SAAMI petition OSHA for regultory changes

hogin204

hogin204

New member
I got an E-mail today claiming SAAMI asked for these finding. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif I told myself, NO WAY, it's part of the Federal Register of OSHA draft

It's on page 18793 of the Federal Register of OSHA Regultory Changes.

I quote the page 18793

"On July 29, 2002, OSHA received a petition from Institute of Makers of Explosive (IME) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacures Institute (SAAMI) to revise the standard. A copy of the petition can be found DOcket no. OSHA-S031-2006-0665(ex-2-1)

....... The Petition claimed that ~1910.109 does not reflect significant technological and safety advances made by explosives industry since the stanard was promulgated. (1910 Explosive Act)
It further contended that the standard contains outdated references, classification and jurisdiction related provisions that do not accurately represent the current regulatory environment"

"The Petition requested OSHA to make a number of changes to the standard, including the following, and provide draft regulatory language"

So NSSF along with SAMMI asking us to defeat this when SAAMI created it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Last edited:
Quote:
"... So NSSF along with SAMMI asking us to defeat this when SAAMI created it." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif



Well... not quite.

The two organizations asked for language to be clarified, because the Office of Homeland Security, the BATFE, and OSHA used different language, and different definitions.

OSHA, in it's OWN INFINITE WISDOM, saw the opportunity to expand the arena of their control, under the philosophy of "Government agency rule # 17; ergo;

"No Government agency, no matter why created, will limit itself to the arena for which it was created, but shall do all in it's power, by (a) re-interpreting, (b) re-writing, or (c) re-phrasing, existing old statutes, to expand it's Sphere of influence.

When and if the foregoing is not possible by manipulating or using existing statutes, that said agency, shall, "in the interest of public safety", using phrases like "it's for the children", write NEW statutes, using language that is filled with tripple negatives, redundancy, and rife with references to numerical statutes that are lost in the archives, or otherwise not available to the general public. At such time, that said agency shall include requests for additional funding for additional staff, equipment (including, but not limited to, helicopters, firearms, landing craft, etc), and office space.

Failure to do so shall be considered not in the best interest of the agency, and the directors of said agencies shall, upon review, be terminated FOR CAUSE."

.
 
Quote:
Quote:
"... So NSSF along with SAMMI asking us to defeat this when SAAMI created it." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif



Well... not quite.

The two organizations asked for language to be clarified, because the Office of Homeland Security, the BATFE, and OSHA used different language, and different definitions.

OSHA, in it's OWN INFINITE WISDOM, saw the opportunity to expand the arena of their control, under the philosophy of "Government agency rule # 17; ergo;.



As you Quoted - Even Novice's in the Legislative and Regulatory arena KNOW you have to be careful what you wish for /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif It's obvious they got more than they "petition" for /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

When you open Pandora's Box the challenges to undo original intentions can be catastrophic not only for the Industry but our ranks too.
 
Folks, this is looking serious. I've gotten it emailed to me from several sources, all with various interpretations, and none of them have good implications for us as shooters and handloaders.

Do what you can to block the passage of this deal.
 
Quote:(SAAMI) to revise the standard. A copy of the petition can be found DOcket no. OSHA-S031-2006-0665(ex-2-1)

....... The Petition claimed that ~1910.109 does not reflect significant technological and safety advances made by explosives industry since the stanard was promulgated. (1910 Explosive Act)
It further contended that the standard contains outdated references, classification and jurisdiction related provisions that do not accurately represent the current regulatory environment"

"The Petition requested OSHA to make a number of changes to the standard, including the following, and provide draft regulatory language"

So NSSF along with SAMMI asking us to defeat this when SAAMI created it.

I newbie and not Yoda so Im missing the big picture. Im lost as to how it is that NSSF and SAAMI are asking for a defeat a petition put forth by SAAMI. I was searching for information on SAAMI and CIP. Particularly why SAAMI standards are unreasonably "light". Found my way here.
Id like to see SAAMI revise outdated safety standards and bring them inline with reality. Ammunition manufacturers are stymied by SAAMI. Limited in producing top performing ammunition that every reloader strives to achieve. But some folks without the means to reload and shoot 'em up by the hundreds must settle for the numbed down products put out by the manufactures.

Sure, the goobermint is all about restrictions and fascist controls. But we now live under a Capitalist Oligarchy that relishes profits above all else. SAAMI should, in my opinion, move toward CIP standards. Or else Ill be looking for european hotties. BTW, I do have my Lee single stage Reloader Press and the necessities. And I do reload precision (meticulously hand-load) ammo. But when a new angled projectile comes around, put out by the manufacturers, Id like to shoot a box of 20 hottie cartidges before I buy a hundred bullets and reload my own.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm way off base but......If you blow yourself up, they don't care. If they blow you up.......LAWSUIT!!!! They are definitely going to try and avoid that.
 
Originally Posted By: B23Wow, resurrection of a, nearly, 12 year old topic. This almost has to be a new record.

I was thinking the same thing.
 
Something to sell maybe ?
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Tim NeitzkeSomething to sell maybe ?
whistle.gif


Surely you jest........!!
laugh.gif
No one would purposely run up their post count just to be able to peddle something here.
 
Originally Posted By: B23Wow, resurrection of a, nearly, 12 year old topic. This almost has to be a new record. U-betchum, Im the number one Lee Hand Loaders representative of all time. The next best thing since sliced bread, me not the hand-loader. wink wink

Is this a closed clique. Is there a lipstick shade requirement. A minimum measurement required.
 
Originally Posted By: Gryphon
Is this a closed clique. Is there a lipstick shade requirement. A minimum measurement required.



oh geeze. now's a fine time to ask all the serious and important questions.
smile.gif
 
Back
Top