Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Can we run this guy for president? | Main | Firearm Policy Coalition educates a California legislator »

SHARE Act passes the House

Posted by David Hardy · 4 March 2016 12:37 PM

The Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act has passed the House and been passed on to the Senate.

Its most prominent feature (at least as I see it) is one that takes a bit of explaining. Currently, BLM and Forest Service lands are under a statutory default condition of "no" on the question of hunting and recreational shooting: the agencies must act in order to allow it. The bill would reverse that: hunting and rec shooting are allowed unless the agency acts to restrict them.

This actually has a major real-world impact. When an agency acts it must comply with a number of legal restrictions -- NEPA analysis, Endangered Species Act analysis, internal policy requirements, generally publication of a proposed rule in the Federal Register, receipt of comments, and then publication of a final rule. All of those can be challenged in court. When an agency doesn't act, it's subject to none of those. Right now, with the default condition of "no use allowed," every time an agency wants to allow hunting or rec shooting it has to go to some work and experience legal risk. If the statutory default is "use allowed," then it has to go to some work and experience legal risk only when it wants to restrict the activities.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Eric | March 5, 2016 9:39 AM | Reply

Thanks for the heads-up.

Kristophr | March 18, 2016 6:38 PM | Reply

Good. This has been a problem wit the forest service and the BLM in the US west, just arbitrarily closing areas to recreational shooting.

Leave a comment