Sunday, February 07, 2016 2:50:55 PM
OSHA - Obama's Fed Attacking Gun Companies
The View From North Central Idaho
Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck farm boy who
became a software engineer.
OSHA is going after ammo manufacturers
Posted on February 4, 2016 by Joe
I received a call today from someone who works for a major ammunition
manufacturer. They required anonymity but want the following information to
get out to the public.
NSSF is also involved in the fight but doesn’t want to speak out about it
either.
It turns out my blog post about OSHA considering a requirement of “no guns
at work” policy got their attention.
They referred me to this letter from OSHA as background and proceeded to
tell me:
For about two years we’ve been BITTERLY fighting, and ultimately losing,
a battle with OSHA over warning labels on ammunition.
They have repeatedly asked something to the effect, “Are you doing this due
to pressure from above?” They haven’t been able to get an answer.
Everything just seems a little odd about it. My blog post dialed the
paranoia up another notch.
It’s a little obscure so you may not be aware that the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) is prohibited, by law, from regulating firearms
and ammunition. This means that, by law, ammunition is not considered a
“consumer product”. And some other agencies don’t have authority to
regulate them for other reasons.
Ammunition manufacturers have long recognized they could be a target of
repressive regulation if the government were given a plausible excuse and
hence have been very careful to “police their own”. With no major events
attributable to poor quality, indifference to safety, or newsworthy events
attributable to ammunition they have managed to avoid undue attention for
many decades. The only thing I can recall in my lifetime that put them at
serious risk was the big fuss about Black Talon ammo back in the mid-90s.
Winchester nipped that in the bud by taking it off the market faster than
the tyrants in congress could pass a bill to ban it.
So for decades the ammunition manufacturers have been avoiding undue
scrutiny and everyone has been getting along pretty well. Then a couple
years ago OSHA approached them and said, in essence, “You need to put
warnings on all your products because indoor range employees are at risk
from exposure to lead.”
What?
Sure, some indoor ranges have had severe problems with air quality. And
some employees and customers have been exposed to too much lead. So one
shouldn’t have a problem understanding how OSHA could find a way to poke
their nose into the business of indoor ranges. They have never had
oversight over ammunition before so how do they imagine they have authority
to regulate it now? Well, from reading the letter OSHA sent to SAAMI
lawyers ammunition it appears their claim is that ammunition is a “chemical
container”. And hence manufacturers much comply with all the nuances of
proper labeling of chemicals in their use at the place of business. They
can sort of explain this away because ammunition is not, legally, a
“consumer product”.
Okay. Fine. Using the proper weasel words the power hungry regulators think
they have an angle to harass the ammunition manufacturers. Why not just
comply with the labeling requirements and get them off their backs? They
are. But it’s not all that easy.
It turns out this is non-trivial for a number of reasons. One reason is
that some of the larger manufacturers have many thousands of different
packaging configurations. It can cost over a million dollars to change the
packaging on everything. Another reason is that the labeling requirements
are such that it can’t fit on some of the current packages. A fifty round
box of .22 LR ammo is just too small to have the required warnings and
still be readable. Another reason it’s a problem is that the environment
where the ammo is used varies so much. The same ammo that is perfectly safe
for the shooter in a hunting environment can be toxic at an indoor range
with inadequate ventilation due to plugged air filters. There are just so
many things out of the ammo manufacturers control that the valid safety
issues need to be addressed at the location where it is being used.
There are a couple of things that are kind of strange about this whole
thing. One is that this person talked to several importers at SHOT show
this year. None of them had been contacted by OSHA. Also, there have not
been any sanctions or direct threats of sanctions over this. OSHA is
providing guidelines and “suggestions” but doesn’t actually claim they have
the authority to tell them what to do.
They suspect this may be due to politics rather than a semi-legitimate
concern of regulators for the health of range employees. But, they don’t
have any hard evidence to support that hypothesis. Do you?
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2016/02/04/ohsa-is-going-after-ammo-manufactures/
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
Progressive Liberal Politics Must Die Today
So That Freedom Can Be Sure Tomorrow!!!
The View From North Central Idaho
Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck farm boy who
became a software engineer.
OSHA is going after ammo manufacturers
Posted on February 4, 2016 by Joe
I received a call today from someone who works for a major ammunition
manufacturer. They required anonymity but want the following information to
get out to the public.
NSSF is also involved in the fight but doesn’t want to speak out about it
either.
It turns out my blog post about OSHA considering a requirement of “no guns
at work” policy got their attention.
They referred me to this letter from OSHA as background and proceeded to
tell me:
For about two years we’ve been BITTERLY fighting, and ultimately losing,
a battle with OSHA over warning labels on ammunition.
They have repeatedly asked something to the effect, “Are you doing this due
to pressure from above?” They haven’t been able to get an answer.
Everything just seems a little odd about it. My blog post dialed the
paranoia up another notch.
It’s a little obscure so you may not be aware that the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) is prohibited, by law, from regulating firearms
and ammunition. This means that, by law, ammunition is not considered a
“consumer product”. And some other agencies don’t have authority to
regulate them for other reasons.
Ammunition manufacturers have long recognized they could be a target of
repressive regulation if the government were given a plausible excuse and
hence have been very careful to “police their own”. With no major events
attributable to poor quality, indifference to safety, or newsworthy events
attributable to ammunition they have managed to avoid undue attention for
many decades. The only thing I can recall in my lifetime that put them at
serious risk was the big fuss about Black Talon ammo back in the mid-90s.
Winchester nipped that in the bud by taking it off the market faster than
the tyrants in congress could pass a bill to ban it.
So for decades the ammunition manufacturers have been avoiding undue
scrutiny and everyone has been getting along pretty well. Then a couple
years ago OSHA approached them and said, in essence, “You need to put
warnings on all your products because indoor range employees are at risk
from exposure to lead.”
What?
Sure, some indoor ranges have had severe problems with air quality. And
some employees and customers have been exposed to too much lead. So one
shouldn’t have a problem understanding how OSHA could find a way to poke
their nose into the business of indoor ranges. They have never had
oversight over ammunition before so how do they imagine they have authority
to regulate it now? Well, from reading the letter OSHA sent to SAAMI
lawyers ammunition it appears their claim is that ammunition is a “chemical
container”. And hence manufacturers much comply with all the nuances of
proper labeling of chemicals in their use at the place of business. They
can sort of explain this away because ammunition is not, legally, a
“consumer product”.
Okay. Fine. Using the proper weasel words the power hungry regulators think
they have an angle to harass the ammunition manufacturers. Why not just
comply with the labeling requirements and get them off their backs? They
are. But it’s not all that easy.
It turns out this is non-trivial for a number of reasons. One reason is
that some of the larger manufacturers have many thousands of different
packaging configurations. It can cost over a million dollars to change the
packaging on everything. Another reason is that the labeling requirements
are such that it can’t fit on some of the current packages. A fifty round
box of .22 LR ammo is just too small to have the required warnings and
still be readable. Another reason it’s a problem is that the environment
where the ammo is used varies so much. The same ammo that is perfectly safe
for the shooter in a hunting environment can be toxic at an indoor range
with inadequate ventilation due to plugged air filters. There are just so
many things out of the ammo manufacturers control that the valid safety
issues need to be addressed at the location where it is being used.
There are a couple of things that are kind of strange about this whole
thing. One is that this person talked to several importers at SHOT show
this year. None of them had been contacted by OSHA. Also, there have not
been any sanctions or direct threats of sanctions over this. OSHA is
providing guidelines and “suggestions” but doesn’t actually claim they have
the authority to tell them what to do.
They suspect this may be due to politics rather than a semi-legitimate
concern of regulators for the health of range employees. But, they don’t
have any hard evidence to support that hypothesis. Do you?
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2016/02/04/ohsa-is-going-after-ammo-manufactures/
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * Progressive Liberal Politics Must Die Today
So That Freedom Can Be Sure Tomorrow!!!
... Gary
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
