OSHA Going After the Firearms Industry? Labor Dept Will Revise OSHA Explosives Rule - Page 4

OSHA Going After the Firearms Industry? Labor Dept Will Revise OSHA Explosives Rule

This is a discussion on OSHA Going After the Firearms Industry? Labor Dept Will Revise OSHA Explosives Rule within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I too have downloaded and read much of the document in question. I find this to be a key paragraph: Small arms ammunitions are finished ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
  1. #46
    Member Array Serenity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    113
    I too have downloaded and read much of the document in question. I find this to be a key paragraph:

    Small arms ammunitions are finished
    consumer products that pose lesser
    hazards to employees when compared
    with most other forms of explosives.
    There are very small quantities of
    explosive matter sealed in the
    ammunition shells which, when
    inadvertently detonated (except when
    confined as in the firing chamber of a
    weapon), do not constitute a substantial
    projection or mass explosion hazard.
    Therefore, the safe storage and
    transportation requirements for small
    arms ammunition are different from
    other explosives.
    I think that what everybody is freaking out about is the fact that the document, in portions like were quoted in the previous post, raises the question about under what circumstances or conditions will proposed changes....most of which are obviously intended to target manufacturing, bulk storage of raw materials and blasting areas....are not feasable for retail establishments.

    This is just part of the process. You propose a regulation and then discuss implimentation and possible exceptions. It doesn't mean that there was ever an intention for the "default" ruling to effect every circumstance equally. That's what the paragraph I posted acknowledges.

    Some well meaning people took a look at it and took some paragraphs to their somewhat logical but still absurd conclusions and said "Oh no, we'll have to evacuate everytime it rains...or you'll be searched everytime you enter a gun shop for matches and lighters."

    The fact that the document acknowledges that there are reasons to treat retail facilities differently, rather than being taken as reassuring by many who read the document, freaked many people out because all they could think of was "Well what if they do apply all these rules to every situation." That's not going to happen. This is just the process for creation of regulations. They have to put the discussion in writing as part of the document to show that the issues were considered and addressed. It doesn't mean that there is a secret conspiracy to close down gun shops and ammo makers.

    If you read the document you'll see that it's pretty clearly divisible into two distinct parts...The first 35 pages are talking about manufacturing, storage of mass quantaties of raw materials and high explosives and blasting situations. The second part discusses ammunition and retail sellers. I don't believe that there is any intention to apply every regulation from page 1-35 to your local gun shop.
    "Friend, I would not harm thee for all the world, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot."--Unknown Quaker


  2. #47
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    You need to keep reading beyond the paragraph you quoted, where you will find this statement:
    However, proposed paragraph (h) does apply to the non-temporary storage of small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants.
    The actual proposed regs don't begin until the 45th page, page 18835. On page 18836, under § 1910.109 Explosives, we read the following
    (a) Scope. (1) This section applies to the manufacture, storage, sale, transportation, handling, and use of explosives, including blasting agents and pyrotechnics.
    in paragraph (b) of § 1910.109, "Definitions applicable to this section", is the following:
    Explosive means any device, or liquid or solid chemical compound or mixture, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion.
    (i) The term ‘‘explosive’’ includes all material included as a Class 1 explosive by DOT in accordance with 49 CFR chapter I. The term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite, black powder, pellet powders, detonators, blasting agents, initiating explosives, blasting caps, safety fuse, fuse lighters, fuse igniters, squibs, cordeau detonant fuse, instantaneous fuse, igniter cord, igniters, pyrotechnics, special industrial explosive materials, small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, smokeless propellant, cartridges for propellant-actuated power devices, and cartridges for industrial guns.
    Thus, the regulations, wherever they mention "explosive", are expressly including small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, smokeless propellant.

    So, when subparagraph 2 of paragraph (c) of the section, "General provisions" says
    (2) Electrical hazards. (i) The employer shall ensure that the primary electrical supply to a facility containing explosives can be disconnected at a safe remote location away from the facility. (ii) During the approach and progress of an electrical storm, the employer shall ensure that:
    (A) All explosive manufacturing and blasting operations are suspended; and (B) Employees located in or near facilities containing explosives or in blast sites are withdrawn immediately to a safe remote location.
    OSHA is clearly applying the regulation to small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, smokeless propellant. Now, are they applying to retailers of the same? I'll answer that in a second.

    Paragraph (c)(3)(iii), which is referenced in the excerpts below, bans smoking, open flames, etc. within 50 feet of a facility containing explosives. Paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(D) is the one that prohibits firearms from being carried in a facility containing explosives, thus ending concealed and open carry in retailers.

    So, having answered the question of is ammo covered, we now come to the question of are retailers of ammo covered.

    That question is answered on page 18803:
    A ‘‘part of a facility containing explosives’’ would include any building on a site where explosives are manufactured, handled or stored.
    and on page 18804, where OSHA specifically and explicitly acknowledges that the regulation about open flames applies to retailers of ammunition:
    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)?
    The regulation states (found on page 18837):
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that:
    (A) No open flames, matches, or spark-producing devices are located within 50 feet (15.2 m) of explosives or facilities containing explosives;
    (B) Smoking is only permitted in authorized smoking areas located a safe distance from explosives;
    (C) No person carries firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives or blast sites except as required for work duties;
    Since OSHA has told us its definition for explosives includes small arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants, and its definition of a facility containing explosives includes any place, including retail establishments, where small arms ammunition, small arms primers, or smokeless propellants are made or stored, there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that the proposed regulations concerning open flames, electrical storms, and carry of firearms absolutely do apply to gun stores, Wal-Mart, etc.

    (All emphasis in quoted excerpts was added by me)

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    I too have downloaded and read much of the document in question. I find this to be a key paragraph:

    I think that what everybody is freaking out about is the fact that the document, in portions like were quoted in the previous post, raises the question about under what circumstances or conditions will proposed changes....most of which are obviously intended to target manufacturing, bulk storage of raw materials and blasting areas....are not feasable for retail establishments.

    This is just part of the process. You propose a regulation and then discuss implimentation and possible exceptions. It doesn't mean that there was ever an intention for the "default" ruling to effect every circumstance equally. That's what the paragraph I posted acknowledges.

    Some well meaning people took a look at it and took some paragraphs to their somewhat logical but still absurd conclusions and said "Oh no, we'll have to evacuate everytime it rains...or you'll be searched everytime you enter a gun shop for matches and lighters."

    The fact that the document acknowledges that there are reasons to treat retail facilities differently, rather than being taken as reassuring by many who read the document, freaked many people out because all they could think of was "Well what if they do apply all these rules to every situation." That's not going to happen. This is just the process for creation of regulations. They have to put the discussion in writing as part of the document to show that the issues were considered and addressed. It doesn't mean that there is a secret conspiracy to close down gun shops and ammo makers.

    If you read the document you'll see that it's pretty clearly divisible into two distinct parts...The first 35 pages are talking about manufacturing, storage of mass quantaties of raw materials and high explosives and blasting situations. The second part discusses ammunition and retail sellers. I don't believe that there is any intention to apply every regulation from page 1-35 to your local gun shop.

  3. #48
    Member Array Serenity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    113
    I understand that it's difficult to understand what they are or are not including as explosives in any given paragraph.

    But my main point is that the whole reason that the issues that we are concerned about are brought up in the document is that OSHA realizes that not every regulation that makes sense to apply to manufacturing, industry, storage of raw materials and blasting sites makes sense to apply to retail settings.

    They are not going to apply those parts of the rules to retail settings. They can't do it. It's not enforceable, it's not practical and it's unheard of to search the public before they enter a place of business.

    I think its amazing that they admit that an exploding round outside of a firing chamber really isn't all that dangerous.

    In this, and so many other applications, if regulations that were applied to any given industry were applied to retail establishments or the public in general every retail outlet from gun shops to supermarkets would be shut down.

    I understand that the broad way it's written at this point could include retail establishments but it's apparent from the emphasis of the regulations that that isn't the intent.

    If you read the first part of the document they make it clear, and hate OSHA all you like but it has proved true, that they do not see to impose regulation in such a a way at to make it impossible for any given industry to do business.

    Is OSHA annoying? Yes. Do they come up with some stuff that makes your eyes roll back in your head. Yes. Will they destroy an entire legal industry? No. No way. This is nothing but a preliminary document that will pass in a few months and you'll probably never even notice it at your local gun shop.

    This is a sensationalized waste of energy. There are plenty of bills and other issues worth contacting our representatives about. This isn't one of them.
    "Friend, I would not harm thee for all the world, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot."--Unknown Quaker

  4. #49
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    Actually, it's not at all difficult to understand what OSHA means by the term "explosives"; they define it for us, in paragraph (b) of § 1910.109, "Definitions applicable to this section" ("this section" being § 1910.109, including all its paragraphs), and small arms ammunition, small arms primers, and smokeless propellants are among the items included by OSHA in the definition of explosives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    I understand that it's difficult to understand what they are or are not including as explosives in any given paragraph.
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    But my main point is that the whole reason that the issues that we are concerned about are brought up in the document is that OSHA realizes that not every regulation that makes sense to apply to manufacturing, industry, storage of raw materials and blasting sites makes sense to apply to retail settings.

    They are not going to apply those parts of the rules to retail settings. They can't do it. It's not enforceable, it's not practical and it's unheard of to search the public before they enter a place of business.
    On what basis do you say they aren't? OSHA intends to, as they clearly state in the regulations. Issue # 4, from page 18804, indicates they understand there may be issues with their applying the regs to retail establishments, but they still propose doing so anyway. They clearly believe, and so state, they have the authority to do so, the necessary reason (employee/workplace safety) to do so, and they crafted the proposed regs in such a way that they do indeed cover and are applicable to retail establishments that sell and store ammo, primers and powder.

    Whether OSHA realizes "that not every regulation that makes sense to apply to manufacturing, industry, storage of raw materials and blasting sites makes sense to apply to retail settings" or not is irrelevant, since they wrote the regs to do just that--the regs as written apply the same electrical, fire, etc. standards to retail shops as to a blasting site or a manufacturer.

    Furthermore, I prefer to read the words of the agency and take them at face value, rather than to put on a happy-happy face and fool myself into thinking "They'd never do that!" They are telling us in black and white that these regs will apply to retail shops that sell ammo, primers or powder. (by these regs, I specifically mean the no open flame within 50 feet of a building, no firearms inside a building, and evacuating a building when an electrical storm approaches).

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    I understand that the broad way it's written at this point could include retail establishments but it's apparent from the emphasis of the regulations that that isn't the intent.

    If you read the first part of the document they make it clear, and hate OSHA all you like but it has proved true, that they do not see to impose regulation in such a a way at to make it impossible for any given industry to do business.
    "broad way it's written at this point could include"? Sorry, there's no "could" about it--OSHA explicitly does include retail establishments, on pages 18803 and 18804.

    As for a given industry doing business: Who says that gun shops or Wal-Mart have to sell ammo? Wal-Mart and gunshops would survive the regs quite nicely, thank you. They just wouldn't sell any ammo, and gun ranges that are attached to gunshops would have to shut down. No, the stores will do just fine. You and I, however, won't be so lucky.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    Is OSHA annoying? Yes. Do they come up with some stuff that makes your eyes roll back in your head. Yes. Will they destroy an entire legal industry? No. No way. This is nothing but a preliminary document that will pass in a few months and you'll probably never even notice it at your local gun shop.

    This is a sensationalized waste of energy. There are plenty of bills and other issues worth contacting our representatives about. This isn't one of them.
    Wrong. Without objection from people like you and I, these proposed regs could very well become part of the OSHA regs.

    That's why it is so crucial that we speak out and comment to OSHA during this comment period. We must tell them that the proposed regulations should in fact exempt ammo, primers and powder as well as exempt retail stores that sell those items. Now is our chance; after the regs become final, it's too late.

  5. #50
    Member Array rudolfofierro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    16

    Thumbs down As always the "devil lies in the details."

    I think a majority of us are missing the main point which is the following: If you open the door for any government agency like OHSA, just a crack, somewhere down the line that door is going to get slammed in your face. In other words, imagine what would happen if Sarah Brady was hired to administer OSHA. How would her interpretation of the proposed new OSHA rule be different from ours?
    In my opinion, NO goverment agency should be put in control of my CONSTITUTIONAL rights. I don't care what your interpretation of the proposed ruling is, it is my right to protect myself and my family and any ruling by a governmental agency that may inhibit that right, now or in the future, is unconstitutional and criminal and should never be put into effect. Why do we, the people of the United States have to worry every minute about our government limiting our rights? I am sick and tired of "unelected" lifetime bureaucrats who probably couldn't be successful without depending on the government for their living telling me how my life should be changed in order to comply with their view of the world. Always remember the most dreaded words ever spoken, "Hi! I'm from the government and I am here to help you."
    Do I distrust my government? I have three words for you: comprehensive immigration reform.

  6. #51
    Member Array clemmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Free State Wyoming
    Posts
    39
    An actual response from OSHA to a user of another forum.
    .....................
    Just got this response from the gov-goons:

    Detailed Description of Request:
    Entered on 07/16/2007 at 09:21:54 by Lon D:
    Ms. "X",
    The docket has been closed for electronic submission of public comments on 7/13/07. However you can submit comments (three copies) as follows:
    FAX 202-693-1648

    Mail:
    OSHA Docket Office
    Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032
    U.S. Department of Labor
    Room N-2625
    200 Constitution Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20210

    Seems they will not accept on-line comments anymore, even with the extension, so we'll have to do it by fax or mail.

    Don't forget to send three copies!! Insanity....
    .................

    Aren't these folks supposed to work for US ?

  7. #52
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,808
    Received this from NRA today.

    Labor Department Announces It Will Revise
    Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it will significantly revise a recent proposal for new “explosives safety” regulations that caused serious concern among gun owners. OSHA had originally set out to update workplace safety regulations, but the proposed rules included restrictions that very few gun shops, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with.

    Gun owners had filed a blizzard of negative comments urged by the NRA, and just a week ago, OSHA had already issued one extension for its public comment period at the request of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. After continued publicity through NRA alerts and the outdoor media, and after dozens of Members of Congress expressed concern about its impact, OSHA has wisely decided to go back to the drawing board.

    Working with the NRA, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) planned to offer a floor amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this Wednesday when the House considers this legislation. His amendment would have prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce this OSHA regulation.

    Such an amendment is no longer necessary since 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.

    Also, working with the NRA, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) gathered signatures from 25 House colleagues for a letter, dated July 11, expressing concerns about this proposed OSHA rule. The letter calling the proposal “an undue burden on a single industry where facts do not support the need outlined by this proposed rule” and “not feasible, making it realistically impossible for companies to comply with its tenets.”

    The OSHA proposal would have defined “explosives” to include “black powder, … small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant,” and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives.

    Under the proposed rule, a workplace that contained even a handful of small arms cartridges, for any reason, would have been considered a “facility containing explosives” and therefore subject to many impractical restrictions. For example, no one could carry “firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives … except as required for work duties.” Obviously, this rule would make it impossible to operate any kind of gun store, firing range, or gunsmith shop.

    The public comment website for the proposed rule is no longer accessible. The Labor Department will publish a notice in the July 17 Federal Register announcing that a new rule proposal will soon be drafted for public comment. Needless to say, the NRA monitors proposed federal regulations to head off this kind of overreach, and will be alert for OSHA’s next draft.

    We will post the letter to Congressman Rehberg shortly.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    "The OSHA proposal would have defined “explosives” to include “black powder, … small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant,” and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives."
    Absolutely not true except for black powder. For over 20 years DOT has had black powder in 1.1D because of it's sensitivity to initiation from heat, static electricity, shock and friction. This ain't gonna change.

  9. #54
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    "The OSHA proposal would have defined “explosives” to include “black powder, … small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant,” and treated these items the same as the most volatile high explosives."

    Absolutely not true except for black powder. For over 20 years DOT has had black powder in 1.1D because of it's sensitivity to initiation from heat, static electricity, shock and friction. This ain't gonna change.
    Dude, I don't know why you can't accept that the rules would have done just exactly that. It said it in black and white. Words mean things, and whether OSHA meant to or not, their words would have had a very negative affect on all of us as gun owners.

    Thankfully the good guys won this battle. We'll have to see what happens in the future.

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Quote Originally Posted by SCGuy View Post
    Dude, I don't know why you can't accept that the rules would have done just exactly that. It said it in black and white. Words mean things, and whether OSHA meant to or not, their words would have had a very negative affect on all of us as gun owners.


    Dude, i do this stuff for a living and know how to read regulations, You do not.

  11. #56
    Member Array rudolfofierro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    16

    Thumbs down OSHA repeal of explosives reg.

    It is a wonderful thing for everybody to accept OSHA's explanation of the regulation governing explosives and ammunition and their humble, "aw shucks, Ma, we didn't know what we was doing and we won't do it again," apology. It kind of makes you feel kind of warm all over, doesn't it.
    If you think this sneaky attempt to steal one of our Constitutional rights is just going to fade away, then I have some oceanfront property in New Mexico I would you an outstanding deal with.
    As for me, I don't accept either the apology or the explanation. Somebody knowly and intentionally attempted a bloodless coup on your rights. That person should no longer be employed in a taxpayer -paid position. The least they should have to do is to attend a class on the Constitution of the United States. We have sensitivity classes for much less worthy causes, why not this one? Remember what happened to Jesse James when he turned his back on someone he thought he could trust.

  12. #57
    Member Array Serenity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    "Dude, I don't know why you can't accept that the rules would have done just exactly that. It said it in black and white. Words mean things, and whether OSHA meant to or not, their words would have had a very negative affect on all of us as gun owners."

    Dude, i do this stuff for a living and know how to read regulations, You do not.
    You are wasting your time trying to convince people on this. People who don't understand how the regulation approval process works will forever look at this as some kind of "victory" over this evil OSHA conspiracy to close down the entire gun and ammunition industry.

    All that happened in this case was that OSHA realized that the ill-informed public outcry was making it impossible for them to get intelligent feedback and comment on the regulations as proposed. Thus, they pulled the proposal and have realized that in order to keep the bad press and fuss to a minimum they need to hash out the exemptions more clearly as part of the proposal. (The same changes that would have happened during the regular approval process.)

    It's worth noting that, at least in the gun forum threads I've looked at, the gun shop owners who are already under certain OSHA regulations and are used to working with them, weren't the ones wetting their pants over this. It was mostly the public at large who have little experience understanding the way the regulation process works.
    "Friend, I would not harm thee for all the world, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot."--Unknown Quaker

  13. #58
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    You are wasting your time trying to convince people on this. People who don't understand how the regulation approval process works will forever look at this as some kind of "victory" over this evil OSHA conspiracy to close down the entire gun and ammunition industry.
    Yes, you are right. i have talked with owners of several gun shops who also sell ammunition and re-loading components. One shop is huge. None of them were worried in the least about the proposed OSHA regulation. Most gun shops currently meet most of the proposed OSHA standards. In some cities, gunshops are not allowed to have any powder on display. Very few cities allow any black powder on display.

    OSHA is not the evil federal agency that many make it out to be. i knew one of the very OSHA compliance guys. He busted the contractor who was building the cooling tower for a power plant at St. Marys, WV when it collapsed, killing over 20 workers.

  14. #59
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    All that happened in this case was that OSHA realized that the ill-informed public outcry was making it impossible for them to get intelligent feedback and comment on the regulations as proposed. Thus, they pulled the proposal and have realized that in order to keep the bad press and fuss to a minimum they need to hash out the exemptions more clearly as part of the proposal. (The same changes that would have happened during the regular approval process.)
    Or perhaps it was the various business owners who were concerned about their ability to conduct business as usual when there was no credible threat that needed to be addressed. Perhaps, also, said business owners (the ones most likely to respond in an intelligent, deliberate manner) had the most convincing arguments for what the proposed regulations would do.

    Perhaps the regulations were just plain poorly written. Perhaps.


    -B

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. 'Anti-gunner' OSHA nominee advances without questions 'By fiat could outlaw firearms
    By cbp210 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 21st, 2009, 08:41 AM
  2. H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009
    By Patti in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 12th, 2009, 10:18 PM
  3. VENT - Colorado Dept O' Labor
    By Sticks in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 17th, 2008, 10:08 AM
  4. OSHA wants to regulate small arms ammo
    By sniper58 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 7th, 2007, 12:21 AM
  5. OSHA approved gun lock
    By sisco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 28th, 2007, 01:37 PM

Search tags for this page

interagency committee on explosives

,

interagency committee on explosives (ice)

,

is ammunition for small arms covered by osha 1910.1200

,

national reloading manufacturers association website

,

osha conspiracy

,

osha stupidity

,

were there standards in the firearms industry before saami?

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors