PDA

View Full Version : Changes coming to Ammo Shipping


hoffmang
12-30-2010, 11:19 AM
ORM-D is going away and ammo will be classed in a new 'LQ' UN classification:

So reports (http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/12/dot-plans-new-ammo-shipping-regulations/) Larry Keene of NSSF:


DOT Plans New Ammo Shipping Regulations
Story by Larry Keane, NSSF

Since the early 1970s, ammunition being shipped in the United States has been classified under “Other Regulated Materials” — class D (ORM-D) regulations. This precludes the need for hazardous material (HazMat) shipping charges and other expensive handling requirements. The savings to the industry has been estimated at more than $300 million per year.

Please keep the tinfoil to a minimum. Worldwide standards on these commodities help keep shipping cheaper and easier...

:TFH:

-Gene

Blackhawk556
12-30-2010, 11:25 AM
Sorry to ask but what is "LQ"?

BKinzey
12-30-2010, 11:28 AM
As per the link "LQ" is Limited Quantity.

rodeoflyer
12-30-2010, 11:28 AM
Limited Quantity

He put a linky in there. You must need a bigger scope.....:p

LadyShooter
12-30-2010, 11:39 AM
Limited Quantities, how limited 1000-3000 rounds?

Flopper
12-30-2010, 11:53 AM
:willy_nilly:

jeferd
12-30-2010, 12:05 PM
Sounds like this could have been a costly decision that worked out in our favor..whew

Blackhawk556
12-30-2010, 12:23 PM
Sorry I'm reading this from my phone so the link wasn't obvious

uyoga
12-30-2010, 12:25 PM
Now all we need to do is defeat 962.

Skidmark
12-30-2010, 12:51 PM
ORM-D is going away and ammo will be classed in a new 'LQ' UN classification:

Please keep the tinfoil to a minimum. Worldwide standards on these commodities help keep shipping cheaper and easier...

:TFH:

-Gene

This is good news, but the nutty fringe will still recoil from *anything* that has a UN label affixed to it.

ZombieTactics
12-30-2010, 1:26 PM
Standard "world control" protocol. Call me a tinfoil-hatter if you wish, I've just seen too much of this over my lifetime.

The present standards are innocuous enough to be sure ... nothing to get excited about in and of themselves. There are ways this could actually make ammunition easier and cheaper to ship in the short term. There is actually reason to celebrate the fact that SAAMI saw the problem and addressed it so well.

Of course by abandoning ORM-D and adopting a standard controlled by an international body with a known disarmament agenda ... the writing on the wall is clear. Should we also turn FDA meat-packing standards over to PETA? Perhaps an appointed body of "very enlightened" foxes should set hen-house construction standards as well. People seem far too interested in being happy about some distracting "shiny new toy" (cheaper shipping ... yay!) as opposed to long-term thinking.

Was ANY US-based company or industry group clamoring or lobbying for this change at all? It seems not, and so the question of why it was felt necessary almost answers itself.

Creeping incrementalism ... err .... creeps ... incrementally .

This is "sporting purpose" all over again.

And so it goes ... not with a bang but a whimper.

Sniper3142
12-30-2010, 1:34 PM
Standard "world control" protocol. Call me a tinfoil-hatter if you wish, I've just seen too much of this over my lifetime.

The present standards are innocuous enough to be sure ... nothing to get excited about in and of themselves. There are ways this could actually make ammunition easier and cheaper to ship in the short term. There is actually reason to celebrate the fact that SAAMI saw the problem and addressed it so well.

Of course by abandoning ORM-D and adopting a standard controlled by an international body with a known disarmament agenda ... the writing on the wall is clear. Should we also turn FDA meat-packing standards over to PETA?

Was ANY US-based company or industry group clamoring or lobbying for this change at all? It seems not, and so the question of why it was felt necessary almost answers itself.

Creeping incrementalism ... err .... creeps ... incrementally .

This is "sporting purpose" all over again.

And so it goes ... not with a bang but a whimper.

Yup, I'm in total agreement with what you are saying.

:(

Not a good thing at all.

nick
12-30-2010, 1:54 PM
So, what's to prevent the UN to remove that exemption in the future? Somehow I doubt the US would move away from this standard as a result.

To Skidmark - since because I distrust a corrupt body of unelected officials mostly from not very well run countries, the body which doesn't bother to hide its anti-gun bias, I'm a part of the "nutty fringe", tell me, aside from feeling good about the UN, how much do you actually know about it?

cortayack
12-30-2010, 2:08 PM
Standard "world control" protocol. Call me a tinfoil-hatter if you wish, I've just seen too much of this over my lifetime.

The present standards are innocuous enough to be sure ... nothing to get excited about in and of themselves. There are ways this could actually make ammunition easier and cheaper to ship in the short term. There is actually reason to celebrate the fact that SAAMI saw the problem and addressed it so well.

Of course by abandoning ORM-D and adopting a standard controlled by an international body with a known disarmament agenda ... the writing on the wall is clear. Should we also turn FDA meat-packing standards over to PETA? Perhaps an appointed body of "very enlightened" foxes should set hen-house construction standards as well. People seem far too interested in being happy about some distracting "shiny new toy" (cheaper shipping ... yay!) as opposed to long-term thinking.

Was ANY US-based company or industry group clamoring or lobbying for this change at all? It seems not, and so the question of why it was felt necessary almost answers itself.

Creeping incrementalism ... err .... creeps ... incrementally .

This is "sporting purpose" all over again.

And so it goes ... not with a bang but a whimper.

I agree with your statement....I don't like a foreign body dictating policy over my Government and Constitution...

ZombieTactics
12-30-2010, 2:26 PM
I agree with your statement....I don't like a foreign body dictating policy over my Government and Constitution...

To be fair, I don't think that the UN is "dictating policy" at this point. The DOT - it appears - is simply adopting the UN standard. Keep in mind that this is the same DOT who practically begged (along with the NTSB) for the creation of the TSA. Yes, that's gone sooooo well.

Given that there are people in various departments and bureaus who would like nothing more than to cede control to the UN ... and the current administrations preference for bypassing the legislature and enacting regulations by agency/department fiat (EPA anyone?) ... rational concerns are not a stretch at all.

OleCuss
12-30-2010, 2:27 PM
I agree with your statement....I don't like a foreign body dictating policy over my Government and Constitution...

I'm not sure I fully understand the situation, but so far it doesn't sound too bad.

If I got it right, the intent was to make things easier for shippers by having consistent regulations for both US and international shipping. So the U.S. went to the UN and after SAAMI got involved we actually got the UN to effectively conform to US shipping regulations. This should actually improve free trade.

So I'm fairly happy with the news but, again, my happiness might be a sign of having gotten it all wrong. . .

PhantomII
12-30-2010, 2:39 PM
From what I've seen over the last few years, ALL standards are going to an international set.

MIL-STD is almost completely phased out and replaced with ISO or SAE standards.

I suppose shipping standards would be no different.

EOD Guy
12-31-2010, 7:17 AM
Before anyone panics, in order for a material to be reclassed as ORM-D, it must be a limited quantity. Limited quanitities are generally restricted to 30 Kg (66 pounds) gross weight. The only difference between the UN LQ and the US ORM-D is that ORM-D is only used for domestic shipments within the US.

As for the UN haters, the US has been following the UN standards for shipments of hazardous materials for many years. These standards allow for variations within member countries, i.e., ORM-D. If we didn't have these standards, international shipments would be a nightmare with a hodge podge of different reguations.

Beelzy
12-31-2010, 7:24 AM
Sorry, but ANYTHING with the two Letters "UN" attached to it is NOT good......period.

EOD Guy
12-31-2010, 7:34 AM
Sorry, but ANYTHING with the two Letters "UN" attached to it is NOT good......period.

Then you better get rid of all your ammunition. It has a UN ID number of UN0012.:TFH:

Actually, the ones who write the regulations are in Geneva and Toronto and have nothing in common with the nut cases in New York except the letters "UN".

choprzrul
12-31-2010, 8:35 AM
I certainly do not have any use whatsoever with the UN, but what really bothers me is the wording: "Limited Quantity" I can see it now, they adopt the UN standard and then define round count in ever decreasing numbers. It will get to the point where a box of 50 pistol ammo is the max shipping quantity.

Seems pretty obvious to me where they are heading with this one.

.

NorCalDustin
12-31-2010, 10:58 AM
Please keep the tinfoil to a minimum. Worldwide standards on these commodities help keep shipping cheaper and easier..

***Makes a new and much smaller tinfoil hat because Gene says it's okay***

:D

IrishPirate
12-31-2010, 11:08 AM
not a big fan of the UN. I agree with some things, but mostly find it to be a waste of time and money. There are too many political organizations trying to adopt a world wide standard....actually, trying to get the world to adopt THEIR standard. Beurocracy will never die i guess...

at least things aren't going to all of a sudden change. I'm glad SAAMI pushed to fix that before someone else approved it and we had to fight for LQ after the fact...better to hold your ground than try to fight for more i guess.

Can'thavenuthingood
12-31-2010, 11:33 AM
Its okay, you can trust your governments.

Vick

Mssr. Eleganté
12-31-2010, 12:56 PM
As an added benefit, it looks like if you get busted for shipping ammunition out of the country after this goes into effect there will be one less crime they can charge you with. As long as the ammo packaged and marked correctly you will only get reamed by State Department and Justice Department. The DOT won't be able to touch you. :p

It would also seem to mean that somebody shipping ammunition from say Germany to England could only be charged with 11 crimes instead of the 12 crimes they'd get charged with currenly, since the U.S.style ammunition shipping exemption will be world wide. :euro:

Can'thavenuthingood
12-31-2010, 1:08 PM
Trials will be in the International Criminal Courts.

US courts are subservient, or will be.

Vick

hoffmang
12-31-2010, 2:01 PM
US courts are subservient, or will be.


No.

1. You underestimate the arrogance of Supreme Court Justices.

2. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;"

That means that the Supreme Court sits in judgement of treaties as inferior to the US Constitution.

-Gene