52 replies to this topic

[Mr. Fife]

We discussed this before here. The guy who testified was Henry P Rush lll. He was/is a trainer at Illinois Gun Works, but his company is MID-WEST PROTECTIVE SERVICE, INC. The links to his deposition, and his website are at the link
http://illinoiscarry...ndpost&p=292458

I shoot at IGW once in a while, yeah the ventilation isn't the best. I spoke with the owner quite a few times. My impression is that he isn't against guns or training in Chicago, and doesn't like the village ordinance himself because he would rather be able to sell the guns. That's why he hired the trainers to teach CFP.

Unless someone knows for a fact that there is more to this, my guess is that the trainer was protecting his own training business and it wasn't the owners feelings. Anyway, that's the warm fuzzies I get. I like shooting there and it's only $10. I'm not otherwise affiliated with the place. The owner said I can rent the range off hours to teach my own classes even. I have not taken him up on that yet.

If it's true, I may stop shooting there myself, but I don't think that's the whole story. I'd like to hear more.

[ming]

Thanks for your input and the link Mr. Fife.  I was finding it difficult to believe that IGW was anti-2A.  The McDonald decision was probably the best thing that ever happened for his business.  I found Mr. Rush's testimony re the "isolated" location of IGW amusing.  He states that there is an empty lot directly east of the building.  With a slight tail wind I could probably spit across that lot.  One picture would have brought all of his testimony into question.  I've also had the opportunity to talk with the owner of IGW and he seemed like a decent guy.

Edited by ming, 14 June 2012 - 03:44 AM.

[Tvandermyde]

Mr Fife -- IGW has a relationship with the trainer you mention, If that was my business and they got me that bad rap for their wnating to protect their own interests, they woul dbe down the road.

If IGW wants to prove to people they support the cause, then they need to sever ties with people who are looking out for their own poket books and consider us nothing more than a monopolized commodity of customers.

so long as they continue to keep the trainer around and use him, they endorse by proxy his support of the Chicago range ban

[ming]

Tvandermyde, on 14 June 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

Mr Fife -- IGW has a relationship with the trainer you mention, If that was my business and they got me that bad rap for their wnating to protect their own interests, they woul dbe down the road.

If IGW wants to prove to people they support the cause, then they need to sever ties with people who are looking out for their own poket books and consider us nothing more than a monopolized commodity of customers.

so long as they continue to keep the trainer around and use him, they endorse by proxy his support of the Chicago range ban

I would have to agree with this assessment.  If the owners of IGW support the testimony of Mr. Rush, and it could be argued they do so by his continued employment, then the only possible conclusion is that it was done to monopolize the range business in the area at the expense of Chicago residents.
Deplorable behavior if you ask me.

Edited by ming, 14 June 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[Mr. Fife]

Maybe it was the trainer who called OSHA?

[Gray Peterson]

Mr. Fife, on 14 June 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Maybe it was the trainer who called OSHA?

Lie with dogs, you get fleas.

[Mr. Fife]

Gray Peterson, on 14 June 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Mr. Fife, on 14 June 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Maybe it was the trainer who called OSHA?

Lie with dogs, you get fleas.

Good point.

[Mr. Fife]

So I saw this posted at Volokh Conspiracy today. It almost sounds like IGW was reported to OSHA by the trainers. What do you think?

http://www.volokh.co...shooting-range/

Quote

OSHA targets shooting range

David Kopel • June 23, 2012 3:40 am

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. HT Instapundit and David Codrea. In a November 2009 article for the NRA magazine America’s 1st Freedom, I warned about the dangers of President Obama’s nomination of David Michaels as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (head of OSHA), based on Michaels’ well-established record as an anti-gun advocate.

Many of alleged OSHA violations at the safety training range involved noise exposure for the instructors. Among OSHA’s suggestions were to eliminate training in “larger caliber” handguns such as “9 mm Luger and/or .45 Colt”  and substitute “handguns of smaller caliber,” such as .22LR. And “Prohibition of any shotguns and/or rifles firing in the firing range.” (p. 6). In other words, eliminate training for all firearms except those which are least likely to have the stopping power to be effective for self-defense. And ensure that the range can never provide students with personal instruction in the use of the firearms which constitute the vast majority of firearms which people actually own.

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. (p. 11). I’ve never used the Howard Leight brand, but I have used electronic muffs from Peltor and from Dillon. Electronic muffs are the perfect choice for hearing protection and range safety, especially for an instructor. When the muffs detect a sound spike, they instantly shut down, reducing the noise to a comfortable level. Unlike passive muffs, electronic muffs do not block sound at other times, so it is much easier for the instructor to communicate with students, and to hear everything going on in the area. Indeed, normal sounds (but not gunshots) can be amplified by the muff’s electronics, if the user so chooses.

My Peltor muffs have a Noise Reduction Rating of 19 decibels, while the Howard Leight muffs used by the Illinois Gun Works instructor had a NRR of 22db. I have previously used passive muffs (consisting of foam padding around the ears, with no electronics); passive muffs with a NRR in the low 20s allow more sound than I want, and I find that for passive muffs, a NRR of 29 or higher is much better. However, whatever the rated NRR of the electronic muffs, I can tell you that electronic muffs are far superior at sound reduction compared to passive muffs with much higher ratings. My Peltors with a NRR of 19db make gunshots much quieter than do my passive muffs with a NRR of 30db. Yet Illinois Gun Works is being fined because an instructor used superior hearing protection.

Here’s another violation: “A gun range instructor conducting shooter instruction was observed reaching down on the range floor to collect a loaded handgun cartridge. The employee was not wearing any hand protection such as gloves. The gun range floor was contaminated with lead. The gun had misfired and it required manual cycling of the barrel slide to remove the defective round which then fell on the gun range floor.” (p. 22). This is absurd. Range floors are necessarily going to have lead dust on them. In the course of live fire instruction, there are inevitably going to be some misfeeds, which result in a round falling to the floor. You don’t leave live ammunition lying on the floor. And if you’re going to be helping students clear misfeeds (step 1: press the small button which releases the magazine so that it drops out of the gun), you can often do so better with bare hands with gloves. After any time on the shooting range, it is essential to wash hands thoroughly with cold water. The notion that picking up a round from the floor is some kind of special danger is ridiculous.

One of OSHA’s suggestions for reducing instructor exposure to lead (p. 26): require the use of ammunition without lead primers and/or without lead bullets. But if you’re teaching people how to use the guns which they actually own, those people need to use the kind of ammunition that they will actually shoot. Firearms can perform quite differently with different types of ammunition. Semi-autos in particular may have a much higher rate of misfeeds with one type of ammunition than with another; one of the important variables in this is how strongly the user holds the grip (a lighter grip can increase misfeeds, but a grip that is too tight can reduce accuracy). The best way for a user to find out which ammunition works most reliably with her particular gun, accounting for the way she actually holds it, is to try different types of ammunition. And it’s all the better if those tryouts have the assistance of an instructor. The OSHA “safety” suggestion to use only unusual and expensive types of ammunition would harm gun user safety.

Another violation: 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. (pp. 54-55). Gun cleaners have solvents, and so the cleaning should be done in a place with good ventilation. But it’s hard to see much practical benefit in requiring a store to put new labels on every one of the scores of Hoppes bottles which employees will use during the course of a year.

Not everything in the OSHA citation is as senseless as the items described above. And gun ranges are certainly not the first business in the United States to find themselves being punished by OSHA for things that have little or nothing to do with employee safety. However, if the heavy fine and the citation against Illinois Gun Works are followed by similar enforcement against other gun ranges, there may be many fewer ranges soon.

[C0untZer0]

I said this before:

Quote

Unless there is a hazardous spill - HAZMAT incident, OSHA doesn't just show up at a business unless an employee has made a complaint - that's my experience.

What I'm thinking now is that the owner got into a dispute with one of the trainers or employees about something so they exacted their revenge via OSHA.

[bob]

Beezil, on 13 June 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

For instance, about ten years ago, I had an inspector interview one of my shear operators and had him explain and review "loto procedures". He answered that he didn't know what he was talking about, so the inspector concluded there wasn't a "loto" procedure in place and I was found in violation.  What the inspector didn't know, because he didn't ask ME, was OF COURSE we had a L.O.T.O. "lock out tag out" procedure documented, and active......we just don't call it "loto"   we call it "lock out".

Why would an operator need to lockout a piece of equipment anyway? Most places would not allow that in the first place.

[ishmo]

bob, on 24 June 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Beezil, on 13 June 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

For instance, about ten years ago, I had an inspector interview one of my shear operators and had him explain and review "loto procedures". He answered that he didn't know what he was talking about, so the inspector concluded there wasn't a "loto" procedure in place and I was found in violation.  What the inspector didn't know, because he didn't ask ME, was OF COURSE we had a L.O.T.O. "lock out tag out" procedure documented, and active......we just don't call it "loto"   we call it "lock out".

Why would an operator need to lockout a piece of equipment anyway? Most places would not allow that in the first place.

A LOTO program is an OSHA requirement in certain types of manufacturing/production.  How it's implemented usually varies slightly from company to company and it's main purpose is to de-energize equipment when it's down for an upgrade or general service/maintenance.

I can tell you from personal experience in the printing industry that it's generally considered a pita but I can also tell from experience I know of it saving a life on one occasion and preventing a major hazmat spill on another.

[bob]

ishmo, on 24 June 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

bob, on 24 June 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Beezil, on 13 June 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

For instance, about ten years ago, I had an inspector interview one of my shear operators and had him explain and review "loto procedures". He answered that he didn't know what he was talking about, so the inspector concluded there wasn't a "loto" procedure in place and I was found in violation.  What the inspector didn't know, because he didn't ask ME, was OF COURSE we had a L.O.T.O. "lock out tag out" procedure documented, and active......we just don't call it "loto"   we call it "lock out".

Why would an operator need to lockout a piece of equipment anyway? Most places would not allow that in the first place.

A LOTO program is an OSHA requirement in certain types of manufacturing/production.  How it's implemented usually varies slightly from company to company and it's main purpose is to de-energize equipment when it's down for an upgrade or general service/maintenance.

I can tell you from personal experience in the printing industry that it's generally considered a pita but I can also tell from experience I know of it saving a life on one occasion and preventing a major hazmat spill on another.

I know what LOTO is and why it is done. My question was why would an operator have anything to do with it. Most places won't let an operator lockout anything because the normal reasons for locking out energy sources have to do with things the operator would not be involved in such as repair or maint. There is no good reason for someone who is not directly involved in what is going on to have a hand in locking out a piece of equipment.

[F12Mahon]

bob, on 24 June 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

I know what LOTO is and why it is done. My question was why would an operator have anything to do with it. Most places won't let an operator lockout anything because the normal reasons for locking out energy sources have to do with things the operator would not be involved in such as repair or maint. There is no good reason for someone who is not directly involved in what is going on to have a hand in locking out a piece of equipment.

It is not that operators have a hand in locking out a piece of equipment. It is that they know that when a machine is locked out or tagged out that they are not to be operated. Not every thing can be locked out. A pedistle  grinders can't be locked out but can be tagged out. Tagged out has the same affect on operation. None is allowed. L.O.T.O. training informs employees of this.

[I Hate Gunlaws]

bob, on 24 June 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

[

I know what LOTO is and why it is done. My question was why would an operator have anything to do with it. Most places won't let an operator lockout anything because the normal reasons for locking out energy sources have to do with things the operator would not be involved in such as repair or maint. There is no good reason for someone who is not directly involved in what is going on to have a hand in locking out a piece of equipment.

It depends on the equipment and responsibilities of the operator, and really what industry you're talking about. I worked in the diecast industry for about 8 years, dealing with magnesium and aluminum. Molten metal, 60+ tons of lock-up pressure, and robotic arms that could throw you across a room without flinching. Maintenance/repair of the diecast machine and robotics involved were very much operator level responsibilities, and most of the time you had to get up close and personal with the business end of both. Each operator had their own lock, and was responsible for LOTO procedures. Actually, if any individual worked on the floor, they had the ability to LOTO. This went for operators, inspectors, maintenance, IT, etc., etc. They implemented it about 2 years before I started, and didn't have a process related lost-time accident for the 8 years I was there. There were a few forklift incidents, though.

****sorry for the thread hijack.

[Mr. Fife]

I lost a friend when somebody cut the lock off of a disconnect and flipped the switch. He was up on a metal ladder splicing wires at the time.

It was obviously somebody who didn't know what Lock Out Tag Out means (Electrical control panel disconnects can be turned off and locked with a padlock by anyone working on that equipment. Each lock has a tag that indicates whose lock it is, and other information as needed).

Lock out tag out didn't help him. We never found out if it was the shock or the fall that got him. We also never found out the rest of the story, like who cut the lock, once everyone lawyered up. I'm sure OSHA paid them a visit.

Edited by Mr. Fife, 24 June 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[357]

I thought it was a conspiracy before you posted the article from Volokh. Reading the article sounds like a bunch of false bs charges and a conspiracy. It started with the buffalo range. Seems like the mayor doesn't like any ranges close to Chicago either and his boy in Washington is helping him.

[C0untZer0]

^ I don't think it's a government conspiracy.

I think someone who works on the premises or worked there at one time was angry with the owner and ratted him out to OSHA.

[Beezil]

bob, on 24 June 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

I know what LOTO is and why it is done. My question was why would an operator have anything to do with it. Most places won't let an operator lockout anything because the normal reasons for locking out energy sources have to do with things the operator would not be involved in such as repair or maint. There is no good reason for someone who is not directly involved in what is going on to have a hand in locking out a piece of equipment.

If an OSHA inspector asked me "who can lock out a piece of equipment?"

The current correct answer is "anyone 'authorized' or 'affected' with the proper training".

There used to be three categories of shop floor employee in manufacturing facilities....."authorized" "affected" and "unaffected"   OSHA recently modified this, concluding that on a shop floor, everyone is "affected" in one way or the other.

If there is a hazzard present that has to do with "energy control", anyone should have the ability and trainign to recognize a hazzard, and follow the proper procedure to eliminate an energy control hazzard.

"energy" has many forms, most recognize "electrical", but it can also mean an object with mass that can swing, fall, close, shut, etc....as well as air, water, hydro, gravity......

In answer to your question, a machine operator or set-up person has either direct or indirect responsibility for the control of energy sources, the safety of his or her person, and those in the work environment. We train ALL of our staff on LOTO and the Energy Control Procedure. Energy hazzards are identified on each piece of equipment, and there is an established procedure for de-energizing all hazzards.

Edited by Beezil, 25 June 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[Beezil]

C0untZer0, on 24 June 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

^ I don't think it's a government conspiracy.

I think someone who works on the premises or worked there at one time was angry with the owner and ratted him out to OSHA.

exactly.

to say that this is something initiated by obama, or emmanuel just sounds paranoid.

you simply can't operate a business without getting a visit from osha inspectors....

businesses are categorized by SIC codes, and OSHA has established which kinds of businesses are typically more hazzardous than others, as well as which ones tend to report workplace injuries/deaths.

A range would be up on that list no doubt. Additionally, it's on the radar for hazardous materials, and air quality standards....

All it takes to initiate an OSHA inspection is a SINGLE phonecall.

If OSHA gets a call and a viable hazard is citied, there WILL be an inspection forthcoming.

Edited by Beezil, 25 June 2012 - 08:13 AM.

[Beezil]

F12Mahon, on 24 June 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

It is not that operators have a hand in locking out a piece of equipment. It is that they know that when a machine is locked out or tagged out that they are not to be operated. Not every thing can be locked out. A pedistle  grinders can't be locked out but can be tagged out. Tagged out has the same affect on operation. None is allowed. L.O.T.O. training informs employees of this.

anything that has a cord and a plug can be "locked out"  "control of the cord" for devices with a plug and a cord is considered "de-energized"

if your pedistal grinder is hard-wired, it must be powered with an electrical connection containing a disconnect. a disconnect can be locked out in most cases, but certainly tagged out.

[Kain1003]

Hmm I'm sad to see this happen, but I'm not too surprised. I stopped going there because the range was just way too loud for me and my buddy got hit with shrapnel several times. Not too mention the owner never seemed to be a nice guy and never left the office to talk to me; he always left it to his wife or the other worker that was there. The price was great though and you weren't limited to an hour like Maxons. The place also isn't as crowded as Maxons is.

[vezpa]

Anyone notice that several "un-named" ranges in the area have also very recently substantially stepped up and imporved their ranges?

[ming]

vezpa, on 07 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Anyone notice that several "un-named" ranges in the area have also very recently substantially stepped up and imporved their ranges?

I noticed this also.