Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Think Ammo is Expensive NOW!!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    781
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan_Bell View Post
    Being the pessimist that I am, I see them giving waivers to the ammo that is being mfg/shipped for the US gov't.
    .mil already has very stringent guide lines in place for the storage and transportation of explosives. This will just move/force a lot of what we live by each day in to the civy world.

    Title 49 CFR covers most of the trans parts: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...cfr172_04.html


    This is from an older copy of AFI 91-201:

    2.37.7. Rod and Gun Clubs. License the explosives storage locations for clubs that handload ammunition on Air Force
    property. For skeet and trap ranges adhere to criteria established by the National Skeet Shooting Association. See also
    paragraph 2.37.8 and 2.37.9. Designate a qualified member to identify and enforce criteria.
    2.37.8. Retail Stores. Where only retail sales are made, paragraph 2.35 applies. Don't complete a license unless the store
    sells primers and smokeless powder. More than 100 lbs of propellant and 25,000 primers, packed in their shipping
    containers, may be licensed if they are segregated in such a way that the maximum credible event (MCE) does not exceed
    100 pounds of propellant and 25,000 primers. i.e. IM separation is met. Don't place HC/D 1.3 propellant in other containers
    if it would result in extreme confinement in the event of ignition. Use fire symbol 3 to designate the presence of both the
    propellant and primers. Keep the symbol posted during temporary periods when the propellant has been sold out, but primers
    are still in stock.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    0
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Outstanding post by cphilip over on Akforum.net:

    "Like so many others he is mistaken... they are all reacting to one letter from one misguided soul.

    a) Ammo has always been classified as an explosive by DOT. Always...

    b) DOT has always allowed the ORM-D (consumer commodity) exemption for shipping it and still does and proposes no change and so under 66 pounds of Small Arms Ammo will continue to ship as ORM-D and not as a Haz Mat/ Explosive. The key words are exemption. Its exempt as long as its packaged accordingly to DOT. So it's not a Hazmat explosive shipment at all. So the new proposed OSHA worker safety reg is not triggered for an ORM-D.

    c) OSHA Does not regulate shipping. And is only changing their definition to be in sink with DOT."

    http://www.akforum.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=29514
    Paul A. Hotaling
    Alias Training & Security Services, LLC
    Paul@aliastraining.com
    757-215-1959 (Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM)
    757-985-9586 (After Hours)
    www.aliastraining.com


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    760
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by VA_Dinger View Post
    I don't personally have a problem with the NRA hunting community BUT I know they would sell us down the river in a split second. In my expierence the vast majority of them think & act like Zumbo.
    Hey....cut the guy some slack. Didn't you read his article of contrition in the latest S.W.A.T.?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    273
    Feedback Score
    0
    OSHA Docket Office Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210
    Re.: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032 (Explosives—Proposed Rule)
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing in strong opposition to OSHA’s proposed rules on “explosives,” which go far beyond regulating true explosives. These proposed rules would impose severe restrictions on the transportation and storage of small arms ammunition—both complete cartridges and hand loading components such as black and smokeless powder, primers, and percussion caps. These restrictions go far beyond existing transportation and fire protection regulations.
    There is absolutely no evidence of any new safety hazard from storage or transportation of small arms ammunition or components that would justify these new rules.
    As this regulation imposes what I consider unconstitutional and imposing restrictions on freedom and the human God given rights of every USA citizen, I object to this proposal in its entirety. Furthermore, I will ask the White House and Congress to immediately demand the termination of all senior staff involved in drafting and approving this proposal for submission and demand the immediate resignation of the entire OSHA Executive Staff, especially Ed Foulke.

    Sincerely,
    Bob Roberts

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,152
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Don't think it will fly, either. Too restrictive even in this wacky anti-gun era, IMHO. Maybe they will "tone it down" a bit as stated earlier to allow small arms ammo to pass, but still clamp down on other "hazards".


    Love to see these overthinking geniuses find a way to feed hungry children here in the U.S. rather than step on the law abiding for worthless reasons.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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