OSHA targets a shooting range

[Bullwhip]

But what about the joke of telling them they need to stop using 9mm and .45 caliber handguns and go to .22LR?

.22 only and no lead bullets all in the same line. Crazy folks.

Yeah I know there are solid copper .22 bullets but not cheap.

[mbw]

The Washington Times Weighs in-

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-and-oil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So it is not just guns that OSHA is targeting.

[Heartland Patriot]

This OSHA attack shows that the man in the White House is a PETTY dictator...he doesn't have the guts to try and ban firearms, or shut down the petroleum industry. He has to use sneaky, underhanded methods and trickery to accomplish his goals. The man is a weasel.

[VoiceofReason]

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"...

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.

That is exactly the reasoning and reason a third party cannot win. This country has become so viciously divided between the two parties it is almost unable to function. The reason the government is so messed up is because politicians put “the party” above everything and voters take the position that if you don’t vote for “my” candidate you are helping the other candidate win. A viable third party would go a long way in helping this country get out of the mess it is in.

OSHA does not usually issue fines on the first inspection unless there has been numerous serious injuries or death. Most of the time they issue a warning of the safety violations they find, and give the business a certain length of time to correct the violations then notify OSHA of what they did to correct the situation. OSHA was organized for a good reason but like most other branches of government has become politicized. OSHA needs to be cleaned up, not done away with.

[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"...

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.

That is exactly the reasoning and reason a third party cannot win. This country has become so viciously divided between the two parties it is almost unable to function. The reason the government is so messed up is because politicians put “the party” above everything and voters take the position that if you don’t vote for “my” candidate you are helping the other candidate win. A viable third party would go a long way in helping this country get out of the mess it is in.

OSHA does not usually issue fines on the first inspection unless there has been numerous serious injuries or death. Most of the time they issue a warning of the safety violations they find, and give the business a certain length of time to correct the violations then notify OSHA of what they did to correct the situation. OSHA was organized for a good reason but like most other branches of government has become politicized. OSHA needs to be cleaned up, not done away with.

Please, by all means, tell me which candidates and/or parties you believe COULD win, if people would simply vote for them? And do NOT include Ron Paul only because he is registered as a Republican. Also, IF you can get people on the more conservative and/or libertarian side to vote for a third party candidate, thereby splitting the conservative and/or libertarian vote, also explain how you would get the liberal/leftist side of the vote to be split so as to NOT ensure an automatic Democrat Party victory once the conservative/libertarian vote is split (which would just prove what folks like me are saying).

I vote Republican because I am NOT a Democrat. I do not agree with everything the Republican Party does, nor do I love every candidate they put up by any means. However, I KNOW what the Democrat Party has in store; they show us every time they are in control: bigger government, bigger taxes, more control over our daily lives, more division of the people in this nation into "protected groups" (to NOT include white, heterosexual males who are not in a union and who are not felons or child molesters, etc.) so as to use them as "voting blocks", and so on and so forth.

I know what the Founding Fathers thought about political parties and "faction" as they termed it. I wish this nation didn't have to endure that. But once you codify a system like ours, then it becomes VERY hard to do something else with it. It is what it is, and we must deal with it. You can call me part of the problem if you want to, I don't care. All I know is that socialists and communists, the ideological brethren of the Democrat Party, have been responsible for more oppression, control, misery, heartache and death on this planet than any other group of ideologies. And I simply cannot condone that with my vote...so I vote AGAINST them.

[VoiceofReason]

At this point there are no “third party” or independent candidates that could win. Ron Paul is a joke and the “Tea Party” is just a group of Republicans by another name.

I am independent, slightly right of center. I am not a Democrat and I am not a Republican. I cannot in good conscience vote for either party, so like the majority, I vote against both parties. I quit voting.

The country has become so polarized the government can no longer function. Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans, big business blames Unions and people blame big business.

The truth is, there is enough blame to go around. The government is inefficient, banks made bad loans and people bought houses they couldn’t afford, figuring to sell them at a profit before the higher interest rate kicked in. The middle class was suckered into putting their retirement in the stock market. Everyone was going to retire rich at 45. Then the bubble burst.

A lot of what you say about the Democrats is true but if the Republicans were unchecked, there would be no unions, no minimum wage, no job safety laws and no environmental protection laws. If you were out of a job, could not afford health insurance, and your child was ill, your child would just die.

Republicans represent big business. Democrats represent the poor. Will we ever have a party that represents the middle class working people?

[Heartland Patriot]

At this point there are no “third party” or independent candidates that could win. Ron Paul is a joke and the “Tea Party” is just a group of Republicans by another name.

I am independent, slightly right of center. I am not a Democrat and I am not a Republican. I cannot in good conscience vote for either party, so like the majority, I vote against both parties. I quit voting.

The country has become so polarized the government can no longer function. Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans, big business blames Unions and people blame big business.

The truth is, there is enough blame to go around. The government is inefficient, banks made bad loans and people bought houses they couldn’t afford, figuring to sell them at a profit before the higher interest rate kicked in. The middle class was suckered into putting their retirement in the stock market. Everyone was going to retire rich at 45. Then the bubble burst.

A lot of what you say about the Democrats is true but if the Republicans were unchecked, there would be no unions, no minimum wage, no job safety laws and no environmental protection laws. If you were out of a job, could not afford health insurance, and your child was ill, your child would just die.

Republicans represent big business. Democrats represent the poor. Will we ever have a party that represents the middle class working people?

I'll comment on those two highlighted statements.

First, I dream of a world with no unions...I got to see very recently the effects of a union on a business...the place was unkempt in the extreme, the rules and paperwork necessary to deal with the unions and to keep the union workers from scamming took up valuable time that could have been used to get more actual work done, and finally many of the union workers were downright surly. I contrast that with a quick, but intense tour I got of another company in the same basic industry. They had a non-union facility. It was clean and neat...the work getting done was productive and oriented to the customer, and the folks there seemed genuine and friendly. It was night and day between the two facilities, I assure you.

Second, the Democrats CLAIM to represent the poor, but that is simply untrue...maybe it USED to be true, or not, I won't go into that as my knowledge doesn't extend back far enough to be certain about that. But anyway, the Democrat Party represents those that donate large sums of money to them, no different than the Republican Party in that regard...except its WHO donates to them that matters. Unions, of all sizes and flavors...ethnic, racial, and gender identity groups...the environmental movement...left-wing media figures and academecians...anti-firearms groups...the list goes on and on. Yeah, big businesses and rich people donate to the Republican Party and why wouldn't they? They want to succeed, and I believe that the business of America aught to be business, so it doesn't bother me a bit...but most of the groups that donate to the Democrat Party don't like me and how I live...so that helps me figure out which side of the fence I'm on rather easily.

[rwg3]

A world without unions will only come about when human beings can act truthfully and homestly in their dealings with each other. Remember unions did not start with the advent of business. They grew out of the need for self preservation by the workers who were treated as essentially chattal. When people are treated unfairly in a relationship they will act to redress that perceived imbalance. I know that many feel that if you employ someone, then they should do what is asked of them in return for the wages paid. I agree, but there is a point, whether it is being asked to do something illegal or immoral, or simply too dangerous that it invalidates that concept. I knew people (now deceased) who designed automated press feeding machinery as the auto companies were a great source of on the job amputations. The safety equipment did not get implemented for some time because it was cheaper to hire a new worker and fire the injured worker then to install the equipment. Unions started for all the correct reasons, but like any organization the focus changed from helping it's memebers to continuing the growth and survival of the union. By the 70's an individual in the union was as unimportant to the union hierarchy as they were to a large employer. They were pawns in the game, kind of like individual voters now. Politicians saw large blocks of voters with an organized method for getting them to vote, so they acted as all politicians do, and struck deals with the unions to create relationships that helped them get elected. Pro union legislation was the payoff in the relationship. In some ways it is no different than a politico going to the NRA and promising favorable firearms legislation in return for it's backing. Or doing the same with Chamber of Commerce or any other group.

The thing about the power of unions is, that by and large, they got to where they are because the company management agreed to the contracts, primarily for short term economic reasons. Like anything else it takes two to fight and when management chose not fight on issues then slowly managements ability to act unilateraly is eroded. That being said, I started my business in Texas for a variety of reasons one of which was the "right to work" environment, which allows one to choose who works for and for how long. The thing about that is, you end up treating the employees as well as if they were unionized simply because you value their work and you don't want your competition to steal them. This doesn't work in many business models where the skill set of a worker is minimal and replacements are readily available and the economics of hiring and retaining workers are less of a concern. The government has reduced somewhat the need for unions by enacting health and safety laws and with social security as a "retirement plan" the original emphasis of union activity has been blunted.

[VoiceofReason]

First, I dream of a world with no unions...I got to see very recently the effects of a union on a business...the place was unkempt in the extreme, the rules and paperwork necessary to deal with the unions and to keep the union workers from scamming took up valuable time that could have been used to get more actual work done, and finally many of the union workers were downright surly. I contrast that with a quick, but intense tour I got of another company in the same basic industry. They had a non-union facility. It was clean and neat...the work getting done was productive and oriented to the customer, and the folks there seemed genuine and friendly. It was night and day between the two facilities, I assure you.

You probably have your mind set and no one or nothing can change it, sort of like trying to change Sarah Brady’s mind about guns. But I will try to enlighten you just a little bit.

I don’t know where you saw these two “examples”, but judging all unions on these examples, is like judging all CHL holders by Raul Rodriguez (the guy that shot his neighbor).

I know nothing about these companies you mention, so I will use the story about the Chrysler UAW workers that were caught drinking and smoking pot during lunch. The media made an issue that the company had a union. The company even tried to blame the union when the fault was with the company’s management. The company could have sent these employees home without pay then fired them and the union could not have prevented it. There is no reason Chrysler could not drug and alcohol test employees after lunch. All the union could have done is make sure the tests were administered properly and fairly. The fault was with Chrysler management.

If a company needs to fire or otherwise discipline an employee and has good reason, a union cannot prevent it. All the union can do is try to make sure the employee is treated fairly.

I cannot reply to your statement because it is too vague. All I can say is I have seen good and bad union companies and I have seen good and bad non union companies. I have also seen companies that “scam” the employees.

You don’t need to “dream of a world with no unions”. Just go to Mexico, China or a few other countries that don’t have unions and take a look at the working conditions of the employees and how well they are paid.

Most union businesses I have seen have much lower employee turnover than non-union because they usually have better working conditions and pay.

[Heartland Patriot]

First, I dream of a world with no unions...I got to see very recently the effects of a union on a business...the place was unkempt in the extreme, the rules and paperwork necessary to deal with the unions and to keep the union workers from scamming took up valuable time that could have been used to get more actual work done, and finally many of the union workers were downright surly. I contrast that with a quick, but intense tour I got of another company in the same basic industry. They had a non-union facility. It was clean and neat...the work getting done was productive and oriented to the customer, and the folks there seemed genuine and friendly. It was night and day between the two facilities, I assure you.

You probably have your mind set and no one or nothing can change it, sort of like trying to change Sarah Brady’s mind about guns. But I will try to enlighten you just a little bit.

I don’t know where you saw these two “examples”, but judging all unions on these examples, is like judging all CHL holders by Raul Rodriguez (the guy that shot his neighbor).

I know nothing about these companies you mention, so I will use the story about the Chrysler UAW workers that were caught drinking and smoking pot during lunch. The media made an issue that the company had a union. The company even tried to blame the union when the fault was with the company’s management. The company could have sent these employees home without pay then fired them and the union could not have prevented it. There is no reason Chrysler could not drug and alcohol test employees after lunch. All the union could have done is make sure the tests were administered properly and fairly. The fault was with Chrysler management.

If a company needs to fire or otherwise discipline an employee and has good reason, a union cannot prevent it. All the union can do is try to make sure the employee is treated fairly.

I cannot reply to your statement because it is too vague. All I can say is I have seen good and bad union companies and I have seen good and bad non union companies. I have also seen companies that “scam” the employees.

You don’t need to “dream of a world with no unions”. Just go to Mexico, China or a few other countries that don’t have unions and take a look at the working conditions of the employees and how well they are paid.

Most union businesses I have seen have much lower employee turnover than non-union because they usually have better working conditions and pay.

That talk about unions sounds like how it SHOULD be. In reality, its all about the union workers filing grievances for any and every little thing: you have to give them 7 days notice for any training, if not they are filing a grievance; did you move the soda machine five feet without going to the union first?, well they're filing a grievance; didn't contact one of them about overtime even though that person is a known TERRIBLE WORKER?, well you'll either give them free money or they will file a grievance...as far as giving them drug tests after lunch, yeah that would be a "take it up with the union lawyers" thing...and as to some of the slugs I saw, well its obvious that IF the company COULD have fired them and brought on productive workers, they would have, it would have been in the company's best interest to do so. I'm not saying EVERY guy or gal that I saw was surly, or was a slug, some of them had to be competent and hard-working or nothing would have gotten done...but it would seem one or two folks would be like that, not some large percentage of them...

I'm not some white-collar management guy who has three degrees and sits behind a desk all day, though I'm not complaining about those that are, just making a point. I'm a guy who spent a 20 year career as an aircraft mechanic with the USAF, busting my knuckles and fixing aircraft in all kinds of conditions in all kinds of places, sometimes far from home, through many, many long shifts. I'm not saying that working folks don't deserve to be treated properly in the very least...but these unions that supposedly represent these workers allow bums to suck up jobs that should filled by hard-working individuals, take money away from the workers and line pockets of the union bosses, and are basically a political tool for the Democrat Party. So, no thanks.

[philip964]

I'm no expert on any of this. However, usually OSHA has guidelines for most forms of dangerous work. For example: work on a ladder over three feet requires a spotter, etc.

Are there OSHA guidelines for operating a gun range?

Thus guidelines for an inspector to "write up" the operation of the range.

Minimum sound resistance ratings of ear protection for example.

An over 100k dollar fine sounds like some one was injured at the range and this was the fine for the incident. Not a first time random inspection.

But being that this is near Chicago, it sounds like they want this business and the 2nd amendment to go away.

Why would Hope's number 9 need to be re-labled? Wouldn't any required warnings be on the label already? Or are the required protections for employees under OSHA worse than the required protections for consumers under CPSC?

[JCole]

I'm no expert on any of this. However, usually OSHA has guidelines for most forms of dangerous work. For example: work on a ladder over three feet requires a spotter, etc.

Are there OSHA guidelines for operating a gun range?

Thus guidelines for an inspector to "write up" the operation of the range.

Minimum sound resistance ratings of ear protection for example.

An over 100k dollar fine sounds like some one was injured at the range and this was the fine for the incident. Not a first time random inspection.

But being that this is near Chicago, it sounds like they want this business and the 2nd amendment to go away.

Why would Hope's number 9 need to be re-labled? Wouldn't any required warnings be on the label already? Or are the required protections for employees under OSHA worse than the required protections for consumers under CPSC?

I would never style myself as an expert, but OSHA has general standards that apply to all workplaces, and specific standards that apply to certain industries. In this particular example, there are no specific rules that apply to operating a gun range, but there are very specific standards that involve employee exposure to toxins (in this case, lead) and employee exposure to noise. It doesn't matter whether the employees work at a lead smelting plant, or a gun range, or a soft drink bottling plant; the standards are the same, and this gun range exceeded the exposure limits to its employees. I agree that the fine was large, I just don't agree that this industry is being singled out, (where are all of the other, nationwide examples?) any more than any other. If there was a mandate from the top, why hasn't this been occurring all over America, including Texas? Each specific standard that was violated is clearly specified in the original citation, and is accessible at http://www.osha.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

[chasfm11]

I'm no expert on any of this. However, usually OSHA has guidelines for most forms of dangerous work. For example: work on a ladder over three feet requires a spotter, etc.

Are there OSHA guidelines for operating a gun range?

Thus guidelines for an inspector to "write up" the operation of the range.

Minimum sound resistance ratings of ear protection for example.

An over 100k dollar fine sounds like some one was injured at the range and this was the fine for the incident. Not a first time random inspection.

But being that this is near Chicago, it sounds like they want this business and the 2nd amendment to go away.

Why would Hope's number 9 need to be re-labled? Wouldn't any required warnings be on the label already? Or are the required protections for employees under OSHA worse than the required protections for consumers under CPSC?

I would never style myself as an expert, but OSHA has general standards that apply to all workplaces, and specific standards that apply to certain industries. In this particular example, there are no specific rules that apply to operating a gun range, but there are very specific standards that involve employee exposure to toxins (in this case, lead) and employee exposure to noise. It doesn't matter whether the employees work at a lead smelting plant, or a gun range, or a soft drink bottling plant; the standards are the same, and this gun range exceeded the exposure limits to its employees. I agree that the fine was large, I just don't agree that this industry is being singled out, (where are all of the other, nationwide examples?) any more than any other. If there was a mandate from the top, why hasn't this been occurring all over America, including Texas? Each specific standard that was violated is clearly specified in the original citation, and is accessible at http://www.osha.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

... because Texas is being punished for original thinking and resisting the mandates. Go look at the electric industry and several others. Every means at the disposal of the Federal government to punitively dump on Texas is being taken. And please don't tell me that there isn't selective enforcement. It is clear that this administration is taking aim at its political opponents. I readily admit that the political opposition (AZ case in point) is attempting to take on the Federal government, too.

[sjfcontrol]

Well, the gun range at issue is in Illinois.

[stroo]

Reading the citation, every gun range I have been to could be subject to some of those alleged violations almost as a matter of necessity if an instructor is going to do a good job.