OSHA targets a shooting range

[Rex B]

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/volokh/m ... z1H6nQCEQ/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued a citation, along with a proposed fine of $111,000 fine (OSHA press release here), against Illinois Gun Works–a gun store and gunsmith business which has a shooting range and teaches safety classes."

"Among the “violations” noted in the citation:
An instructor on the range wore Howard Leight Impact Sport Electronic Earmuffs, which allegedly provided insufficient noise protection.
A gun range instructor conducting shooter instruction was observed reaching down on the range floor to collect a loaded handgun cartridge.
Employees used Hoppes #9 solvent for cleaning guns (Hoppes makes lots of gun cleaning material and accessories), but Illinois Gun Works had not relabeled each Hoppes bottle to list all the hazardous chemicals therein. "

[Heartland Patriot]

Oh, but it doesn't matter which party is in charge in Washington. They're just the same, anyway. And its very cool to give your vote to a third party that cannot win, even if it indirectly helps BHO stay in office.

Seriously, one of the left's methods is to use over-regulation to gain the desired effect, if they cannot get the laws themselves changed. The lead thing, for instance, has been brought up at least a couple of times by the eco-people trying to get it banned...which, if they got their way, would then drive up the cost of ammo and price a lot of people out of the "shooting sports" (and being able to practice for self-defense). Is it surprising that this occurred in Illinois vs. Texas, or Oklahoma, BTW?

As a side note, in the USAF, all hazardous chemicals had to have special labels placed on them and to be stored in a hazardous chemicals storage locker, not just a large can of heavy duty solvent like MEK but even commercially procured, common items like a squirt bottle of Windex glass cleaner. I whole-heartedly understand the need for organization and safety, but there are limits to everything, or at least there should be. The left doesn't care about such things, they only care about "keeping you safe"...

[Jumping Frog]

Henry Bowman had the right idea . . .

[JCole]

Having read the actual citation, I have to admit, that I can't really see how the gun range is being 'targeted.' It looks to me like the enforcement is just about the same as at any other workplace that had similar employee exposures. Whether or not one agrees with the mission of OSHA, and its standards (created under a Republican administration, BTW) is, of course, another matter.

[Heartland Patriot]

Having read the actual citation, I have to admit, that I can't really see how the gun range is being 'targeted.' It looks to me like the enforcement is just about the same as at any other workplace that had similar employee exposures. Whether or not one agrees with the mission of OSHA, and its standards (created under a Republican administration, BTW) is, of course, another matter.

Yep, because I'm 100% certain that the Nixon Administration had this exact thing in mind...

[chasfm11]

Having read the actual citation, I have to admit, that I can't really see how the gun range is being 'targeted.' It looks to me like the enforcement is just about the same as at any other workplace that had similar employee exposures. Whether or not one agrees with the mission of OSHA, and its standards (created under a Republican administration, BTW) is, of course, another matter.

I wonder if a $111,000 fine is also applied to any other workplace. It is possible to take any reasonable regulation (and I'm NOT saying any of those are reasonable) to the unreasonable by associating it with a ridiculous penalty.

[Heartland Patriot]

Actually, I do agree with the mission of OSHA, the ORIGINAL mission of OSHA. Simply, to make workplaces safer. Safe working environments save money, because deadly accidents, lost time accidents, and equipment damage are prevented. However, just like everything else, the left takes what SHOULD have good old "common sense" (yes, I know the adages about common sense not being common) applied and takes it to the Nth degree, FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, not the intended purpose...which is to simply make workplaces safer, not make it nigh on impossible to do whatever the job is. So, it does matter who is in charge at OSHA and to what ends they are enforcing the regulations.

[JCole]

Having read the actual citation, I have to admit, that I can't really see how the gun range is being 'targeted.' It looks to me like the enforcement is just about the same as at any other workplace that had similar employee exposures. Whether or not one agrees with the mission of OSHA, and its standards (created under a Republican administration, BTW) is, of course, another matter.

I wonder if a $111,000 fine is also applied to any other workplace. It is possible to take any reasonable regulation (and I'm NOT saying any of those are reasonable) to the unreasonable by associating it with a ridiculous penalty.

Yes, huge fines are levied on all sorts of industries, (http://www.osha.gov/dep/enforcement/top_cases.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and I agree that during Democratic administrations, OSHA enforcement definitely gets stronger. Hopefully, the shooting range will correct their problems, appeal the citation, and get the fine reduced some.

I'm just saying that, as someone whose profession is occupational safety, (I'm a private consultant; I don't work for OSHA,) I don't see this particular case as singling out the shooting sports industry. I think that if the exact same violations and fines were handed out at a factory that made plumbing pipe, this never would have come up on some blogger's radar. There was documented lead exposure and documented noise exposure (among other things) that were inadequately controlled by the published OSHA standards. The shooting range isn't exempted from those standards.

[Heartland Patriot]

Having read the actual citation, I have to admit, that I can't really see how the gun range is being 'targeted.' It looks to me like the enforcement is just about the same as at any other workplace that had similar employee exposures. Whether or not one agrees with the mission of OSHA, and its standards (created under a Republican administration, BTW) is, of course, another matter.

I wonder if a $111,000 fine is also applied to any other workplace. It is possible to take any reasonable regulation (and I'm NOT saying any of those are reasonable) to the unreasonable by associating it with a ridiculous penalty.

Yes, huge fines are levied on all sorts of industries, (http://www.osha.gov/dep/enforcement/top_cases.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and I agree that during Democratic administrations, OSHA enforcement definitely gets stronger. Hopefully, the shooting range will correct their problems, appeal the citation, and get the fine reduced some.

I'm just saying that, as someone whose profession is occupational safety, (I'm a private consultant; I don't work for OSHA,) I don't see this particular case as singling out the shooting sports industry. I think that if the exact same violations and fines were handed out at a factory that made plumbing pipe, this never would have come up on some blogger's radar. There was documented lead exposure and documented noise exposure (among other things) that were inadequately controlled by the published OSHA standards. The shooting range isn't exempted from those standards.

Do you tend to make more money, due to increased workload, during Democrat administrations, or Republican administrations? Just curious...

[couzin]

David Michaels - the Obama selected head of OSHA does not hide his anti-gun agenda. He wants to place guns and gun ownership in the same category as cigarettes and working in mines. A blog from him in 2007 http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2007 ... a-tragedy/.

[Heartland Patriot]

Having read the actual citation, I have to admit, that I can't really see how the gun range is being 'targeted.' It looks to me like the enforcement is just about the same as at any other workplace that had similar employee exposures. Whether or not one agrees with the mission of OSHA, and its standards (created under a Republican administration, BTW) is, of course, another matter.

I wonder if a $111,000 fine is also applied to any other workplace. It is possible to take any reasonable regulation (and I'm NOT saying any of those are reasonable) to the unreasonable by associating it with a ridiculous penalty.

Yes, huge fines are levied on all sorts of industries, (http://www.osha.gov/dep/enforcement/top_cases.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and I agree that during Democratic administrations, OSHA enforcement definitely gets stronger. Hopefully, the shooting range will correct their problems, appeal the citation, and get the fine reduced some.

I'm just saying that, as someone whose profession is occupational safety, (I'm a private consultant; I don't work for OSHA,) I don't see this particular case as singling out the shooting sports industry. I think that if the exact same violations and fines were handed out at a factory that made plumbing pipe, this never would have come up on some blogger's radar. There was documented lead exposure and documented noise exposure (among other things) that were inadequately controlled by the published OSHA standards. The shooting range isn't exempted from those standards.

Okay, you are focusing on the lead and chemicals. But what about the joke of telling them they need to stop using 9mm and .45 caliber handguns and go to .22LR? That is just outrageous, and it shows that the intent was NOT safety, OR that the inspectors are very ignorant of firearms and should either get educated or not be inspecting that place.

[JCole]

Okay, you are focusing on the lead and chemicals. But what about the joke of telling them they need to stop using 9mm and .45 caliber handguns and go to .22LR? That is just outrageous, and it shows that the intent was NOT safety, OR that the inspectors are very ignorant of firearms and should either get educated or not be inspecting that place.

I don't happen to think it is a very good recommendation, and it may have been made by someone who wasn't very familiar with firearms training, but the intent of this part of the citation was to reduce ambient noise levels, and this would be one way to do that. The other recommendations listed in the section included installing acoustical baffles, or some other sound-absorbing materials (which is probably what they will end up doing.)

I'm not trying to be an apologist for OSHA; I often disagree with their recommendations. Also, that''s just what they are; recommendations for how to decrease employee health and safety exposures. How the employer decides to address the issues is up to them, and as long as the control measures are effective, OSHA has no legitimate complaint. I'm just trying to point out that I think this citation is pretty well in line with what I've seen in other industries.

As to your earlier question about my workload; I don't think I can make a very good comparison, as I've only been in safety full-time for about 7 years. Certainly the economy has been a big factor in the past few years.

[Heartland Patriot]

David Michaels - the Obama selected head of OSHA does not hide his anti-gun agenda. He wants to place guns and gun ownership in the same category as cigarettes and working in mines. A blog from him in 2007 http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2007 ... a-tragedy/.

So THAT is the guy running OSHA these days? That guy IS a true anti-firearms, anti-self-defense zealot. And tying his anti-firearms fervor to sending OSHA inspectors out to shake down some shooting range does NOT require a stretch in the least. Sorry, JCole, I hear what you're saying, but with this guy Michaels leading that agency, it puts the whole thing into a negative light, IMHO.

[gdanaher]

The $111,000 NAL (notice of apparent liability) is customarily a starting point for discussion. They can wind up paying it, but usually it is modified. The range would need to show that the fine would be excessive and hard for them to pay yet remain in business. In other comparable federal cases, I am aware of initial NALs in excess of $15,000 being negotiated down to a couple hundred bucks.