer to handle than gasoline. Not only is APCP not a high explosive, it is not even a low explosive despite BATFE's bogus definitions. Tell that to the folks of Henderson Nevada & PEPCON. Here's a video of the stuff deflagrating to the tune of 3.0 and 3.5 on the Richter scale. http://youtube.com/watch?v=HJVOUgCm5Jk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PEPCON_Explosion.gif Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #17 July 3, 2007 Quote Quote > >Bill, have you ever been to a place that works with real explosives? Yep, a solid rocket manufacturing facility. (Unless you don't consider solid rocket propellant a 'real explosive' either.) . APCP can not be made to explode even if you try to set it off with a detonator or wrap it with det cord. It just burns. It only burns fast if confined. Technically it deflagrates rtaher than explodes. It is far safer to handle than gasoline. Not only is APCP not a high explosive, it is not even a low explosive despite BATFE's bogus definitions. But but but, Bill said it was so Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #18 July 3, 2007 What do your eyes tell you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #19 July 3, 2007 That there is a concerted effort to eradicate the small arms and ammo manufacturing from within our borders. The UN has invested alot of cash into seeing this done, as per the UN small arms non proliferation treaty. That our politicians may be american, but many are globalists and they do not give a shit about the rest of america, for they will profit and prosper regardless of who is in charge. That the fact this issue has come up again is another notice of what may well happen in the future. That we are about to have our collective rights regulated and bargained away. After that has been accomplished, many nations who have always wanted to dominate our economy and resources will have the opportunity presented to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #20 July 3, 2007 I was referring specifically to Ammonium Perchlorate which you chose to comment on. You know the stuff that registered at 3.5 on the Richter scale in the video I just linked to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #21 July 3, 2007 Quote BATFE should be a friggin convenience store, not a government agency... It is. I think its called the Bottle Shop and its in Coolidge, AZ. You can buy (drive though too) alcohol, fire arms, ammo, smokes (but no rolling papers - because thats mostly used illegally). Fun to browse in that store. JBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #22 July 3, 2007 There were ALOT of contributing factors there. Combustibles, Aluminum, PVC, Methane. An estimated 4000 tons of the finished product were stored at the facility at the time of the disaster. 4000 tons of gasoline would have been really nasty as well. Fertilizer plants are actually more dangerous. All that that you see in the video and there were only two deaths....sad but still only TWO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #23 July 3, 2007 Quote Quote Quote > >Bill, have you ever been to a place that works with real explosives? Yep, a solid rocket manufacturing facility. (Unless you don't consider solid rocket propellant a 'real explosive' either.) . APCP can not be made to explode even if you try to set it off with a detonator or wrap it with det cord. It just burns. It only burns fast if confined. Technically it deflagrates rtaher than explodes. It is far safer to handle than gasoline. Not only is APCP not a high explosive, it is not even a low explosive despite BATFE's bogus definitions. But but but, Bill said it was so OK then! How about a TNT manufacturing facility? Or a dynamite (yes, actual dynamite) packaging plant? Or a Nitro plant? How about a Detonator plant, complete with Lead Azide manufacturing? I'm not even going to mention the emulsion plants and packaging plats, or the nonel tube plants, or the ANFO plants... Are those real explosives? What was the question?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #24 July 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote> >Bill, have you ever been to a place that works with real explosives? Yep, a solid rocket manufacturing facility. (Unless you don't consider solid rocket propellant a 'real explosive' either.) . APCP can not be made to explode even if you try to set it off with a detonator or wrap it with det cord. It just burns. It only burns fast if confined. Technically it deflagrates rtaher than explodes. It is far safer to handle than gasoline. Not only is APCP not a high explosive, it is not even a low explosive despite BATFE's bogus definitions. Tell that to the folks of Henderson Nevada & PEPCON. Here's a video of the stuff deflagrating to the tune of 3.0 and 3.5 on the Richter scale. http://youtube.com/watch?v=HJVOUgCm5Jk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PEPCON_Explosion.gif DEFLAGRATION has a different definition than explosion. APCP is NOT an explosive, and it cannot be detonated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,105 #25 July 3, 2007 QuoteI was referring specifically to Ammonium Perchlorate which you chose to comment on. You know the stuff that registered at 3.5 on the Richter scale in the video I just linked to. Grain elevators can be made to explode. Doesn't mean that corn is an explosive. Gas cans can be made to explode. Doesn't mean gasoline is an explosive. APCP is a deflagrating agent, not an explosive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
