Illinois Gun Works hit by OSHA.

[Joeyl]

The closest? range to Chicago is about to be fined out of existence. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-osha-gun-range-exposed-workers-to-lead-20120611,0,1886459.story

[mrpapageorgio]

I don't far from there, even with the proximity I started going to Article II when it opened and don't regret the change. I'd rather drive extra and have a clean range with working equipment.

[Federal Farmer]

Ditto...plus I like to patronize a range that supports my rights as opposed to a range that actively opposes my rights.

[Ilannoyed]

This might be a wake-up call to several ranges near me in the southwest suburbs that really need to get their ventilation and general cleanliness addressed. Not naming names, but there is one in particular that you would be wise to wear a respirator into. In fact, I have seen several patrons do just that. From what I have seen, I can't imagine them being OSHA compliant as far as employee saftety is concerned.

 

 

[ming]

Ditto...plus I like to patronize a range that supports my rights as opposed to a range that actively opposes my rights.

 

Could you elaborate? How do they do this and why would they, unless they are following Elmwood Park ordinance?

[Drylok]

A gun range that actively opposes our rights????

[Mr. Fife]

Ditto...plus I like to patronize a range that supports my rights as opposed to a range that actively opposes my rights.

 

Could you elaborate? How do they do this and why would they, unless they are following Elmwood Park ordinance?

 

One of the trainers that work for the training company IGW hires testified against gun rights for ordinary citizens.

[ming]

I hadn't heard this before. I find it very troubling that a firearm training company would do this for whatever reason. Don't know why a company would want to limit its own customer base. I would like to think (i.e., I would hope) that they aren't in business any more.

[Uncle Harley]

I hadn't heard this before. I find it very troubling that a firearm training company would do this for whatever reason. Don't know why a company would want to limit its own customer base. I would like to think (i.e., I would hope) that they aren't in business any more.

 

 

not naming names, but at an Effingham gun show there was a husband and wife team that provided training, and I had a conversation with her, and she acted as if I was some kind of misfit because I told her I already had a UTAH permit instead of the Florida permit they were peddeling. She just couldn't believe that anyone could get a CCW with out live fire training. She was really amiss when I told her I didn't even have to take a class for my PA just send an app in the mail.

[Federal Farmer]

I hadn't heard this before. I find it very troubling that a firearm training company would do this for whatever reason. Don't know why a company would want to limit its own customer base. I would like to think (i.e., I would hope) that they aren't in business any more.

 

If there were ranges in the City why would residents there journey out to Elmwood Park?

[ming]

I hadn't heard this before. I find it very troubling that a firearm training company would do this for whatever reason. Don't know why a company would want to limit its own customer base. I would like to think (i.e., I would hope) that they aren't in business any more.

 

If there were ranges in the City why would residents there journey out to Elmwood Park?

 

Depends where the city ranges were. For those on the NW side I would guess Elmwood Park would be convenient. I'm still not sure what the connection is between the IGW range and the training company that had anti 2A views. Does or did IGW continue business with this firm after it testified against 2A rights for citizens? I would be hesitant to tar IGW with the same brush as for the training firm unless I knew they shared similar views. Knowing only what I've just read here on this matter, the only sense I can make of it is that the firm only trained LEO types and was parroting the views of some high ranking police department administrators to land a contract. As you can probably tell, I'm grasping at straws to make sense of something that makes no sense to me.

[Federal Farmer]

I haven't been able yet to dig out the actual testimony nor the identity and affiliation of the person deposed by the City. Here is a link where it is referenced:

 

 

"The City also deposed five third parties, including (a) Jerry Tilbor,

President of Blue Line Corporation, the entity that contracted with SAF to provide the mobile range

unit; ( b )Larry Cohen, the President of Accurate Perforating Corporation, the entity that leased the

property to SAF for storage of a trailer; ( c ) a representative from a suburban gun range that offers

the one-hour training; and (d) a representative from an academy in the City that offers the four-hour

classroom training."

[nocaster]

Just because some one is deposed does not mean they are friendly to the party taking the dep.

[Xwing]

I'm not sure if IGW is actually opposed to our rights or not. But anytime the state shuts down a range, I think it's a bad sign. The state continues to use every dirty trick in the book (like they're doing at Buffalo Range) to put them out of business.

[Skorpius]

Wow. A friend of mine works there, as well as another who used to. I do know that they won't sell to anyone in Chicago without having paid your poll tax CFP tax.

[Mr. Fife]

Wow. A friend of mine works there, as well as another who used to. I do know that they won't sell to anyone in Chicago without having paid your poll tax CFP tax.

 

I beleve that's a village ordinance.

 

 

[Gray Peterson]

Just because some one is deposed does not mean they are friendly to the party taking the dep.

 

not in this case.

[Joeyl]

Just because some one is deposed does not mean they are friendly to the party taking the dep.

 

not in this case.

Elaborate please? If something is amiss there as far as a lack of FULL support of the 2nd Amendment, let's hear it.

[Sigma]

They have been advertising heavily on WLS, in fact its the only gun range I have heard advertising on the radio. Maybe that irritated some anti who then called Osha

[mrpapageorgio]

Wow. A friend of mine works there, as well as another who used to. I do know that they won't sell to anyone in Chicago without having paid your poll tax CFP tax.

 

I beleve that's a village ordinance.

Yes it is. The village wouldn't let them sell to any Chicago resident when they had the handgun ban, then changed it saying they had to have their CFP.

[C0untZer0]

Article II in Lombard was delayed in opening because they had A LOT of work to do to meet the latest clean air standards.

 

I was talking to the owner and I told him that I had shot in Mchenry - where the gunsmoke was lierally so thick I had trouble seeing my target. I had a gun powder taste in my mouth that I had to use my special recipie to get out of my mouth...

 

And the owner of Article II told me that for the Clean Air standard - the range only has to meet the standards that were in place when the range was opened.

 

I would have to think though that enforcement of OSHA standards is different.

 

The other thing though is that 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.

 

 

I don't think that just because a range gets cited by OSHA that it's a government conspiracy.

[G Mitchell]

OSHA is out of control, like some other federal agencies and should be abolished.

[Thanks2mcdonald]

I like that this gun range is very close to Chicago's northwestern edge. Even if you are near-north (Lincoln Park, Humboldt Park, Wicker Park), go straight up Fullerton and you can get there in 30 minutes or so. The article referenced is correct - the place is terrible for ventilation. OSHA or not, just go there and breathe [range area]. There a LOTS of bullet holes in the ceiling and more than you would like to see in the walls separating shooting lanes.

 

The staff also need to better understand the Chicago gun ordinance for purchases, shotguns in particular. Their customer service is not the best. I hope they get their act together because it is great to have a place to shoot on Chicago's northwestern edge. If there were more choices, I suspect many people would go elsewhere.

[Tvandermyde]

Gun works was brought in by the City in the Ezell case and stated something to the effect that a range could not be operated in the city safely.

 

David Seagle questioned him in the dep. They were trying to protect their own bottom line and didn't want any more competition.

[Gray Peterson]

Gun works was brought in by the City in the Ezell case and stated something to the effect that a range could not be operated in the city safely.

 

David Seagle questioned him in the dep. They were trying to protect their own bottom line and didn't want any more competition.

 

Stick a fork in IGW, they are done. You don't reward enemies.

[Joeyl]

Gun works was brought in by the City in the Ezell case and stated something to the effect that a range could not be operated in the city safely.

 

David Seagle questioned him in the dep. They were trying to protect their own bottom line and didn't want any more competition.

 

Stick a fork in IGW, they are done. You don't reward enemies.

Thanks for clarifying that Todd. I was not aware of what they did. Wish I would have known sooner. I would've stopped patronizing them earlier. I guess that leaves Maxon's (unless someone has something to add about them) and Article II for me.

[ming]

Gun works was brought in by the City in the Ezell case and stated something to the effect that a range could not be operated in the city safely.

 

David Seagle questioned him in the dep. They were trying to protect their own bottom line and didn't want any more competition.

 

For them to say a range couldn't be operated in the city safely is ludicrous. Their location is as much "in the city" as any range that would be built in Chicago. It's not like they are in some isolated rural/industrial area.

[nocaster]

Gun works was brought in by the City in the Ezell case and stated something to the effect that a range could not be operated in the city safely.

 

David Seagle questioned him in the dep. They were trying to protect their own bottom line and didn't want any more competition.

 

I am very sorry to learn this. I have purchased two handguns from them, and other things. I will not give them my business anymore. Sadly, they are the only public range that allows rapid fire.

 

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2

[Beezil]

As a business owner/manufacturer who has first hand experience dealing with OSHA inspections, I would say it's safe to assume that this situation will probably be remedied reasonalbly and practically......eventually.

 

the 111,000 dollar fine is the sum of 28 violations.

 

Violations are found based on the interpretation of statues (which are often generalized and vauge) by the individual inspector(s) Violations can often be based on a casual and informal interview process with randomly selected employees, and typically do not in certain instances include owership, superviosory or directory staff. Violations can come from lack of knowledge in specific procedures, or even incosistancies in nomenclature. In other words, it's super-easy to document violations

 

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".

 

Of the four violations on that particular visit (they always find something) that was one of three that were thrown out during the obligatory repeal meeting. The forth one was a grey area, and I figured it would be much better to roll over on one. As a completely common practice, I negotiated a reduced fine, and I only paid 10% of the original fine, which was relatively small beans at 2500.00....when OSHA can't "pay for themselves" (250 bucks?) they move on for a while. My father-in-law was recently fined because his masons weren't wearing fall harnesses on a scaffold that was erected at or below 10-feet. (or wherever the cut-off is) Except, the OSHA inspector had an easy time finding a spot where he could measure a place along the 100-foot-long scaffold that put him over by a few inches. BIG FINE......that was completely throw out during appeal.

 

I've never been to IGW, so I don't know the conditions. There is probably validity to some of the violations. Business owners must be responsible for best practices, a safe and healthy work place, absolutly! However, my personal experience with OSHA is that they exist primarliy as a profit center onto themselves, and exist as an organization that can only offer "safe working environments" by way of fear factor, punishment and fines. They do not take a proactive interest in providing PARTNERSHIP solutions, training nor guideance. Of any violation I've ever been served with, OSHA could never tell me how to come into compliance. They could only tell me what wasn't.

 

I am expecting, and more or less "hoping" that the violations and subsequent fines IGW is facing will be greatly reduced. If they are lacking in some areas, well, they ought to address the issues with an attitude that embraces continual improvment, at the same time, arguing against the violations which are not correctly applied. I personally don't think this is some kind of anti-gun movement or some kind of government conspiracy. OSHA inspections befall ALL OF US who own and operate a business. One important thing to note....A high percentage of inspections are intitated by employee complaints.

 

The only thing that confuses me about this is why OSHA performed the type of inspection they did, while currently, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is involved in a huge lead initiative/audit.....I would have expected them to beat OSHA to IGW.

[Beezil]

Gun works was brought in by the City in the Ezell case and stated something to the effect that a range could not be operated in the city safely.

 

David Seagle questioned him in the dep. They were trying to protect their own bottom line and didn't want any more competition.

 

Stick a fork in IGW, they are done. You don't reward enemies.

Thanks for clarifying that Todd. I was not aware of what they did. Wish I would have known sooner. I would've stopped patronizing them earlier. I guess that leaves Maxon's (unless someone has something to add about them) and Article II for me.

 

I bring this up from time-to-time....

 

here's another example of why i think it would be affective for this site to begin building and publishing a "do not patronize" list.....as well as a "friend to the 2A/IL Carry" list.