I believe his question is rhetorical. A simple Google search will tell you OSHA has limited jurisdiction. They do not apply to any of the ranges I attend regarding the topic of debate. Hearing protection.
Your context is incomplete....
An accurate account would be "OSHA already administers requirements to ranges for profit or with PAID EMPLOYEES...they however have ZERO JURISDICTION on the general public...meaning they DO NOT regulate shooting ranges for hearing protection as it relates to most people...."
Many publicly managed ranges (such as state funded) will defer to OSHA for its VISITORS requirements but...again, those are requirements imposed by the granter of the range to the public NOT by OSHA.... So....
NO...OSHA does not and cannot require any sort of mandate to the general public (visitors)... that's not how it works.
But as I said before, I'm sure many on this thread wish they could empower OSHA to tell us what to do in our private lives.
Because if you were correct (which you are not) it would be contrary to your "promise," and would factually be to impede our "God given right to self harm..."
The dichotomy of internet debate is that you can either write a dissertation covering every angle of your statement, which no one will read. Or you summarize as best as possible and leave it to the good will of others to properly interpret your position...and in doing so will always leave yourself open to endless dissection of minutia.
The specific statement was asked in what way firearm use was regulated. I gave an abbreviated overview of the many ways they are by government bodies, and asked which one I should reference.
As for my last statement on OSHA, I don't need a "simple" google search. That drives confirmation bias.
I know that OSHA does not have direct jurisdiction over visitors. But requiring the same safety measures for visitors is an implied part of their regulations, and failure to do so in a way that results in injury to visitors (as in hearing loss because you do not require...I'll even concede "heavily suggest" for the sake of this discussion...said visitors to adhere) absolutely opens you up to legal battles that would be fully upheld by the enforcement arm of the government.
OSHA may not directly cite you in most cases for not requiring visitor PPE...a resulting legal battle with an affected individual is far more detrimental. But there is a reason anytime I'm contracting in any facility where an OSHA rep is on-site doing inspections, following PPE as a visitor is absolutely non-negotiable. This has happened dozens of times in my career.
And to add to the above, there are plenty of localities and regulations on equipment, that have a noise threshold regulations for equipment and activities. I have not seen anyone's statement in this thread suggest that OSHA be invited to regulate our private lives. Just that it would be nice to have areas to shoot that require silencers, so as to not subject themselves or loved ones to unnecessary hearing loss.
Especially nowadays when brakes are so prevalent...because why do the unmanly "*****" thing of shooting calibers you can handle when you can simply buy it at the low cost of the of the individuals' hearing to the left and right of you?
Still, the vast majorities of excessively loud muzzle devices at the range are hanging off .223s, 6.5 creeds, 308s, and AKs. But I mean, come on. Your .223 isn't going to calm itself, and who doesn't want to look like Magpul Dynamics!
memtb
