It’s Always Something: There Are Two Problems With the NFA Reforms in the Big Beautiful Bill

FN Rush 9Ti suppressor

In a historic move for gun owners, the U.S. Senate’s latest version of the “Big Beautiful Bill” includes sweeping reforms to the National Firearms Act, dismantling key provisions that have trampled Second Amendment rights since 1934.

At the heart of the bill—dubbed by many as a fusion of the SHORT Act and SHUSH Act—is a bold effort to declassify commonly owned firearms and accessories from the grasp of federal regulation, as Texas Gun Rights previously reported.

But as our allies at the National Association for Gun Rights point out, this landmark legislation comes with two critical caveats that could leave gun owners—and the suppressor industry—vulnerable to bureaucratic sabotage.
What the Bill Gets Right

Section 70436 of the Senate reconciliation bill strikes a direct blow to the NFA’s outdated control mechanisms. It rewrites the federal definition of a “firearm,” removing short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, and any other weapons (AOWs) from federal oversight.

These items would now fall outside of the NFA’s jurisdiction—an unprecedented rollback of federal gun control.

The bill also strips the ATF’s power to classify shotguns as “destructive devices” based on cosmetic features, ending the Clinton-era abuse of the “sporting purposes” clause used to block imports and sales of tactical-style shotguns.

Furthermore, the bill repeals the outdated NFA taxes—like the $5 transfer tax on AOWs and the $200 tax on SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors—taxes that were never about safety but always about control.

Finally, the bill attempts to shield gun owners from state-level red tape by recognizing federal acquisition of SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs as lawful—even where state law imposes its own registration requirements.

But There’s a Catch

Despite these victories, NAGR warns of two glaring problems in the Senate language that Congress must fix before the bill crosses the finish line.

First, suppressors are not explicitly protected under the state preemption provision. While they are removed from the NFA under the new definition of §5845(a), they are left out of the federal override clause under §5841(f).

Without this fix, blue states like California, New York, and Illinois could continue to treat suppressors as contraband, claiming no federal protection exists.

Second, the bill’s delayed implementation timeline creates a ticking time bomb.

As written, the reforms wouldn’t take effect until 90 days after passage—leaving American suppressor buyers in limbo. With uncertainty over whether the $200 tax will apply or whether a pending order will be voided, the market could see a chilling effect on sales just as the bill is intended to set them free.

“This is a recipe for confusion and short-term suppressed sales,” the NAGR document warns. “Congress should add an amendment to make this provision effective immediately upon enactment.”

A Historic Opportunity—But Only If Congress Gets It Right

There’s no question, the Senate’s move to gut large sections of the NFA is one of the most significant pro-gun reforms in nearly a century. But unless the two holes identified by NAGR are closed, gun owners could face legal limbo in anti-gun states and suppressor sales could stall at a critical moment.

Pro-gun lawmakers need to finish what they started. That means adding preemption protection for suppressors and making the reforms effective immediately. Anything less risks undermining the bill’s strongest achievements.

As always, the battle lines are drawn—and Texas Gun Rights, NAGR, and millions of gun owners across the country will be watching closely.

Leave a Comment

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

13 thoughts on “It’s Always Something: There Are Two Problems With the NFA Reforms in the Big Beautiful Bill”

    1. “BREAKING NOW! ATF & DEA Merger COMPLETELY SMOKED In Senate As It DOES NOT PASS Byrd Rule.”

      In other good news, it looks like the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled the HPA and ‘Short Act’ clear the ‘Byrd Rule’ and will be included in the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’… 😉

        1. uncommon_sense

          .40 cal Booger,

          I don’t have time to peruse your link. Unless it sheds additional light, my understanding is that the “Big Beautiful Bill” is a budget reconciliation bill and therefore does not require 60 U.S. Senators to agree to bring it to the U.S. Senate floor to vote for its passage. (The U.S. Senate’s self-imposed Cloture Rule does not apply to budget reconciliation bills.)

          1. uncommon_sense

            Disregard my comment above–I read .40 cal Booger’s additional details in another post which explain that the “Big Beautiful Bill” in its current form is more than just a budget reconciliation bill and therefore would be subject to the U.S. Senate’s self-imposed 60-vote Cloture Rule.

        2. No. There will be a vote on the BBB because a reconciliation bill is the only way PDT can get the permanent tax cut passed. Count on it.

          So what will happen in light of the Parliamentarian’s Byrd rulings? One of three things:

          (1) The Senate or VP will fire the Parliamentarian (previously a Harry Reid appointee). She serves at the pleasure of the majority of the Senate, and I have seen some commentary indicating that the VP can fire her unilaterally.
          (2) The Senate, by a simple majority, will overrule the Parliamentarian. This is basic parliamentary procedure – a motion to suspend the rules. They don’t do it very often, but it can be done.
          (3) If enough RINO’s in the Senate won’t support (2) or (3), worst case will be that the provisions the Parliamentarian has ruled violate the Byrd Rule are stripped from the BBB. The tax cuts, changes to the NFA, etc., etc., all get passed.

        3. .40 cal Booger

          “I’m seeing *zero* mention of guns in this laundry list of items nixed from the BBB by the Senate Parliamentarian.”

          the HPA and ‘Short Act’ did pass parliamentarian muster because they are directly tax related. Its the other stuff in the bill that causing it needing the 60 vote if they are not removed as they did not pass parliamentarian muster. But there are a few ways around this Byrd rule mess thing, so need to wait and see.

          But do they want to get around it is a question that needs to be explored. Will there be a price to pay in some way that’s detrimental later? If they do get around it, they give the democrats the same reason the next time they are in control (if…)

          But anyway, what ever goes on …we still need to wait and see.

          1. She hasn’t (to my reading) ruled against the NFA stuff (and I doubt she will, given all the caselaw upholding the NFA as a tax measure — see Kostas’ excellent post).

            My comment was in response to your comment that “BBB is having a hard time and will need 60 votes in senate.” Not so, for the reasons I set forth. GOP will either overrule / replace the Parliamentarian, or worst case just remove the parts ruled “non-germane” under the Byrd Rule . . . but rest assured, there *will* be a vote on a reconciliation bill that only requires a simple majority for passage.

  1. Will Section 70436 allow me to install a standard AR 15 telescoptic rifle stock on my AR 15 pistol?

Scroll to Top