Forces Rallying Against SHARE ( Sportsmen’s Heritage & Recreational Enhancement ) Act

By Jeff Knox : Opinion

Hearing Protection Act
Forces Rallying Against SHARE ( Sportsmen's Heritage & Recreational Enhancement ) Act
Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox

Buckeye, AZ –-( The media, anti-rights groups, and politicians are engaging in a full-court press against the SHARE Act, focusing particularly on the inclusion of the Hearing Protection Act, which was added to the sportsmen's bill in its latest iteration.

As usual, the hype and distortion are running high, with idiotic claims that passage of the bill would “make it easy for felons and domestic abusers to buy gun silencers without a background check,” as the Bloomies warned in recent fundraisers.

We at The Firearms Coalition would be fine with that, as a matter of fact, we much prefer the SHUSH Act, which would totally deregulate silencers. These are after all, non-firing accessories, not guns, and if a criminal really wanted one, they are ridiculously easy to make. But the Hearing Protection Act simply shifts silencers from being treated like machine guns, to treating them like regular guns. That means they would require a 4473 and a background check to purchase one from a dealer. Felons and anyone ever convicted of a crime of domestic violence would still be prohibited from purchasing or possessing them, just as they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing guns and ammunition.

The SHARE Act, which is an acronym for Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement, is an omnibus bill containing wide-ranging provisions of interest to shooters, hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists. It contains a number of reforms that are long overdue, and has been pushed by the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus since 2013, with various provisions added or amended through the years. The latest version was delayed by the “progressive”assassination attempt on Republicans at a baseball practice in Northern Virginia, but was finally filed on September 1, and has moved quickly since then. It was marked up in the House natural Resources Committee in mid-September and moved out of that committee with a favorable report the next day, at which time it was referred to the full House.

Barring some shenanigans from the Republican leadership, the bill will be voted on within the next couple of weeks, and sent to the Senate – where it will almost certainly languish and eventually die, just as it did in the 113th and 114th Congresses – unless we can force a vote.

The trick is getting the leadership to bring the bill to the floor. I suspect that Rep. Duncan (R-SC) pulled a bit of a fast one when he attached the HPA and some other pro-rights legislation to the SHARE Act, but it would be difficult for Speaker Ryan (R-WI) to block a vote now. Unfortunately getting action in the Senate will be more difficult. We'll need champions to push the bill out of committee, and onto the floor, and the first big obstacle will be Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY).

For some reason McConnell doesn't seem to want to vote on gun bills, or help his members keep their election promises. He doesn't seem to understand that the gun issue is a consistent winner for Republicans, and ducking or opposing gun votes is always a losing strategy.

Former Majority Leader, Harry Reid, was a master of the game of obfuscating votes and protecting his fellow Democrats. While he would allow his members to cross party lines on gun bills if it would help their reelection chances, he would only do so if he was sure he had the votes to kill the bills.

A great example was the vote on national reciprocity in 2009. Former Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) initially followed orders to vote against the bill, but after two Republicans, Lugar (R-IN) and Voinovich (R-OH) voted against it, Pryor sought, and was granted permission from Reid to change his vote to “Yea.” Reid himself voted “Yea” on that one, leaving the measure to fail by just two votes, with the blame for that resting squarely on Lugar and Voinovich.

Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton
Chuck Schumer and pal, Hillary Clinton

Chuck Schumer is much less tolerant of gun rights than Reid ever was, and Schumer runs a tighter ship, but he's also a very pragmatic politician. He'll most certainly filibuster the SHARE Act, and he'll insist that enough of his members toe the line to ensure the bill doesn't get through. He'll also try to make quiet side-deals with squishy Republicans to con them into voting with the Democrats.

Our job is to make sure that Republicans and Democrats alike understand that failure to vote right on this bill – including in the lead-up procedural votes – will result in their unemployment, as happened with Lugar and Voinovich.

Conservative voters are really fed up with Republicans not keeping promises. Dragging their feet on pro-rights legislation like the SHARE Act will make many of them vulnerable in '18. If Republicans let them down again, GunVoters aren't likely to vote Democrat in large numbers but, they are likely to not bother showing up at all, and that could be the difference between a stronger Republican majority, or Chuck Shumer becoming Majority Leader.

Now is the time to be hammering your senators about the SHARE Act.

They need to hear loud and clear that you want the bill brought to the floor and voted on, whether the leadership thinks it can pass or not. In a year like this, pushing for record votes can yield surprising results, but even if the SHARE Act goes down in flames in the Senate, having record votes is much more useful than having the bill simply die in committee.

Call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Talk to the staff of your representative and both of your senators and tell them you want record votes on the SHARE Act. Then call their local offices and tell those staffers the same thing. Call Mitch McConnell's office too, then call back every day until they take the votes.

The Bloomies and Brady Bunch are pushing hard against it with assistance from the media. We have to be louder and more persistent. Call today.

Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War
Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit:

  • 30 thoughts on “Forces Rallying Against SHARE ( Sportsmen’s Heritage & Recreational Enhancement ) Act

    1. It’s PAST TIME to END all government laws regarding firearms because everyone of them without FAIL violates the Second Amendment and the words :
      ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

      Every fire arms “law” IS an infringement including all the forms and permits.

    2. McConnell and his bunch of swamp rats are not there to serve us. They are there for the power they garner from the position they were elected to. Quite frankly, they will not be able to take their power with them and they won’t be able pass it on to their heirs. We are all going to become dust and living a clean life is more important than clinging to a period of control over others that will die when you do, or get voted out of office. .

      1. “If Republicans let them down again, GunVoters aren’t likely to vote Democrat in large numbers . . . ” With all due respect to Jeff Knox, here is where we need to stand firm in the 2018 mid-term elections and beyond. We PotG need to be ready to do more than not show up at the polls; we must be ready to vote for Democrat opponents of RINOs.

        Congress’ leadership scheme is easy to manipulate; by the leaders and also by we voters. Ryan may be pressured into allowing his RINOs in the House to vote Yes on SHARE if McConnell promises him it won’t come to a vote in the Senate. (Or vice versa in some other case.) This trick helps Ryan re-elect his RINOs who voted “right” on the 2A without risking McConnell’s RINOs who don’t have to vote at all.

        Over decades we PotG earned the hard-fought reputation of being “one-issue voters”. To keep that reputation we must be prepared to deny the Republicans their majorities; or, threaten them by keeping their majorities to bear minimums with mavericks who are costly to be bought-off. If SHARE does not pass we must be prepared to punish all Republicans with any taint of RINO-ness.

        We must be prepared to ask ourselves the hard question: ‘Is a RINO really any better that a real Democrat?’ If we (reluctantly) answer “Yes” then we must be satisfied that preserving the RINO control of Congress is – in the long run – a goal preferable to returning the Congress to Democrats for another 2, 4, 6, etc. years. Can we live forever under a RINO Congress? Or, do we need to convince the GOP leadership that we will settle for nothing less than Real-Republians.

        SHARE and National-Reciprocity are (i.e., should be) cheap political bones to throw to the PotG. That Ryan and McConnell refuse to throw these bones to us should be of great concern. Apart from the $200 tax stamps on silencers, these bills do NOT require diverting Federal Pork from favored constituents. These bills do NOT upset the propensity for registered Independents to vote for Democrats vs. Republicans. The only things potentially at stake are: 1) Ryan’s and McConnell’s personal animosity toward the 2A; or, 2) Ryan’s and McConnell’s personal doubts on the impact of campaign contributions by those who hold animosity toward the 2A. It’s these contributors who turn nominal Republicans into RINOs; not just on the 2A, but on the entirety of the Progressive agenda.

        We PotG must speak with one voice, and loudly: ‘Messrs Ryan and McConnell: Pass SHARE and National-Reciprocity or face gun voters – in mass – pulling the Blue lever!’ Staying home and complaining is NOT GOOD ENOUGH; we must be prepared to ‘fire the shot’ that will finally be heard in the Republican smoke-filled rooms.

        1. @ Mark, what do you mean when you say vote democrat? That is the last thing a conservative would do. It isn’t conceivable to me that is a solution to the problem. Encourage people to run that are not rino and support them to get them to the gates so they can come out running.

      2. @tc…As I said before I would like to be a fly on the gate post when they meet St. Peter . Especially Clinton, Obomba. and swampthing McCain !!!

        1. @OV I never thought that I would be a cheering supporter of brain cancer. How did the world get turned upside down since FDR?

          1. @WB…Because all of the evils in the world regardless of what name you put on it continue to try to destroy the crown jewel of the world .

    3. @Mark Are is talking about murdering politicians and not only should be soundly condemned by all on this forum but, because this is not the first time he’s done this, should be banned from this forum. And I don’t say that lightly. We have no place for anyone who advocates the murder of politicians or anyone else.

        1. Yeah, seriously, and I have a life. When you come on here and talk about illegally building suppressors and murdering politicians that’s where the line gets drawn. Exactly how do you think that looks to the casual viewer of these sites not to mention the anti-gun trolls that look for this type of stuff all the time? This is what they love to find so they can quote it time after time as how “those violent gun nuts feel and why we need more laws”. We feed right into their mantra.

          How stupid can we be? Start taking this stuff seriously, they do and we don’t need to help them.

          1. @Vanns…My opinion only but , MA sounds suspiciously like the old troll TS including capitalization. When they don’t find what they want they tend to write what they wish to find under a different nom de plume, then claim look what I found.

            1. @OV, the worthless little liar is back with more fraudulent allegations. He must have run out of glue to sniff and woke up. I think that he must have posted in the wrong place as his petulant prevarications have nothing to do with the SHARE act. If I thought that it would help, I’d send him a case of silver paint.

          2. Yes, Old Useless Bill is always “joking” about murdering politicians and judges he does not agree with. Are you going to bleat to have his wrinkly behind banned as well? FTR I would never choose a nom de plume as boring as Mark. Trevor, maybe.

        2. @CS, Most of the people that post here have lead successful lives, and had periods of really exciting lives serving their country. To write shallow ill conceived insults like “Get a life.” evidences facile simplistic thought. CS how appropriate.

      1. Sometimes I wonder if such remarks are made by “false flags” who desire to defame the constituencies in which they claim (falsely) to be members. Every constituency includes a wing-nut or two. No doubt there are gun nuts with a screw-loose. The relevant question is whether there are as many gun nuts with a screw loose as there are comments from posters who pose with that profile?

        Since 1970, politically-motivated violence on either side in America has been very limited – blessedly so. The numbers are so small that trying to evaluate the ratios of leftists vs. rightists holds little promise for a statistically-significant outcome. There remains every indication that Americans will resolve their political differences at the ballot box without resort to the cartridge box.

        Our concern for the present ought to be concentrated on achieving a plurality on the legitimate ballots in the former; not a self-righteous claim to the legitimacy of the contents of the latter. In this basic issue, the questions are: Do we believe in our republican form of constitutional government maintained with a democratic form of suffrage? If so, do we believe in enforcing the laws of suffrage to citizens of 18 years of age? If so, do we believe in the sacredness of the right of every qualified citizen to vote without infringement? If so, then our debate can concentrate on what prerequisites to the exercise of that right constitute impermissible infringements.

        E.g., is some form of “ID” as a prerequisite to voting an “infringement”? Is it an “infringement” if it must include a photo? If it must be issued only by a government agency? If there is any attached fee to issuance? If the fee is higher than $ X.00? If one must travel to a specified place during specified periods (M-F; 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM) to obtain such an ID? If the basis of issuance of the ID be upon presentation of substantial evidence that the person is who he claims to be? That records of voting registration and of casting ballots be kept for as many as 20 years to enforce laws against fraudulent voting? That records of voter registrations of those who cast ballots in any given election be compiled in a way to minimize the risk that a given qualified voter has not cast multiple ballots?

        If we could come to some conclusions about “voter ID infringement”, how might that development inform our understanding others of our rights of which government must not infringe?

          1. @Wild Bill, Thank you for taking a moment to comment. Beware the man who claims to have all the right answers. Perhaps he hasn’t found the right questions.

            When I ask: Do we believe in our republican form of constitutional government maintained with a democratic form of suffrage? I want to determine in a dialogue whether my counterpart and I share a common basis for evaluation of an issue of civics. Perhaps he does not so believe; in which case, forewarned is forearmed.

            When I ask: . . . how might that development inform our understanding others of our rights of which government must not infringe? I want to determine whether my counterpart in the dialogue can connect the dots. If there is NO form of voter-ID that would NOT constitute an infringement then where does that conclusion lead when applied, for example, to FFLs accepting patronage of – say for illustration – Amish customers.

            Quite to the contrary of your conclusion (‘not very helpful’) I think that asking the right questions is far more illuminating and constructive than knowing, a priori, all the right answers.

    4. This bill as with the previous HPA will die on the vine. We have seen more than ever recently since the 2016 election that the Washington establishment could care less about the wants and needs of the American citizen. It’s all about control. This is far from the Republic the Founders had in mind.

    5. They are hoping that those of us enjoying the shooting sports go deaf. They pray that, somehow, it will lead to us going blind as well. Then they can just stick us in a corner and go about making their agenda happen without any pesky, boring resistance slowing them down.

    6. Maybe we should all just build our own and make our minds up to utilize the 2nd amendment for the REASON it was put in the Constitution in the first place. TO SHOOT TYRANTS. PERIOD. So if you are stupid enough to enforce an obvious violation of your own OATH OF OFFICE, you would be putting your own life at risk from people who just might be willing to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, for REAL instead of going to foreign lands and shooting innocent civilians who have never done a darn thing to us and call THAT fighting for freedom. Just saying…

      1. @Tog, and we can get the rinos out of office if we work together. First, hold your nose. Second, register republican so that you can vote in the primary election or attend the township caucus. Third, get all your friends to do the same. Fourth, Everybody vote in the primary for the not yet corrupt candidate or vote you and your friends to the county caucus. Fifth, (and this is optional) open up your wallet for the not yet corrupted candidate.

    Comments are closed.