tquigg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 775
- Reaction score
- 0
Yesterday our club was visited by the regional BATFE field agent to inspect the club's storage magazine. Even though the hobby has won the lawsuit, until the ruling comes down in writing, and the state legislature changes state law, here in Washington State, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries still requires a storage magazine. The magazine has to be approved by BATFE before it can be approved on a state level. Sooooo......
Anyway, our club has had this storage magazine since 2001, and have experienced no issues... nada, zip, nothing. Until yesterday.
We had a new, young field agent, who promptly whips out a micrometer and begins measuring everything....
The plywood lining is not truly 1/2 inch thick. It's only 7/16. Gig #1. The padlock shackles are not truly 3/8. They are 1/32 of an inch too small in diameter. Gig #2. The hoods surrounding the locks are 1/16 of a inch too thin. The metal needs to be thicker. Gig #3. We have two weeks to change these "problems" which have never been a problem before. We've passed all local, state and up until now, federal inspections for the past eight years. Now all of a sudden we are no longer in compliance?
For the record, in eight years there has never been a single motor stored in this magazine. It has been 100% contingent use.
When we inquired as to the lawsuit outcome, the field agent advised he was aware of the court ruling, but has seen nothing in writing from the bureau. Until such time as he sees something in writing, it's business as usual, and we are not in compliance.
Anyone else had similar experience lately? And yes, I have reported this incident to NAR.
Best Regards
Anyway, our club has had this storage magazine since 2001, and have experienced no issues... nada, zip, nothing. Until yesterday.
We had a new, young field agent, who promptly whips out a micrometer and begins measuring everything....
The plywood lining is not truly 1/2 inch thick. It's only 7/16. Gig #1. The padlock shackles are not truly 3/8. They are 1/32 of an inch too small in diameter. Gig #2. The hoods surrounding the locks are 1/16 of a inch too thin. The metal needs to be thicker. Gig #3. We have two weeks to change these "problems" which have never been a problem before. We've passed all local, state and up until now, federal inspections for the past eight years. Now all of a sudden we are no longer in compliance?
For the record, in eight years there has never been a single motor stored in this magazine. It has been 100% contingent use.
When we inquired as to the lawsuit outcome, the field agent advised he was aware of the court ruling, but has seen nothing in writing from the bureau. Until such time as he sees something in writing, it's business as usual, and we are not in compliance.
Anyone else had similar experience lately? And yes, I have reported this incident to NAR.
Best Regards