SHARE Act One Step Closer to Passage

Supressor Selection

Undoing the laws passed by the last administration may be one President Trump’s crowning achievements. Hunters and sportsmen are the ultimate conservationists.  I would challenge that the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Mule Deer Foundation, Whitetail Institute, and a host of others have each done more to protect wildlife and public lands than the antis have combined. NRA-ILA logo Hunters and sportsmen demonstrate respect for the game they pursue and revere the lands on which they pursue the game. Sadly, all the antis typically do is look for ways to disrupt the outdoor enthusiasts’ efforts through misguided legal challenges. Fortunately, organizations such as the NRA-ILA are fighting to secure our rights and expand opportunities. Here is the full release from the NRA-ILA.

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) commends the House Committee on Natural Resources for markup and passage of H.R. 3668, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. Under the successful leadership of Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA), the SHARE Act now moves to the full U.S. House of Representatives.

“Today marks an important step in protecting the Second Amendment freedoms of America’s hunters and sportsmen and strengthening our outdoor heritage,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The SHARE Act will cut burdensome red tape that restricts millions of hunters and sportsmen.”

Supressor Selection
Suppressors are a great addition to most any caliber. They make shooting fun and reduce the chance of negatively affecting your hearing or those around you. In a home defense scenario, this is a serious consideration.

The bill secures access to Federal public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting and includes the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). The HPA is an important safety-oriented aspect of the bill that will help protect the hearing of America’s hunters by eliminating expensive and excessive regulations on suppressors. Other key provisions include:

  • Securing the future of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting by increasing access to federal public lands.
  • Reforming of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), which protects the lawful, legal transport of unloaded firearms.
  • Strengthening protections for carrying firearms on land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
  • Removing the undefined and antiquated “sporting purposes test”, which opens the door to arbitrary ammunition bans.
  • Returning wildlife management of the gray wolf to states adversely affected by rising populations.

“I would like to thank Chairman Rob Bishop and Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock for their leadership and critical roles in ensuring committee passage of the SHARE Act. Thanks to their efforts, we are one step closer to the day that all Americans will have better access to our outdoor heritage and the tools that ensure the safety of hunters and sportsmen alike,” concluded Cox.

Do you support the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act? How about the Hearing Protection Act (HPA)? Share your answers in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (64)

  1. Alex is a dumbass. I almost think his comment is fake to rile people up with that strategic bad spelling. There is nothing bad about silencers period! So idiots need to stay out of this. I’m gona tell my 4 year old what to eat and if he doesn’t like it tough I’m not gonna sit and debate it with a 4 year old, he’s not allowed to have an opinion. I’m sick of scared dummies being allowed to have a seat at the debate table, who know nothing about the subject. Let me have what I want and don’t complain. You can go do extreme things like chop off your private parts and change your sex, break Gods law and create your own perversion of a “marriage “and be hailed for it, but I’m supposed to be told I can’t make my hobby just a small fraction more enjoyable with and exhaust pipe?? Ooooohhh nooooo!!!!! We can’t have that, noooooooo waaaayyyyy. Silencers are “bad”…….

    1. The only negative thing i said was if you get caught using a silencer comiting a crime you should have extra penalties.

  2. I am pro gun but don’t know much about suppresers exsept that i want one but i don’t want the person breaking into my house to have one. Suppressors should be leagle for law abiding citizens to use but their should be major penalty’s for committing crimes with them including home made ones.
    Also many of the comments talk about suppresses not being enough to stop hearing damage. and many comments about how using hearing protection while at the range or hunting is dangerous due to lack of situational awareness, it seems to me that electronic hearing protection that amplifies safe sound and dampens dangerous is safer cheaper and more advantages to the shooter.

    1. Well…have you ever heard of the “Patomac Two-Step”? It’s in reference to the “dancing” around issues, false pretenses, and BS that is the official language of Washington DC. Everybody knows that hearing protection is only a supplemental benefit to loosening restrictions on suppressors. The real reason we all want them removed from the NFA is simply because we want one without having to pay the egregious $200 tax stamp, and waiting for 8 months to a year to get one. However, the way Washington works, we can’t just make a bill called the “We want a suppressor” act and expect it to go anywhere. Basically, the HPA is a “pig-in-a-poke” excuse and basis for argument for us 2A supporters to persuade and legitimize getting what we want to the people who are uninformed or “on the fence” as to why removing suppressors from the NFA restriction is a good move. Hearing protection is a positive benefit, but basically it’s all BS so we can just grease the wheels in order to deregulate an unnecessary restriction.

  3. I’m waiting; however, NOT holding me breath! These over officious, out of control, non-conservative, putzes have zero credibility for doing anything that might benefit “we the serfs!” “Out of Committee?” How about GET’ER DUN, DUMBO…. Where are we with “reciprocity” for CCW licensees? How about ELIMINATING the FEE charged just to obtain a “license” you should Constitutionally NOT be required to PAY for?

  4. This bill has my full support, but I’d be amazed if it passes.
    Not only because of the anti’s and lefties opposition, but also because if it were to pass as it’s written, then the government will be missing out on millions of dollars of income per year which is allocated from the tax stamp fees.
    As with everything else in Washington, it will all boil down to money, and I can’t imagine it passing without first supplementing the coffers from another angle. After all, IF suppressors were originally banned solely because of misguided concern for public safety, then they would’ve been banned outright…and not with the provision put in place where you could own one if you pay a tax. It’s all about the money folks.

  5. I have, at my age and years of shooting have lost some hearing. I even wear hearing protection when mowing. If we were able to use noise reduction tools, maybe we could even dispatch more hogs before they scatter.

  6. My understanding of the HPA is that, (if passed as is), we would still have to fill out the same paperwork and undergo the same background check as we do when purchasing a firearm, HOW STUPID IS THAT? Holy loud noises Batman.. I don’t have to have a background check to buy a muffler for my car, or my lawn mower, or my chainsaw. I can purchase all sorts of accessories, ( mags, barrels, triggers etc) for a firearm, that has so much more to do with the function of it than a simple muffler and NOT have a background check.. Come on Congress, put your intelligent thinking caps on and pass a REALLY pertinent law, and remove firearm mufflers from ATFE’s control altogether !

    1. The idea of HPA is to get suppessors and the components of baffles and wipes off the NFA and not pay an unconstitutional $200 tax but thanks to Hollywood to have one sold as muzzle accessory may be slim to none. Nevermind that it only drops the db levels to under 140db and not all self-loaders function properly with subs-sonics. I agree that no background check should be required for an accessory but to get things changed from a 9 month wait with a sheriff or other law enforcement officer to say at a whim “No you can’t have that” to a 4473 form with a clean record and depending on your state walk out the same day with it is a huge improvement. We’ve had our rights chipped away long enough so if the way to get them back is to is through the same chipping so be it but it means we must never give up on restoring our rights if we wish to gain bigger chunks back.

    2. Absotootly, Batman! Could not agree more. That “suppressor” has NO function, other than as a club, to injure or kill anyone. They may as well be requiring background checks when you buy silverware for your home! There is no accounting for the myriad, idiotic, gun laws as ‘dreamed’ up by our dreamers of Nirvana!

  7. All Automobiles have exhaust pipes/mufflers. And so should guns. If you had to neutralize some bad guys in a public place, a silencer will greatly reduce the panic and chaos of a situation like that. Typically there would be mass stampeding and screaming . We don’t want that. I’d rather have people scratching their heads than trampling each other. And I call them silencers, It’s the new trend to sound smart by calling them suppressors but I’m old school

  8. Hope the HPA passes! THIS HAS BEEN TOO LONG IN WAITING! I PRAY IT PASSES so we can protect our hearing and stop disturbing land owner from excessive noice!

    1. Also been “waiting.” Part of the “excessive” cost for some suppressor has been and is related to that ATF Class III rating! Eliminate portraying this device as some type of firearm, eliminate that egregious, unconstitutional TAX, return these devices to the “implements” they are, and I MIGHT be able to afford one! $800 for a “muffler?” I can make a one shot or two “muffler” out of one of those one liter plastic bottles picked up out of the trash – cost: $0-$1.50 for tape!

  9. I hope this passes. It would be great to be able to control coyotes and feral pigs in the fields behind my house without waking or bothering my neighbors 400yrds forested yards away. These pests always destroy at night. A rifle is most unnerving at 4am. They would appreciate the feds letting me use a muzzle noise reducer.

  10. Wearing hearing protection during hunting is dangerous. If someone is in trouble or lost you can not hear them. It is very hard to communicate with those hunting with you. Far better to use a suppressor.

  11. I support SHARE and HPA. Reducing noise pollution is good for the environment and good for people. Remember that criminals committing murder ate not going to obey other laws either. Illegal suppressors are easy to make, do a ban does not prevent their use.

  12. One blast from a 3006 will clear a whole forest of game. Suppressors make a lot of sense for several reasons. The original reason for their regulation was bad from the start. Poachers already use homemade cans.

  13. I have been suffering for close to 30 years with severe tinites. Noise never concerned me in my younger days, shooting outdoors all the time. Liitle did I know the lasting effects of not using hearing protection in my early years. Finally got a suppressor a couple years ago. The best decision I ever made, and wish I had done many many years before. I would welcome the chance to get additional suppressors without the ridiculous costs and waiting times.

  14. I don’t know how common this is in the Military, but that is eactly what happen to me. I had both my eardrums popped from being to close to my fellow team member while being in a Fire fight. First my right ear and in another Fire fight my left ear. I have thought about having suppressors put on semi- or fully automatic weapons for years. Not only in the Military but for Hunters and sport shooters. If you have ever been shooting in an indoor range you can understand why. That is with mandatory ear protectors on.

  15. The NRA and other organizations do a great job of protecting our gun rights. But we shouldn’t blindly support every gun related issue. So now after hundreds of years we want to protect our hearing ? This is done with ear plugs I bring home from work. Are nt silencers illegal for a reason. Heck, let’s make automatic weapons legal as well. Let’s limit the authority of the ATF and DEA while we’re at it. Let’s all just do what ever we want.

    1. suppressors are not illegal just regulated unjustifiably because of fears old folks had back in the 30s, they didn’t understand what they were or how they worked and figured just like now that if they don’t have one living in their mansions in downtown big city wherever that no one should ever have/need one living on their ranch in the middle of nowhere,, suppressors don’t eliminate sound , don’t even make a difference usually to anyone being able to tell someone fired a weapon, they just keep it quiet enough not to make the shooters ears take damage.

    2. In answer to your statement. No, silencers are not illegal for a reason. In regards to the last few sentences on your post yeah it sounds like a great idea to me.

    3. In the original intent of the 2nd Amdt, we should be able to possess automatic weapons( we actually can IAW 1986 NFA). The intent of 2Amdt we are granted the right to protect against tyrannical government. The only way to do that is to be armed as the government is armed! Suppressors are still relatively loud (normally) just hearing safe.

    4. No, silencers aren’t illegal. They are regulated by federal tax but are legal to own and use in 49 states.

    5. Actually suppressors are legal in most states as well as full auto firearms. There’s just paperwork and a great deal of waiting. The only thing this will do is remove some of the legislation on purchasing a suppressor

    6. Do whatever we want? Sounds about right. Given that the second amendment secures our natural god given right to self protection, wether that be from criminal thugs on the street or in the government. Furthermore the government has already exceeded their constitutional limits, and yes we should greatly limit the ATF and the DEA. From what I’ve seen the war on drugs has been a complete failure funded by the tax payers. There also shouldn’t be a tax payer funded organization dedicated to violating constitutional and god given right. This is coming from someone who works in law enforcement.

    7. Yes, we should have all those things done! The laws on supressors are arbitrary and mainly based off of how firearms are depicted as working in Mel Gibson films from the 80’s. I highly doubt that you are an actual gun owner. You are most likely a troll.

    8. Suppressors are not illegal…At least in the state that I live in. And they dont silence they suppress the sound.

    9. Yes silencers are illegal for a reason, they are illegal for the one person who uses it for a robbery or to commit any other crime that involves a firearm. While 10s of thousands of shooters and hunters are loosing their hearing because it is illegal. Not a very good trade off as far as I can see.

    10. Are you that uninformed about the history of suppressors!! Let me enlighten you a little bit!
      With the advent of SILENT GANGSTER MOVIES in the 1920s and 1930s, our law makers thought it wise to add suppressors to a weapons law that banned such weapons as 410 ga. CANE shotguns and full auto weapons of all kinds. Prior to this law from the mid 1930s, (I think 1934), suppressors were used legally throughout the world for hunting, mainly for big game. In many countries around the world suppressors are legal without restrictions and a few countries require them to hunt.
      I’m not positive, but within that law, they made it legal to purchase a government stamp so that a citizen could buy and use these “illegal” items, but the cost was so prohibitive for both the “tax stamp”, and the suppressor that only the rich could afford them. Even some of our presidents used them for hunting and sports shooting before this law.
      Even now, the government gets $200 for a tax stamp and background check, and the cost of the stamp hasn’t changed since the law was passed, (AND it takes around 4 to 6 months to get it), then $400 to $1000 for the suppressor. Also, using one without a tax stamp, if caught by the feds, would cost you 20 years and I think a $10,000 fine. If stolen ear plugs from your work, work for you, great, but get some education behind your comments on suppressors and the over 75 years of trying to overturn this TAX law that has caused countless citizens their hearing because they are avid hunters or shooters. It only takes one shot next to your ear to end hearing in that ear. THINK ABOUT IT!!

    11. Wearing hearing protection while hunting or at range is dangerous. Communicating with others is difficult. Much safer to suppress the firearm than suppress hearing.

    12. Criminals don’t care what is legal. They will use what they want when they want. Remember the LA bank robbery shoot out??
      Give the good guys an even playing field without making them pay 4 it!!?

  16. I love this idea of removing suppressors from the NFA list of guns. I am still waiting on my paperwork for my first can. Its going to be a year in December. Nothing this simple should take that long. And if it does the bottleneck needs to be removed.
    If you are willing to adjust the FOPA why not remove the Hughes Amendment while you are at it?

  17. Bob, the “sacred lands and landmarks” you are talking about are being given back to the states where they belong. The federal government has no constitutional authority to have taken any of those lands in the first place. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 is very explicit about when the feds can own land, how they must go about getting those lands, and very specifically what they may use those lands for.

  18. The 7mm Mag can be suppressed and should be. I have hunted in Europe and the use of supressors is very common. Reducing the noice and muzzle blast is the entire reason for supressors.

  19. As a retired Audiologist I know full well the effect of excessive noise on a person’s hearing. Noise induced hearing loss is a real epidemic. During my career I not only found noise induced hearing loss in adults but also among our children. Excessive noise levels do not discriminate. Any noise level of 85dB and more should generate a red flag. I know that sounds complicated and foreign to most individuals. Normal conversational speech is approximately 65dB so it doesn’t take much more for a noise level to become hazardous. It’s not just the noise level of gun shots that are dangerous and harmful to a humans’ sense of hearing. Once the damage has been done it is not self healing, it is gone. Hearing protection is such an easy concept; but sadly it has been neglected for years.

  20. You have won on many fronts! Now is the time to get out of politics & return to our core ( Hunting & Sportshooting) The majority of NRA members & just regular sportsmen are more concerned with access to public hunting areas & wildlife management.

    1. @Don Tankson I don’t think you actually read The article… Yes there are suppressors in the picture, but the legislation merely “included” the HPA. Please re-read that last paragraph and bullet points.

  21. I am a retired cop and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment; yet in this vein I recognize two things. Silencers will become very popular among criminals, especially those bent on assasinating police. When used by hunters it also all but eliminates the three shot signal for assistance if a hunter is accidently wounded or otherwise hurt. I am uncertain and unaware of the hearing issue and would need to actually study it, yet my friends and I all grew up hunting and we all hear fine….. so what problem are we trying to solve here? Just some food for thought.

    1. Suppressors are easy to make at home. If a criminal actually cared at all, they could have one. The thing is, they are useless for preventing people from hearing the shot, it just dampens the noise enough so it is not immediately harmful. They help the other hearing protection work more effectively.

      The three shot distress signal will still be useful.

    2. I expect that firearms are also very popular among criminals, especially those intent on assassinating police. And cannot silencers be removed before initiating the “3 shot signal” ? Everything in life has its benefits and drawbacks, so it becomes a matter of looking at things on balance to see if they have merit. My personal opinion is that it is far more effective to put criminals in prison for the long term than it is to take silencers away from them. By the way, don’t criminals flout laws regarding silencers anyway?

    3. I have to agree with Scritchy on this one. Is this line of thinking not the same as applied to taking guns from every civilian in order to keep them out of criminals’ hands? It is very easy to make a suppressor, easier in fact than buying a firearm on the black market. It is the Information Age after all. If a criminal wants it a criminal can get it. Laws do not govern those who break them for a living. I see where your coming from, but we have to play the tape through and see the bigger picture when it comes to these things. Going with ones initial gut feeling alone without deep contemplation and consideration can be a dangerous way to think.

  22. Rob Bishop is for the most part a pretty cool dude. I had the pleasure of meeting with him several times while I live in Northern Utah and was and elected local official.
    Too bad more Representatives, ESPECIALLY FROM TEXAS, did not Co sponsor this bill.

  23. I support this 100%! Along with:
    HR 367 – which is the separate Hearing Protection Act
    HR 38 – which is the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and
    HR3576 – which is the 2nd Amendment Guarantee Act.

    My understanding is that all of these act, including the SHARE Act talked about in this article, have been passed through the committees and are waiting for a full vote on the House floor.

    It is also my understanding that Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, is the one that is not allowing any of these bills to progress to a full vote in the House. HE is the one that needs to be pressured incessantly to do his damn job and let these bills get voted on.

  24. I’m a gun owner and sportsman but
    Sportsmen and conservationist better take a serious look at what the Trump administration is doing to our sacred lands and landmarks
    they will soon be fracking and drilling oil in the middle of them

  25. Has my full support almost lost my hearing during a hunting trip.
    4 days before my hearing returned to near normal. Earplugs not a good option when hunting..

  26. In what way?/! It was introduced to the US Senate in March 2017! It’s STILL There!/? No Vote has been taken!! It was Introduced to the US Hse.of Rep. in July 2017! It’s STILL There!/? No Vote has been taken yet their either…

    1. You must have not read the article. It passed out of committee this week and is headed to the full house. They attached the Hearing Protection Act to another bill. Prior to this it was a stand alone bill.

    2. @ 3rdMan.

      I get the “Library of Congress” Subscription of “” which give a Daily Briefing on What “IS” and What “ISN’T” being passed in the US Congress. And the “SHARE” Act is a “Political Hot Potato with a Plutonium-238 Core” that NOBODY is Willing to Touch. And Frankly, I don’t see the NRA “Pushing” all that hard either…

  27. Yes, I support both acts, but except for the use on my 5.56 AR-15, I don’t think my hunting rifle or my EDC pistol can benefit from a suppressor. I use a 7mm Rem.Mag and if I could suppress it, I certainly would. And I know my CCW firearm can’t benefit from one, as I carry a Glock 32, which is a .357 Sig. At a velocity of 1250 to 1500 fps, there is still that “crack” when fired. Don’t think they even make a threaded barrel, although I could be mistaken. Thinking on getting a .45 also, which would help a 1000 fps velocity cartridge.
    If this does get passed, would a homemade suppressor be legal to possess?

    1. The .45 is a sub-sonic round. That fact that you don’t currently need one doesn’t make other not need one also. You sound like those on the left who don’t believe you need to own a firearm because they don’t need one!!!

    2. Yes, under the SHARE Act, a homemade suppressor is just like a homemade firearm: You can do it yourself, with no permission or license needed, and no requirement to mark it, but if you want to sell it you’ll need to serialize it according to the same rules FFLs use. (Marked in metal, minimum letter heights, depths — all that stuff.)

      As for suppressing supersonic rounds — you can absolutely benefit from it. You will never get rid of the crack from the supersonic projectile, but what you can do is attenuate the muzzle noise. It still won’t really be hearing safe, but it will cause less hearing damage than one without a suppressor.

      On the rifle, by the way, you’ll also reduce recoil with a suppressor, because a substantial portion of recoil is due to propellant gasses. Typical high-power rifle cartridges have propellant gasses weighing about half the bullet weight (e.g. 7mm magnum might be a 120gr bullet over 60 to 70gr of powder), but since the gasses leave the muzzle at much higher velocity than the bullet, they contribute much more than one third of the recoil. By temporarily trapping them in a suppressor and letting them exit more slowly, you can typically reduce the recoil by one third to one half. (Pistol cartridges, on the other hand, have more bullet and much less powder, so the recoil reduction isn’t enough to mention.)

      Of course, a suppressor, which at best stops all the propellant gas and leaves only bullet recoil, can’t match a really good muzzle brake, which can actually reverse the flow of propellant gas, and use that reverse recoil to counter the bullet’s recoil. But given the choice of moderate recoil reduction and moderate sound reduction, or better recoil reduction and ear-splitting muzzle blast, it’s an easy choice for me. Especially if I might have to be next to it on the range!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading