[PapaBear3625]

Also, OSHA can stay in the background on this and avoid political heat on the Administration. By making guns a "safety violation", OSHA thereby ensures that insurance companies will do their work for them.

If there's a shooting, and there was no anti-gun policy in place, then the business is in violation of OSHA safety regulations. Being in violation would undercut their defense against any lawsuit, so of course any plaintiff's lawyer would ensure that a complaint was filed with OSHA. The insurance companies, to protect their position in such a scenario, would mandate a "no guns" policy as a condition of getting insurance

[Eagle Eye]

Insurance companies do not need OSHA standards at all, they can write their own underwriting rules.

If there's a shooting, and there was no anti-gun policy in place, then the business is in violation of OSHA safety regulations.

Hey Dum Bass....according to section 5A any workplace injury is proof of violation

(a) Each employer --
(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

So your whole case is really falling down the tubes, isn't it?