![]() |
Proposed OSHA Rule....Ammunition
A proposed OSHA rule would pretty much make it impossible to sell ammunition:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3145 Quote:
|
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PdJGcrUk2eE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PdJGcrUk2eE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
|
* Prohibit possession of firearms in commercial “facilities containing explosives”—an obvious problem for your local gun store.
* Require evacuation of all “facilities containing explosives”—even your local Wal-Mart—during any electrical storm. * Prohibit smoking within 50 feet of “facilities containing explosives.” **If properly written, this could be modified to make an exception for DOT Classes 1.1 through 1.3 (small arms ammunition and black powder). **Properly grounded and with a proper lightning rod system installed, the necessity for evacuation could possibly be even more hazardous to those inside the building. **From what I have seen, Wal-Marts are nonsmoking facilities to begin with, and the closest a Sporting Goods department gets to an outside or "smoking area" is greater than 100 feet in any direction Once again, legislation triumphs over common sense. |
But Bush is pro-gun. It'll never happen.
The above was sarcasm, in case you missed it. |
Not to draw too fine a line but smokeless powder doesn't explode, it combusts.
Jim |
Ayup, smokeless powder is a propellant not an explosive.
|
NRA is sounding a bit reactionary...
OSHA was asked by a couple groups to change the standard to incorporate the current safety practices and technological advances made in the industry - On July 29, 2002, OSHA received a petition (the Petition) from the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) to revise the standard. A copy of the Petition can be found at Docket No. OSHA–S031–2006–0665 (Ex. 2–1). IME is an association of manufacturers of high explosives and other companies that distribute explosives or provide other related services and the SAAMI is an association of manufacturers of sporting firearms, ammunition, and related components. The Petition claimed that § 1910.109 does not reflect significant technological and safety advances made by the explosives industry since the standard was promulgated. It further contended that the standard contains outdated references, classifications, and jurisdiction-related provisions that do not accurately represent the current regulatory environment. The Petition requested OSHA to make a number of changes to the standard, including the following, and provided draft regulatory language: • Exclude the manufacture of explosives from the PSM requirements of § 1910.119 and incorporate revised PSM requirements for the manufacture of explosives into § 1910.109; • Replace references to outdated DOT explosives classifications with the current DOT classification system; • Eliminate the provisions in § 1910.109 covering the storage of explosives and the construction of magazines because they are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); • Eliminate provisions in § 1910.109 applicable to the transportation of explosives on public highways because such transportation is regulated by DOT; • Update provisions for guarding against accidental initiation by sources of extraneous electricity; • Include provisions governing the intra-plant transportation of explosives; • Include provisions for the use of nonelectric detonation systems; • Revise provisions regarding the crimping of detonators to safety fuse; • Update provisions for clearing the blasting area of unauthorized personnel; and • Update the provisions for the design of bulk delivery and mixing vehicles and of mixing equipment. If you get into the standard a bit, OSHA is looking for comments/input on this very issue - 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)? |
Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between rulemaking and legislation shouldn't respond to this thread. It's just a bit of basic knowledge necessary to have enough foundation to form an opinion on the subject.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website