Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”     Barry Goldwater

July 11, 2007

OSHA Contemplates Regulating Ammunition as Explosives

by Stephen Littau

OSHA is now considering regulating ammunition as explosives. If OSHA has its way, ammunition will become very difficult to purchase, store, or transport and would seriously curtail the individual’s constitutional right to bear arms without specifically banning firearms. One can only wonder how the courts would rule if OSHA’s proposed regulation were challenged. I for one hope we never have to find out.

Predictably, the DemocraticUnderground.com crowd believes that those of us who actually believe in the individual’s right to bear arms are overreacting:

Apparently OSHA’s new regulations will BAN ALL AMMUNITION FOREVER OMGZ. This is WORSE THAN NAZI GERMANY.

I’m not necessarily caring one way or the other, and think this is much ado over a proposed regulation that will likely never make it out of the comment phase. It’s just amusing listening to all the good Republicans bitching and whining all day.

Vladimir Lenin once said “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” Other despots made similar statements concerning gun control. What I fail to understand is that if Bush is the tyrant the Left would have us believe; shouldn’t they also be concerned about disarming American citizens or otherwise restricting access to ammunition?

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/07/11/osha-contemplates-regulating-ammunition-as-explosives/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

2 Comments

  1. Oooh Oooh! Stephen, I know the answer!

    It’s because American liberals want a strong totalitarian state that serves their own ends. Look at the reaction to Gonzales v. Raich. Many liberals were quite happy to prevent sick people from having access to a medicine they need in order to not weaken the principle that the Federal government may regulate purely local activities.

    The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.28 Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed “to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses . . .” and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets. See nn. 20–21, supra.

    Supreme court judgment concerning Gonzalez vs. Raich

    They want to get George Bush off the throne, not cripple the power of the throne itself. They need that power to produce their version of a Kingdom of God on Earth.

    Comment by tarran — July 11, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
  2. I think you’re exactly right Tarran. For many on both the right and the left, it isn’t about principle its about who controls the levers of power. Those on the left who complain about the way Bush abuses his power had nothing to say when Clinton did many of the same things.

    Comment by Stephen Littau — July 15, 2007 @ 2:48 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML