SHARE Act Passes House

SHARE or Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement. While there’s a lot of pro-hunting stuff here, it’s also by virtue a pro-carry initiative. You can find the text here. Key point:

Title VI: Access to Water Resources Development Projects Act - Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act of 2013 - Prohibits the Secretary of the Army from promulgating or enforcing any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm at a water resources development project administered by the Chief of Engineers if: (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm, and (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the state in which the project is located.

That’s basically the same language that was inserted into the 2009 Credit Card Bill to force the NPS to allow carry in National Parks. This is a good victory, but will the Senate take it up? It’s an election year. A “yes” vote on this would help a lot of troubled Democrats who are up in 2014, and Obama, as a lame duck, no longer needs to be protected. It would be interesting to see whether this could get sent to Obama, and what he’d do.


8 thoughts on “SHARE Act Passes House”

  1. There was a case in Idaho. the judge said their no carry rule was unconstitutional

  2. I bet Harry Reid buries it unless it is attached to must-pass legislation.

    I wonder if this gets tacked onto the NICS reauth? Unless NICS was lumped in with the omnibus budget bill… If so, this is pretty weak sauce for reauthorizing NICS. After the assault we got to deal with I want something more substantive on the table. If NICS is important to them then I hope Rep Goodlatte makes them pay.

  3. Harry Reid won’t bury this. Harry Reid is pro gun. Almost across the board. But his job is to get Democrats elected, hold the Senate, get Supreme Court nominees appointed, and get money to the states/districts represented by Democrats, and otherwise pass legislation helping Democrats. Gun control doesn’t fit anywhere in that list of priorities. For Democrats, or Harry Reid. It does though, for the two who would replace him: CHuck Schumer (NY) and Dick Durbin (Chicago – well, IL, but Chicago runs things).

    In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this language actually improve and become more gun friendly. There’s a host of Democrats int he Senate – fighting tooth and nail to hold their seats (and preserve Obama’s ability to nominate the judges they want) who would love to take Credit for expanding gun rights.

    Here are nine:

    Kay Hagen (NC)
    Mark Begich (AK)
    Mark Pryor (AR)
    Mark Udall (CO)
    Mary Landrieu (LA)
    Al Franken (MN)
    Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
    Tom Udall (NM)
    Mark Warner (VA)

    1. That’s an unconfortable truth for a lot of people. If Ds are gonna control the Senate, Daddy Warbucks Reid is the least worst option for leadership, especially given the guys lined up behind him.

  4. I believe this is a separate measure, but along the same lines:

    A Senate committee unanimously passed a measure Thursday to allow people to carry guns on postal service property, but killed a broader push to let gun owners carry their firearms into actual post office buildings.
    The measure from Sen. Mark Begich, Alaska Democrat, to a broader Postal Reform bill is meant to head off situations where a person could be charged with a crime if they run into the post office after hunting or shooting, for example, and leave their gun in the parking lot.

    Full Article:

  5. Zermoid,

    Paul’s “in the Post Office building” Amendment failed 9-6, there are 9 Dems and 7 Republicans on that committee. I wonder who abstained or didn’t make the vote?

    Three of Countertop’s list of Dems are on that particular committee.

    Mary Landrieu (LA)
    Mark Begich (AK)
    Mark Pryor (AR)

    If the Repubs retake the Senate, that Committee changes hands and this vote goes the other way.

    Begich helped ensure we got half the apple but that isn’t good enough as this particular topic admits of -no- rational argument against simply going by state law.

    In function and fact the -only- difference between a public Post Office and a private “Mailboxes Etc.” is the presence of Federal employees; and they are -not- a special class who deserve having the rights of lawful citizens abridged on their behalf.

    Anywhere the general public can go in the normal course of business, anywhere not “employee’s only” and/or protected by locked doors, armed guards, and physically restricted access measures, should be governed by state law for carry. Full Stop.

Comments are closed.