Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: It isn't over yet...

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default It isn't over yet...

    The recent announcement by the dept. of labor about the latest OSHA rules is welcomed news but we'll watch and see what the newest revisions will be.

    Thanks to Al and others who posted this for us and thanks to all who signed the petition and gave feedback to OSHA on this subject. There were many groups involved in this, NRA, NSSF, SAAMI, and many others, but I like to think we helped.

    We've seen this;

    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.

    Study this sentence a little and read between the lines, there is no indication that they didn't intend to restrict powder and primers sale, transportation or storage. Just because there was no intent doesn't mean that won't be the result. But if the statement is correct then powder and primers would seem to be safe only if loaded into brass cases. Interesting. And, if there is being drafted a revised, new rule (classification), why do we need that and who called for it or what safety related incident prompted it in the first place.

    That last part, though not in quotes, makes me wonder what will be coming. ...to clarify the purpose of the regulation. Not to change it but to state..." we don't intend for this to block the sale, transportation or storage of small arms ammunition".

    Is it just me or does this still stink. If people would just make absolute truthful statements of their intentions we wouldn't need so many lawyers.

    I wonder how Pyrodex would come out in any new reclassification.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  2. #2
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    "Is it just me or does this still stink. If people would just make absolute truthful statements of their intentions we wouldn't need so many lawyers"

    No Murphy I'm afraid you got this one wrong, It's the lawyers that play the language game, that why they tell us in the front of Black's Law dictionary that the language of the law is ever changing, It's easier to hide the lie, when you change the meaning of the words used.

  3. #3

    Default

    Agreed. We still need to watch this, but it looks like word has gotten out. My sincere thanks to those who commented and those who lead the charge!

  4. #4

    Default

    I'm willing to take them at their word and I don't see anything about small arms ammunition components it the statement. I guess I'm getting too old and too cynical. I'll have to wait and see what their next proposal brings.

  5. #5

    Default At Their Word

    I think becoming cynical as one gets older and has seen and learned more is healthy, especially when dealing with the Feds anfd their controllers. I don't trust them, or I DO trust them to twist thinks so that we think we hear what we want to.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,460

    Default Stay vigilent

    Thanks for the update on OSHA's first response to initial public reaction. Like many of you who posted ahead of me, I have learned to look very closely at the wording of regulations, laws, etc. Some, many or most of the regulations/laws that govern our actions have either been drafted by attorneys or by others who have at least obtained legal consultation. Attorneys by trade are "word smiths" (that is not intended to be insulting), and they more often than not choose their words very carefully, sometimes strategically.

    Therefore, my interpretation of OSHA's first response is that they want the shooting public to know that packaged ammunition is not the issue...but like several of you, I did not see that same clarification for ammunition components. Consequently, as a handloader I am not at all comforted by OSHA's response. In fact, I'm more alerted because those of us who handload are a minority within the shooting community. It is not unimaginable to picture the general (nonhandloading) shooting public to be somewhat reassured and calmed by the clarification...leaving those of us who handload with the primary burden of fighting the proposed regulations. I hope that all of us within the shooting community stay united and vigilent, and continue to voice our objections.

  7. #7
    Member schmidty_dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    535

    Default

    Thank you, and please keep us posted if anything new comes up. I really enjoy the fact that we can stick together and fight the dumb issues.

  8. #8

    Default

    FEMA lawyers discouraged tests of contaminated trailers for hurricane victims





    Now repeat after me, the government knows best and is my friend, Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman, OSHA just wants to protect us. . . . .

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    448

    Default

    I contacted a two senators and both said the manufactures were the ones wanting the OSHA ruling. I contacted Rehberg but he did not respond. Being vigilant is the only course of acton. J.

  10. #10

    Default

    This is what Murphy wrote in the original thread on the subject of the industry wanting the reg.


    "What you're looking at here is when the Industry ask OSHA to update it's regulations in regard to the changes in primers and smokeless powder that make them more stable and less thermally responsive. Such as no longer using lead azide or fulminates and using lead styphnate in primers. And the use of the thermally stable PETN and the reduced content of NG in detonaters and agents . In essence the industry was asking OSHA to lessen the storage and transport controls on these components because they were more stable."

    I don't know about you, but I trust Murphy more than any politician on this subject. It seems that you got a typical political answer. What they told you was true, but absolutely useless because it wasn't the whole story.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer55 View Post
    I don't know about you, but I trust Murphy more than any politician on this subject. It seems that you got a typical political answer. What they told you was true, but absolutely useless because it wasn't the whole story.
    I couldn't agree more. I would trust most anyone on this board, even if we disagreed more than I would trust most politicians. Here people are telling you what they think and why they think that way. With politicians you have to wonder if they looked at the polls lately, what group they're talking to, and most importantly what side of their mouth the words are coming from.

  12. #12
    Member Darreld Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arco, Idaho
    Posts
    782

    Default The government that governs best, governs least...

    Don't recall who, right off the top of my head, is credited with the statement, but it's one that runs through my head just about every time I look at a newspaper, watch or listen to the news, or hear the union folks in the building running off.
    Stay out of my life, I'm a big people, if I blow off my fingers, I promise that I won't sue the manufacturers of the primers or powder, nor will I look to the Gov. to make the world safe so that I can walk barefoot through the daisies where sagebrush and cactus used to grow....
    I DO NOT trust these lizards any farther than I can throw them! These days, that ain't very far.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,460

    Default

    I'm with you guys. Has anyone seen or heard the propellent/primer industry's response to this apparent misrepresentation of their request to OSHA? I suspect they are saying something.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •