|
Monday, 09 July 2007 |
|
The OSHA proposed regulation on Explosives ( OSHA-2007-0032-0001 ) has had its comment period extended. The comment period was to end on Thursday ( July 12 ), but now is September 10. You can see that there are painfully few comments so far. Let's get out there and tell them what we think. Don't delay. Unfortunately www.regulations.gov is not particularly friendly. So, in the search area at the bottom after Optional Step 4, search on Document ID OSHA-2007-0032-0001. Update: When I typed this, there were 18 viewable comments. Apparently there is a substantial lag time between posting and viewing. There are now over 600 comments. Write Comment (1 Comments) |
|
Thursday, 05 July 2007 |
|
The Firearms Coalition has redesigned their site into something much more usable. It is easier to navigate. And pages are now directly addressable, so that you can link directly into their content. Check out the new site and let them know what you think. Write Comment (1 Comments) |
|
Monday, 02 July 2007 |
|
From the National Shooting Sports Foundation: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants. As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters. NSSF and SAAMI have already had a preliminary meeting with OSHA officials to begin the process of explaining to them the major problems this proposed rule presents for all levels of the firearms and ammunition industry. Furthermore, NSSF and SAAMI are each seeking a 60 day extension of the public comment period (currently scheduled to expire July 12). NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly "adversely affect in a material way" the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars. Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows: RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on
"Significant Regulatory Action" as Defined in Executive Order 12866Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.
Write Comment (2 Comments) |
|
Thursday, 28 June 2007 |
|
Unlike the vast majority (perhaps all) of the other candidates, Fred Thompson is a guy that I think actually believes what he is saying. Check out his thoughts on the Second Amendment at Fred Thompson on the RKBA. Fortunately Fred seems to get it more than the Fox announcer. Write Comment (1 Comments) |
|
Wednesday, 27 June 2007 |
|
No, I don't have the energy to crank this series back up. It grew over alittle over two years to a behemoth that chewed threw time like the US government chews through money. I am pleased to see that The Liberty Sphere is picking up some of the ball and running with it: Second Amendment News Roundup for 6/27/07. I suggest that a limited number of bloggers stake out their list of blogs to track and also run. That way one blogger is not drowned by the size of the websphere. Allow yourselves the capacity to add new blogs as they come along. And most importantly, don't bite off more than you can chew. Let me know who you are and I will keep a list of gun blog accumulators on the side. Write Comment (3 Comments) |
|
|
Tuesday, 26 June 2007 |
|
Since 2003, the Tiahrt Amendment has been an amendment to the Department of Justice appropriations bill. It prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) from releasing gun trace data to the public. It does not prevent access to gun trace data to law enforcement organizations in the course of a criminal investigation. The data had been used by lawyers to fuel lawsuits by localities against firearm dealers. In the process, they had also endangered ongoing investigations. What does it say? From the 2006 H.R.2862: That no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery in any civil action in a State or Federal court or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of such an action or proceeding; except that this proviso shall not be construed to prevent the disclosure of statistical information concerning total production, importation, and exportation by each licensed importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of such title) and licensed manufacturer (as defined in section 921(a)(10) of such title): Who supports it? - The Department of Justice
- The Fraternal Order of Police
- The NRA
Who does not support it? - The Brady Campaign
- The Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Those opposed to the Tiahrt Amendment claim to have the support of police chiefs across the nation. What they don't tell you is that these chiefs are political appointees of mayors who may be members of The Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They are not cops actually working the streets. In the 109th Congress, Senate Bill 2460 and House Bill 5033 attempted to undo the Tiahrt Amendment. Neither made it anywhere. And how does Tiahrt feel about what is said about his amendment? Check out Tiahrt Responds to MAIG Campaign of Lies and Distortion. Write Comment (0 Comments) |
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>
|
