Protect your Second Amendment rights. Protect the shooting and hunting sports. Protect your club! Click the links below to see who your representatives are and then make sure they know how you feel about your gun rights. The elections may be history (until next time), but that does not mean that your federal state and local government officials should stop hearing from you. Make your voices heard in full support of our rights.
|
An NSSF alert concerns proposed OSHA regulations that would impact the storage/delivery of ammunition and reloading components (powder and primers) by classifying them as explosives like dynamite, blasting caps and detonator cord.
It proposes handling regulations that would preclude mail order delivery and storage outside a magazine with stated safeguards. This may sound alarmist, but it would effectively end ammunition, powder, and primer sales over the internet or by mail order (there's no way common carriers could meet the regulations to safeguard components during delivery) or storage in gun shops, commercial retailers or gun shows.
This is serious, so we're posting the NSSF press release here. Please follow the instructions for sending your comments and objections to OSHA. Also, please take time to notify our reps in congress.
The OSHA Document number is OSHA-2007-0032-0001 and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov. Some examples of the proposed regs: Try to envision keeping any open flame (e.g.cigarette lighter) or potential spark hazard (cell phones) from within 50 ft of any small arms ammunition... you get the idea. It's there in the docket under Issue 4 of the PDF file; it's a long read, but we should take the time to act on this. A sample letter is avialable below.
|
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 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. (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,
|
Date
Your Name
Address
City, State Zip
The Honorable (full Name)
United States Senate or United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510/20515
Dear Senator/Representative (Last Name):
I am writing as a constituent and as a lifelong Pennsylvania resident who is diametrically opposed to house bill H.R. 1022.
We certainly do not need an even more restrictive form of the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 on the books. Congress allowed that ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed. We've seen nothing different since the expiration of that ban.
With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough, but H.R. 1022 would take things even further, effectively banning thousands of firearms currently used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. We are into Second Amendment territory here, and I expect you sir, to stand firm in support of those rights in opposing H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes." Please do all in your power to save your fellow citizens from the real assault weapon - namely the assault on our rights that is the proposed H.R. 1022.
With All Sincerity,
Your Name
|
Date
Your Name
Address
City, State Zip
The Honorable (full Name)
United States Senate or United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510/20515
Dear Senator/Representative (Last Name):
As your constituent, I emphatically urge you to cosponsor and support
S.388/H.R 226--legislation that would provide national reciprocity for state
Right-to-Carry licensees.
As a law-abiding citizen and firearm owner, I strongly and absolutely value
my right to defend myself and my family from criminal attack. This legislation
would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to
carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The
measure would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require
the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize
drivers' licenses.
In closing, I again encourage you to cosponsor and support S.388/H.R. 226,
and provide national reciprocity for valid state carry licensees so that law-
abiding citizens are able to defend themselves and their families from criminal
attack irrespective of state boundaries.
I thank you for your consideration, and would appreciate you informing
me of your position on this legislation.
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
|
The Honorable Robert P. Casey Jr.
United States Senate
B40C Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510‑3804
Re: Support the Bennett‑McConnell Amendment (#20) to strike Section 220 in the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act
Senator Casey,
As a constituent, I am emailing to urge you to support the Bennett‑McConnell Amendment (#20) to strike Section 220 in the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act. Section 220 is an affront to free speech, and as such is contrary to the principles of the First Amendment. Please stand and be counted in support of these rights for all American citizens.
Sincerely,
|
The Honorable Robert P. Casey Jr.
United States Senate
B40C Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3804
Senator Casey,
I am writing to express my displeasure with
your vote on the Bennett-McConnell Amendment
(#20) to strike Section 220 in the "Legislative
Transparency and Accountability Act. I consider
your vote against the amendment an affront to
free speech and the First Amendment. I am
relieved that the majority of your colleagues
in the senate did not vote as you did, but I
am concerned that you are not voting in a
manner that represents your constituents and
protects our rights.
With All Sincerity,
|
Date
Your Name
Your Address
Your City, State, Zip
The Honorable Michael Nutter
Room 215 City Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Dear Mayor Nutter,
As a resident of Philadelphia, I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to join Mayor Bloomberg’s latest anti-gun “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” coalition, and remove yourself as a member.
Mayor Bloomberg and his coalition allies have misrepresented themselves to the mayors of America and its citizens. This effort is simply another attempt to shift blame for violent crime from criminals to law-abiding gun owners. This is gun control, not crime prevention.
Mr. Bloomberg’s tactics do not target illegal guns, but rather honest citizens and lawful dealers, essentially criminalizing all gun ownership. This coalition makes no distinction whatsoever between law-abiding gun owners and violent criminals.
Instead of being a part of a misguided coalition and advocating attacks against law-abiding gun owners, I ask you to direct your efforts towards strict enforcement of existing laws in our own city to ensure both our safety and civil rights.
In Freedom,
Your Name
|
|
