# Another 2nd Amendment Threat



## *Dustin* (Aug 31, 2006)

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has proposed new regulations that would affect ammunition factories and storage sites -- those being places such as outdoors stores, retailers, etc.

For instance, if a thunderstorm were approaching they would have to evacuate its store according to these proposed rules because lightning "might" cause an explosion.

http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=BP070207.cfm

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3145

Can't find anything on lightning starting a fire or explosion at a gun store.

Hillary and Pat Murray are lead dogs on this I would imagine.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

First of all, how exactly is this a 2cnd ammendment threat?? Before you answer you need to pick up a copy of osha 29 CFR and read it. The company I work for requires me to shut down operations if there is visible lightning or reported strikes within 10 miles of the site. Ive also been to a site that had a plant rule of tying off to a suitable anchor if a workers knees were 4 feet or more off ground level with no safety railings. I can go on and on about rules and regs in the construction and manufacturing industry (some are pretty crazy). My point is that workforce safety has really become a forefront issue (and well it should), its not a Democrat or Republican topic.

ps. I have a couple copies of CFR 29.1926 pertaining to construction if you would like to borrow one.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Just how exactly do senators create regulations for OSHA anyways?

As far as I can see, this is not a legislative issue, but rather a regulatory issue.

Even the links to the NRA and NSSF make no mention of this being a legislative issue, and the NRA is pretty quick to point out who is behind these things.


----------



## *Dustin* (Aug 31, 2006)

jdpete75 said:


> First of all, how exactly is this a 2cnd ammendment threat??


I don't need a copy of some construction regs.

I don't guess it is a 2nd Amendment Threat. It has nothing to do with firearms, just the ammunition. I'll have to dig deeper and find out what Amendment deals with ammunition. :roll:

From the NRA ---

OSHA's proposed rules would impose restrictions that very few gun stores, sporting goods stores, or ammunition dealers could comply with. (Prohibiting firearms in stores that sell ammunition, for example, is absurd-but would be required under the proposed rule.)

The proposed transportation regulations would also affect shooters' ability to buy these components by mail or online, because shipping companies would also have great difficulty complying with the proposed rules.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> (Prohibiting firearms in stores that sell ammunition, for example, is absurd-but would be required under the proposed rule.)


OK, so now it is a second amendment threat. Not from legislation, but from some overzealous arrogant bureaucrat. There is no reason for this other than an attack on firearms rights. Why would lightning be more likely to hit ammunition if a store has firearms in it, or a thousand bottles of John Edwards favorite Bret hair color? Plain and simple backdoor attack. They try it through the congress, they get presidents to push it, they try it often through the supreme court, now they are simply trying it through an agency with an evidently politically active employee who is using their agency. Doesn't that violate law in itself?

When things are done simply to impede others with no safety or other benefits it is nothing other than a political agenda.


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

jdpete75 said:


> First of all, how exactly is this a 2cnd ammendment threat?? its not a Democrat or Republican topic.


Huh? TELL me you are kidding!! PLEASE!! OF COURSE this is a threat to the ability of the American shooting public to enjoy our 2nd Amendment rights.

It's what's known as "Back Door Legislation". Not unlike activist judges, it's just a way for gun grabbers to get their way without looking like gun grabbers.

The pitiful thing is, the head of OSHA is a Bush appointee.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Has anybody other than me read the proposed rule change? Its a pretty dry 55 page read, but with a couple coffee breaks you should be able to get through it. Make sure you read the whole thing, the first 46 pages really suck but they explain who is requesting the changes and detail each one. I did make a telephone call to request an interpretation regarding retail storage and display, since this is a proposed change they will have to call back, he said within 1 business day. Since it is a government agency I hope to be called before Christmas


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jdpete75, thank you for looking into this. I hope you will let us know what you find out. I know we could do it, but there are a thousand things to do and if you look into it that saves us all some time. Thank you.

Especially let us know if they want firearms, and ammo or loading supplies stored separately. This makes little sense (no make that no sense) for safety and gives the appearance of a back door grab at our firearms freedoms.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

jdpete75, I think this is the proposal you are talking about. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp ... p_id=19509
Reading this or trying to read it gave me a headache. However I have a question. If I read this correctly it seems ATF and DOT have preemptive authority over OSHA and they are the one's that have control over the sale, storage, and shipping of small arms, ammunition, and reloading supplies. If that is correct then these rules or proposed new rules of OSHA have no real affect on us gun owners or those that sell guns, ammunition or reloading supplies. Is that how you read it or did I totally screw it up.

It would also be in everyone's interest that they realize that the Explosives Manufacturers of America and SAAMI, an institute connected to firearms manufacturers, requested that OSHA revise their explosives classification systems to be more in line with the times. In addition, in the link above you will see OSHA asking many pointed questions as to who has authority and if changes are really needed and if so just where. Seems to me this is not some back door gun grab but OSHA asking many question about changes that at least one firearms connected institute asked for. Doesn't make sense for SAAMI to shoot themselves in the head by destroying the very thing they exist for. Again, maybe I just read it wrong or didn't read enough.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Ditto on the headache. That is exactly how I understood it to read. I wasnt able to find a real clear answer on the retail end of it. The matches and sparking device part propted my phone call in the first place, I also asked wheter or not this subsection pertains at all to display of "small arms ammunition" and proximity to firearms displays. It would really be nice if OSHA would provide an easier to read summary of thier rulings, a guy damm near needs a lawyer at his side on jobsites nowadays.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Still no reply. I printed the document out Friday before I left work and studied it over the weekend. After further review I believe I may have been wrong  , I still dont think its "backdoor gun control", however I am of the opinion that some of the distances specified for separation may be difficult for a small store to comply with. Specifically places like NW Industries (sorry Leon, needed an example) with limited area and a justifiable need for a 60mn wall. I am no expert on the law, just giving my thoughts on the law as written.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

The OSHA proposals went south. Back Door Legislation it was not. As suspected this was nothing more than OSHA trying to meet a request about something they were flying blind in and were throwing out proposals and at the same time asking for information. You can read about it here.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3162


----------

