Larry Teague

OSHA Proposal Would Make Ammo Scarce

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:46:47 GMT

By Larry Teague

An unexpected thing happened while gun owners were watching the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

They were blindsided by a different part of the federal government -- the executive branch.

Rules that would break the backs of ammunition manufacturers and dry up ammo supplies are being sought by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a division of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Published as required by law in the Federal Register, the proposed regulation changes deal with the manufacture, storage and transportation of small-arms ammo, primers and smokeless powder. OSHA wants to make the workplace safer for ammo retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers.

Gun-industry groups say the rules would have an entirely different effect. They would eliminate the jobs of the very workers they’re supposed to protect.

“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,” says the Newton, Conn.-based National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

Buckmasters has long been a supporting member of the NSSF. Among other things, the non-profit group puts on the enormous Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) show each year.

Complying with the proposal would easily exceed $100 million in costs, the NSSF estimates, and that’s no stretch.

One particularly egregious part of the rule would require ammunition manufacturers to shut down and evacuate their factories whenever a thunderstorm approached.

Other language affects the ammo-buying public. No retail-store customer would be allowed within 50 feet of ammo or unless he or she was first searched for matches or a lighter.

The rule would also prohibit smoking within 50 feet of “facilities containing explosives.”

John Frazer, deputy director of research and information for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, says the proposal is an “unintended result” of an earlier petition to rewrite a confusing set of regulations that have existed since 1981. OSHA combined the rules for small-arms ammo and explosives as a result, despite the differences between the two.

Others see the proposal as a “back-door” attempt at gun control, and it’s not hard to see why. Senators Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Rodman Clinton are members of the OSHA oversight committee.

The NSSF and the Sporting Arms Ammo Manufacturing Institute are urging small-arms ammo retailers and manufacturers to submit comments on the rule. Affected parties should point out that the rule “constitutes a ‘significant regulatory action’ as defined in Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly ‘adversely affect in a material way both the manufacturing and retail sectors of the ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs.’”

All written comments submitted to OSHA must include the following information in the reference line:

RE: Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032

Comment on Department of Labor/OSHA Proposed Rule

“Significant Regulatory Action” as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Individuals can file comments at http://www.regulations.gov. From pull-down menus at the search page, select “Occupational Safety and Health Administration,” “Proposed Rules” and “Document Title.” Then, type in the word “Explosives” in the area provided for keywords.

The National Rifle Association has provided the following sample letter for concerned citizens to use:

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 handloading components such as black and smokeless powder, primers, and percussion caps. These restrictions go far beyond existing transportation and fire protection regulations.

As a person who uses ammunition and components, I am very concerned that these regulations will have a serious effect on my ability to obtain these products. OSHA’s proposed rules would impose restrictions that very few gun stores, sporting goods stores, or ammunition dealers could comply with. (Prohibiting firearms in stores that sell ammunition, for example, is absurd—but would be required under the proposed rule.)

The proposed transportation regulations would also affect shooters’ ability to buy these components by mail or online, because shipping companies would also have great difficulty complying with the proposed rules.

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. I also understand that organizations with expertise in this field, such as the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Association, will be submitting detailed comments on this issue. I hope OSHA will listen to these organizations’ comments as the agency develops a final rule on this issue.

Sincerely,

The NRA adds that it’s important to remember that this is only a proposal and that there’s still time for gun owners to speak out before the agency issues its final rule.

OSHA recently extended the original 60-day comment period to Sept. 10 at the shooting industry’s request.

Let your voice be heard.

UPDATE: Monday, July 16, 2007 -- Due to a flood of comments from gun owners to their elected representatives, OSHA announced that it is backing off of its proposal to update regulations for small-arms ammo in the workplace.

According to a press release issued today by the National Rifle Association, OSHA decided to withdraw the rule after dozens of U.S. congressmen expressed concern about the overreaching proposal.

Rep. Denny Rehbert (R-MT), working with the NRA, offered an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that would have prevented federal funds from being used to enforce the OSHA rule. He also gathered letters from 25 House members expressing concern about the rule, calling it an "undue burden" on ammunition companies.

For more information, visit the NRA's, SAAMI's and NSSF's websites.

Survey Says . . .

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:10:43 GMT

-- Every five years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes the pulse of American hunters and anglers through its National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

Results of the latest survey, just released, show that 37.8 million of us like to hunt and fish, but there are 6 percent fewer of us than in 2001, the last survey period. The good news is hunters aren't leaving the sport as fast as they did in the 1990s, and big game hunting is remaining stable.

The survey also breaks down hunting by the type of game pursued and the number of days spent in that search. The white-tailed deer continues to be far and above the most popular game animal in the U.S., with 12.5 million of us spending 132 million days afield. No other hunting activity even comes close.

I'll give you a moment to guess the second most popular game animal in the U.S. Hint: It's not elk. It's the wild turkey, with 2.6 million of us trying to coax a gobbler in shooting range each spring and fall.

No. 3 on the wild game hit parade is the rabbit, with 1.9 million participants, followed by 1.8 million hunters of red and gray squirrels, 1.6 million pheasant hunters, 1.2 million dove hunters, 1.1 million duck hunters, 1 million bobwhite quail hunters, 800,000 elk hunters and 800,000 grouse/prairie chicken hunters. Coming in last is bear hunting, with 0.4 million participants.

Here are some other recent snapshots of American hunters:

* Most hunters are high school graduates or have attended 1 to 3 years of college.
* 1 in 4 big game hunters pursue deer on public land.
* More females are hunting, comprising 9 percent of the hunting population.
* The number of days spent hunting actually went up in 2006 compared to the last survey period.
* Hunters and anglers spent $40 billion on equipment and $24.6 billion on food, lodging and transportation.
* Although wildlife watchers outnumber hunters and anglers by more than 37 million, expenditures by sportsmen are greater. Sportsmen spent $76.6 billion on travel and equipment in 2006, while $45.7 billion went to feeding, observing and photographing wildlife that same year.

Poor Man's Custom Earplugs

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:17:46 GMT

By Larry Teague

Psst. Hey you.

I said, PSST. HEY YOU!

Maybe you had trouble hearing me because you're one of an estimated 28 million Americans who suffer some form of hearing loss.

Hear those high-pitched crickets? I do. Doctors describe tinnitus as a constant ringing in one or both ears, but it's always reminded me of hundreds of crickets sounding off at once on a warm summer evening, only at a higher octave. Whether or not the eeeeeeee reminds you of something else, it's a sure sign of a high-frequency hearing loss, and you need to protect your ears whenever you shoot to prevent further damage.

I've had tinnitus for so long, I can't remember not having it. I do recall one of my uncles letting me shoot his centerfire rifle when I was 7. The big gun stung my shoulder and rang my ears pretty good. I'd been sitting by him and two other uncles as they lay prone, taking turns shooting at a log in the middle of an east Texas stock tank. (Texans have always called ponds "tanks.")

That same year, I followed my grandfather on my first hunt. An armadillo had dug a series of holes behind his farmhouse. Granddad kept a 16-gauge shotgun propped in the kitchen corner by the back door. I followed him as he carried the smoothbore into the woods in search of the nine-banded hole digger. At least we found some fresh-turned earth near some armadillo burrows.

Back then, nobody wore earplugs because they didn't know any better. In that same glorious year I'd first smelled gunsmoke, my second-grade teacher sent a note home that I was not paying attention in class.

For decades, I thought my hearing loss was caused by that early exposure to gunfire and the hundreds of firecrackers my brother and I were so anxious to set off each July 4. Then three years ago, my youngest daughter, Casey, was diagnosed with a mild hearing loss at age 6. The doctor said the loss was hereditary and that I'd likely inherited it, too. The Winchesters, Remingtons and Black Cats had only made it worse.

Though an audiologist told me 15 years ago that I needed dual hearing aids and should learn to read lips, I've stubbornly refused to do both. But one thing I won't do is shoot without wearing some type of hearing protection.

I own three sets of electronic muffs, a non-amplified muff and countless earplugs that I keep in the truck console and in my shooting bags, lest I forget the muffs. Last year, on a sporting clays course, I donned a set of silicone plugs provided by a major firearms manufacturer. Several shots later, my right ear was ringing as if it had not been plugged at all. Apparently the earplugs did not fit me well, because the effect of the gunshots was if I'd cranked up the volume on the ringing already there.

Don't learn the hard way like I did. Make sure your earplugs fit well before pulling the trigger.

Though I use electronic muffs most of the time, particularly when shooting rifles off the bench, I don't like to wear them when shotgunning. Even my favorite Remington Thin Muffs frequently come into contact with my shotgun's buttstock on the gun mount. The resulting noise and feel is so distracting, it's easy to lose focus on the target.

Pro shooters prefer various custom-made plugs fitted by an audiologist. I've been wanting to have a pair made; in fact, it was the next thing on my to-do list. Basic non-amplified custom plugs cost around $50 and up. However, I recently found a much cheaper alternative.

Clear Water Concepts says its Custom Molded Ear Plugs, available through Cabela's and other mass merchants, are the only do-it-yourself earplugs on the market. I found mine in the pharmacy section of the Wal-Mart Supercenter not far from the Buckmasters headquarters. A note on the package says you can save over $45 off physician-fitted plugs. The package also listed the Noise Reduction Rating as 26 decibels when the product is used as directed.

In the package are two small flip-top containers of silicone, one white and one blue. The directions say to divide the mixtures in half and knead them together for 30-45 seconds. After rolling the material into a ball, it's pressed into the ear and worked to conform to the ear contour. The directions warn against pressing it too hard into the ear canal. In 10 minutes, the silicone cures and can be removed.

Mine conformed well to the ear and cured just like the directions said it would. At the shooting range, it blocked out noise much better than all of the cheap foam earplugs I've tried. The cost? Around $10.

Then I had an idea: Why not use the silicone to make a "poor man's custom electronic plug?"

I already own an adjustable Walker's Game Ear II that amplifies sounds but shuts off in the event of loud noises like gunfire. I simply removed the foam earpiece connected to the clear tube of the hearing enhancer, plugged the tip of the clear tube, inserted it in a new batch of silicone and formed it to my ear as I did previously, but making sure the tube end was flush and properly aligned with my ear canal. When the silicone cured, I removed the wooden stopper in the end of the tube. Whadda you know? It worked!

At the range, I inserted the hybrid plug in my left ear and the regular plug in my other ear. Then I turned on the Walker. I was leery about it shutting off the instant the gun fired, but it did. Until I was sure it would work, though, I kept a good distance away from the muzzle blast. I have yet to test the homemade plugs while shotgunning, but there's no reason they shouldn't perform as well as they did on the rifle range.

It's important to note here that I carefully followed directions and did not subject my ears to damaging noises until I was sure that the plugs offered adequate production. Anyone trying this should do the same.

The Walker's Game Ear II sells for $227.95. I would have used the foam earpiece that came with it, but as mentioned, the foam plugs don't fit me well and as a result, don't block out all of the noise that they should. If the Walker fits you, it, along with a custom plug for the other ear, should adequately protect your hearing in most, if not all, shooting situations.

GSM-Walker Products also offers a Custom Analog Plug for $695 and a custom digital model for $1,195. I'd love to try a pair of either. Bob Walker, are you listening?