Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation

The Facts About OSHA's Ammunition Proposal

Friday, July 13, 2007

 July 16 , 2007  UPDATE: Labor Department Announces It Will Revise Overreaching OSHA Explosives Rule  

 

A recent proposal for new “explosives safety” regulations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has rightly caused a flurry of concern among gun owners and those in the firearm business.  OSHA had set out to make legitimate updates to workplace safety regulations pertaining to explosives; unfortunately, the proposed rule goes far beyond regulating true explosives.  The proposed rules include restrictions that very few gun stores, sporting goods stores, shippers, or ammunition dealers could comply with. 

           

The key problem in the proposed rule is that OSHA defines “explosives” to include “black powder, … small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant.”  The proposal defines different classes of “explosives” based on the hazards they present, but then treats ammunition and components the same as the most volatile high explosives, for nearly all purposes. 

 

In fact, industry and military tests have long proved that small arms cartridge pose little hazard in a fire.  A classic reference work from the 1940s describes tests in which large quantities of shotgun shells and metallic cartridges were deliberately set on fire.  The ammunition generally burned slowly, and cartridges ignited “piece by piece” without throwing fragments more than a few feet.  (Julian S. Hatcher, Hatcher’s Notebook 532-33 (2d ed. 1962).)

           

Because small arms ammunition and components are far less hazardous than high explosives, existing practices for their storage, transportation and sale are very different.  But under the proposed rule, a workplace that contains even a handful of small arms cartridges, for any reason, is considered a “facility containing explosives” and therefore subject to many impractical restrictions.  Among the many examples:

 

  • No person could carry “firearms, ammunition, or similar articles in facilities containing explosives … except as required for work duties.”  This rule would make it impossible to operate any kind of gun store, firing range, or gunsmith shop. 

 

  • Employers would have to evacuate all employees when an electrical storm approaches a “facility containing explosives.”  This requirement would apply to all “facilities,” from a small country store that stocks a few boxes of hunting ammunition, to the largest mass-merchandise outlet such as Wal-Mart. 

 

  • Employers would have to ensure that “no open flames, matches, or spark producing devices are located within 50 feet (15.2 m) of explosives or facilities containing explosives.”  Neither small gun stores, nor “big box” retailers have any practical way to enforce this rule; realistically, a person smoking a cigarette outside a large concrete building can’t set fire to ammunition inside the building anyway.

 

  • Vehicles could not be “refueled within 50 feet (15.2 m) of a facility containing “explosives.”  Again, many gas stations and convenience stores in rural areas stock small quantities of ammunition; gas pumps outside don’t pose any danger to ammunition in the store.

 

The proposed rules on storage of small arms ammunition and components would also create problems for retailers.

 

  • The rule would require 25 feet of separation between small arms ammunition and all “flammable liquids, flammable solids, and oxidizing materials.”  As an even more impractical alternative, a dealer could construct a one-hour fire barrier wall.  Neither should be necessary, given the low level of hazard created by (for instance) a countertop display of gun oil near a supply of rifle or pistol cartridges.

 

  • The rule would also impose stricter limits on storage of smokeless powder than existing National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines require.  OSHA has presented no evidence that the existing NFPA standard is insufficient to protect workplace safety.

 

Finally, transportation provisions in the proposed rule would create similar problems.  For example, the rule would require shippers to notify “local fire and police departments” before transferring “explosives” between vehicles, and even to notify these agencies about vehicle breakdowns or collisions.  A fender-bender while delivering shotgun shells to a gun store hardly justifies this level of government involvement.  These provisions do not reflect standard practices in the shipping industry, and many carriers would probably refuse to ship ammunition under these rules. 

 

It’s important to remember this is only a proposed rule, so there’s still time for concerned citizens to speak out.  The National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute will all file comments urging a major rewrite of these proposed regulations, based on the severe effect the proposed regulations (if finalized) would have on the availability of ammunition and reloading supplies to safe and responsible shooters.

 

The public comment period on OSHA’s proposal ends September 10, 2007.  To file a comment, or to learn more about the OSHA proposal, go to www.regulations.gov and search for Docket Number OSHA-2007-0032”; you can read OSHA’s proposal and learn how to submit comments electronically, or by fax or mail. 

 

 

To read a letter from Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and 31 other members of Congress to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao regarding the OSHA proposal, please visit http://www.nraila.org/images/oshaltr.pdf

 

TRENDING NOW
Gun Control May be Wasting Away, But Not Because of COVID

News  

Monday, October 19, 2020

Gun Control May be Wasting Away, But Not Because of COVID

A recent article on a gun control news site laments that the COVID-19 pandemic has thwarted ballot initiatives to expand gun bans and restrictions. Initiatives in Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio and Oregon have stalled, allegedly due to the ...

Anti-gun Politicians Seek to Tax Your Second Amendment Rights Into Oblivion

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

Anti-gun Politicians Seek to Tax Your Second Amendment Rights Into Oblivion

In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court famously wrote:  “the power to tax involves the power to destroy ….”

Anti-Gun Organization Prepared to Launch National Group of Gun Owners Who Apparently Don’t Like Guns

News  

Monday, October 19, 2020

Anti-Gun Organization Prepared to Launch National Group of Gun Owners Who Apparently Don’t Like Guns

Yes, that title doesn’t make much sense, but neither does a group that promotes banning firearms starting a national organization called Gun Owners for Safety. Nonetheless, The Hill recently reported that the anti-gun group Giffords is doing just ...

Law Professors Make Case for Second Amendment Rights in Uncertain Times

News  

Monday, October 19, 2020

Law Professors Make Case for Second Amendment Rights in Uncertain Times

Americans have made clear that they value their Second Amendment rights, especially during uncertain times. Faced with the COVID-19 pandemic and then widespread civil unrest, Americans have bought firearms in record numbers. Through September, the FBI ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

Montana: Californian-funded Fake Hunting Group Lies About Steve Bullock’s Anti-gun Record

News  

Monday, October 12, 2020

Montana: Californian-funded Fake Hunting Group Lies About Steve Bullock’s Anti-gun Record

Montana gun owners have been subjected to an abundance of lies this election season. Leading the misinformation campaign is fake hunting group Montana Hunters & Anglers Leadership Fund. Bankrolled by a wealthy San Francisco Bay ...

NRA Victory in Washington

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

NRA Victory in Washington

It’s rare that gun owners have something to celebrate in the Emerald City. But on Monday, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an NRA suit on behalf of Seattle gun owners. 

Joe Biden Told Voters the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right

News  

Monday, September 21, 2020

Joe Biden Told Voters the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right

During a September 2019 “townhall” hosted by New Hampshire ABC affiliate WMUR, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden made clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and ...

Gun Controllers Try to Hide Joe Biden’s Anti-gun Extremism

News  

Monday, September 14, 2020

Gun Controllers Try to Hide Joe Biden’s Anti-gun Extremism

With Fall 2020 upon us it is time again for gun control advocates’ quadrennial tradition – dishonestly attempting to convince voters that a brazenly anti-gun presidential ticket does not pose a threat to gun owners. ...

Biden Focuses Prohibitory Ambitions on “Gun Parts,” Among (Many, Many) Other Gun Control Items

News  

Monday, October 5, 2020

Biden Focuses Prohibitory Ambitions on “Gun Parts,” Among (Many, Many) Other Gun Control Items

Ever since he clinched the Democrat presidential nomination, we have been warning America’s gun owners that Joe Biden is no “moderate” when it comes to gun control. Simply scrolling through the extensive gun control agenda published on his official campaign website ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.