With House passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill yesterday, the only thing standing between Americans and the elimination of the NFA’s onerous $200 tax stamp is a signature by President Trump. That will happen this afternoon.
No, the final outcome wasn’t what we wanted and it wasn’t what some of us thought we were getting…right up until the Senate Parliamentarian nixed the provision that would have pulled suppressors, SBRs and SBSs out from under NFA regulation. But this is still a very real and significant win against an antiquated law that’s been impinging on our rights for almost a century. Rollbacks of federal gun control laws are rarer than vegan butchers.
So in the end, the elimination of the $200 tax is a bid deal and very positive. We should treat it that way and celebrate it.
Again, politics is the art of the possible. Unless you have a lot more money and pull in Washington than the firearms industry and gun rights orgs do — and given the nature of the slithering invertebrates who’ve been elected to Congress — this was probably all we could have reasonably expected as an outcome.
But killing the tax stamp isn’t the end. This isn’t over. As a great man once said, “What? Over? Did you say ‘over’? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!”
So while you’re scrolling through suppressor makers’ web sites deciding what can you’re gonna buy now and digging out that old stripped lower so you can Form 1 it and build that SBR, the NRA, SAF, FPC, and ASA are getting ready to file a lawsuit that will challenge the NFA in its entirety. You know, because thanks to the OBBB, it’s no longer a tax.
Here’s the ASA’s statement after yesterday’s festivities . . .
The American Suppressor Association (ASA) issued a statement following the final passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, which eliminates the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs.
“The One Big Beautiful Bill passed by Congress and sent to President Trump’s desk includes a $200 million annual tax cut for gun owners,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “While we fought hard on behalf of millions of Americans for full removal of suppressors and other items from the NFA tax scheme, this outcome is a critical step in our plan to dismantle the NFA once and for all. We will not stop fighting until that goal is achieved.”
ASA also joined the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation in a joint statement announcing pending litigation to challenge the NFA following the elimination of the tax:
“When President Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill — which will eliminate the excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs — he will have delivered the biggest blow to the National Firearms Act since its passage nearly a century ago. We thank President Trump for his leadership and every member of Congress who fought for law-abiding gun owners throughout the reconciliation process.
“By eliminating the excise tax on these NFA items, the OBBB will not only lift the heavy burden of an unconstitutional tax from the backs of hard-working Americans, it will also serve as a critical step towards our ultimate goal of dismantling the NFA once and for all. But there is much work yet to be done.
“While we will continue to fight for the total legislative elimination of the NFA, our organizations are proud to stand together in a new strategic lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the NFA in Federal Court.”
I think GOA has either already filed a law suit or is about to file.
The NFA is touted as a ‘firearms’ law, its even in the name. But at its basics its really a tax law and was originally enacted as a tax measure and that original foundation has never been changed and that original intent as a tax measure was the intent of congress.
Basically; Without the $200.00 tax, which was the foundation of the ‘registration’, the NFA requirement for ‘registration’ essentially becomes ‘null/void’ because the only basis for the ‘registration’ in the NFA was actually just to collect the tax because despite its name the NFA is actually still a tax measure. The government can’t collect a tax (normally) unless there is some form of basis of ‘registration’ for its collection – for example, the FICA tax from your paycheck was invoked because you ‘registered’ that you were making income from your job by filling out a W-4 form when you got employed.
So in reality, no matter all the other hype: The registration is the method used by the government to account for the tax (owed and) paid, and that was the intent of congress with the NFA, as a ‘book keeping’ method to account for taxes. You get a ‘tax stamp’ (yes, called a tax stamp) which has the serial number of the firearm on it. Think of the use of that serial number as like your social security number – both are used to account for the taxes you owe or pay. The firearm serial number is inseparably linked to the tax paid, if there is no tax then no foundation for registration or a ‘registration database’.
Correction for: “The registration is the method used by the government to account for the tax (owed and) paid, and that was the intent of congress with the NFA, as a ‘book keeping’ method to account for taxes.”
should have been…
The registration is the method used by the government to account for the tax (owed and) paid, and that was the intent of congress with the NFA ‘registration’, as a ‘book keeping’ method to account for taxes.
The government also can’t infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. How has that worked out? The courts will bend over backwards to protect infringements.
As you know, the DOJ now says that suppressors are protected by the 2nd amendment per their brief in the Peterson case pending in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court has withdrawn its ruling to the contrary. Since this involves a constitutional right, i think an expedited hearing in SCOTUS is warranted!
As a child of the AWB, Hillary Hole, Fuddism and Negotiating Rights Away it’s very nice to see the majority of gun owners on the offense and taking ground.
in the revolutionary war, it was “the majority of gun owners on the offense and taking ground” that decided its outcome.
During the BBB democrat circus in senate the democrats wanted to raise the NFA tax to some higher amount. But there was this one congressman who proposed making it $1, basically “Hey, lets make the tax $1.00. Its only a dollar and surely people will not object to that.”. The republicans though ended up sticking to $0
Ya see, the democrats know the NFA is a tax law in reality and so do the republicans. They know the registration is to pay the tax in reality. That’s what the firearm serial number is actually for in the NFA in reality under the basis of the tax intent of the NFA, to account for the tax. If the tax were $1 the NFA could still be ruled a ‘constitutional tax’ and not challenged successfully in court and still require registration of supressors/SBR/SBS/AOW. If its only $0 then there is no tax thus no basis for registration. This congressman did not want that means of control over the 2A to go away, that’s why he was appearing to be ‘Ok, lets work together and $1 is not too much and i’ll maybe vote for the bill.” – he wasn’t compromising – he was wanting to keep the NFA control going.
There is precendent for $0 taxes being unconstitutional – and for those things associated with it also being unconstitutional because they were based on the $0 tax…anyway…
H.R.1 (“One Big Beautiful Bill”) expect to be signed today, July 4, 2025.
$200 tax (and the tax stamp) for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs – will be gone starting January 1, 2026 so you still have about 6 months before you will not need to pay a tax and if by then the registration goes away some way or another then no process and registration.
NFA process and register requirement remain, for now at least, and until 1 Jan 2026 you will still pay the $200.00 tax.
The deregulation by the HPA & SHORT was blocked by the Senate Byrd Rule, and in the house the Amendment to gut the NFA although tax related didn’t make it in because the bill would have been forced back to the senate and this whole thing would still be going on and in the amendment was a redefinition of firearm to deregulate suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.
Zeroing out the tax opens the door to challenge the NFA in court. Had it been 1$ or more it would not have been (or had less chance of being) successfully challenged in court, at $0 there is chance for successful challenge in court and precedent already exists.
No, the deregulation was blocked by Vance, who decided to rubber stamp a powerless bureaucrat because otherwise Murcowski might have to answer for her politics. The Bryd Rule in no way prohibits removal of a tax, or removing funding from cities in open defiance of federal and state law, it was ALL on Vance working to protect the uniparty.
Vance did no such thing.
It was up to the elected senators and congressmen/women by their vote. Vance is neither a senator or congressman. His only role in this was as a tie breaker vote and that’s it. Sure, maybe he could talk to people and probably did – but contrary to to your disbelief it still comes down to how those congressmen/women decide to vote and following the rules.
The Bryd Rule does not prohibit removing tax related or ‘funding from cities in open defiance of federal and state law’. The Bryd Rule is used to decide what can or can not be in the bill, and congress can remove funding ‘from cities’ any time it wants and its not a violation of law to do it – what congress allocates it can remove. There is no such thing as ‘permanent non-removable funding’ for cities.
The Byrd rule doesn’t allow ‘extraneous’ stuff if the Byrd rule is strictly applied. The creator of the rule never really intended it to be so strictly applied, he knew that sometimes things can not be directly related but still have an effect. So in some cases ‘extraneous’ can be included if Byrd is not strictly applied if what-ever is tangentially related to tax or budget. That’s what the HPA & SHORT are and were the way they were written, tangentially related to budget and tax. Over the years there have been many tangentially related things passed under the Byrd rule by both republican and democrat, some so remote from tax and budget that its like trying to see through a solid wall to see it yet it still passed and it was the accepted and legitimate and ‘traditional’ norm and without that ‘flexibility’ we would not have some of the beneficial programs we have today.
The HPA & SHORT were removed because the democrats demanded strict application of the Byrd rule, they can do that. It wasn’t removed because Vance made it happen some way or another. It was always going to be removed because the democrats were going to use every trick they could and one was what is a legitimate demand to adhere strictly to the Byrd rule even though the democrats are the biggest abusers of the Byrd rule and have gotten away with it.
If Vance had all this power over this as you (collectively, with your other posts on this in other comment sections) claim this would not have gone on for the last month, just wave the magic Vance wand you think he has and *Poof* it passes.
I didn’t like it that the HPA and SHORT were removed, I wanted them too. But Nanashi, this whole ‘reconciliation’ thing is not an easy task nor is it this simple linear one-dimensional thing you seem to think it is where one person has all this power to make it pass, and there are a lot of moving parts to that can not work the way you think it should with just a word out of place or wrong. ‘reconciliation bills’ are always fragile like this. The democrats were going to try to destroy the whole bill, and try they did, we had some RINO’s senators too, and some republicans were against this or that because it wasn’t the exact language they wanted, and this was an outright slugging-it-out every step of the way thing. The HPA and SHORT were not the only victims.
Vance had to apply the Parliamentarian’s advice on what did and did not fit the Byrd rule. A blatantly partisan claim that a tax wasn’t covered is perfect cause to tell her to pound sand. VP did it in 1975 and the majority leader+minority leader shit themselves upon realizing the President of the Senate had power, and immediately ended their arguing to come to an agreement that would moot the VP’s act so they could save face. All Vance had to do was do it again.
Not correct, Vance didn’t apply anything. That’s a senate majority leader function.
1975, are you serious?
The last time a Vice President overruled the parliamentarian was in 1975, and it led to significant controversy, prompting both parties to agree against allowing such a precedent to stand. And ever since then the VP as President of the Senate has not been able to overrule or dismiss the parliamentarian unless under certain circumstances, as I said in another comment sections, for gross misconduct or dereliction of duties.
Plus, in 1975 we didn’t have the Byrd rule or the ‘reconciliation bill’ process we have today.
If the Parliamentarian had committed gross misconduct or dereliction of duties, then VP Vance who is the President of the Senate can tell the “Parliamentarian to pound sand” or dismiss her. But, there was actually none of that here as the Parliamentarian did carry out her duties without gross misconduct or dereliction, even if she was right or wrong in her decisions, so Vance could not do that. His only role here was to cast a tie break vote if needed. The Parliamentarian is a woke left wing idiot, yes, was she somewhat biased, yes, …. but was she committing gross misconduct or dereliction of duties, no (which is kinda refreshing considering shes a left-winger un-elected bureaucrat, they usually don’t mind throwing in some gross misconduct or dereliction of duties). To be complete tho, she should have been replaced before this thing started, and they didn’t replace her and could have.
But, the job of telling the “Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice” or dismiss her because the republicans do not agree with her is that of the Senate majority leader John Thune, not Vance.
Thune was going to tell the “Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice” until she advised about some of the policy changes, then reality set in…save the bill or lose it completely…and here’s why Thune did not tell the “Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice” or dismiss her…
The budget reconciliation process allows the majority party to circumvent the 60-vote threshold and pass legislation with a simple majority, but only if the bill alters spending or revenue levels. That means policy changes can’t be included – there were policy changes included in other things. These policy changes were ‘extraneous’ and tangentially related to spending or revenue levels and under strict adherence to Byrd can’t be included. One of the tactics the democrats used was demanding strict adherence, either side can do that and its a legitimate demand that has to be followed. If Thune had told the “Parliamentarian to pound sand” and overruled her or dismissed her, those policy changes tangentially related to spending or revenue levels would have triggered a fatal Democrat filibuster and the bill would have died.
The Byrd rule doesn’t allow ‘extraneous’ stuff if the Byrd rule is strictly applied. The creator of the rule never really intended it to be so strictly applied, he knew that sometimes things can not be directly related but still have an effect. So in some cases ‘extraneous’ can be included if Byrd is not strictly applied if what-ever is tangentially related to tax or budget – it was the accepted and legitimate and ‘traditional’ norm. That’s what the HPA & SHORT are and were the way they were written, and those other policy changes as well, ‘extraneous’ tangentially related to budget and tax.
So there is more to this to consider than the simplistic view of “telling the “Parliamentarian to pound sand” or dismissing them because we don’t agree with them or don’t like them. The ‘reconciliation bill’ process is not this simple linear one dimensional thing people thing it is, its very fragile and has lots of moving parts.
It was a democrat plan to try to force this into a fatal democrat filibuster, but overruling the Parliamentarian or dismissing her would have had the same effect by causing a a fatal democrat filibuster – the republicans would have lost that and that’s a fact and the bill would have died. If the bill were to have died, in effect the democrats would have successfully imposed an almost $5 Trillion tax increase on the American public.
But there’s also another problem with telling the “Parliamentarian to pound sand” or dismissing them in a reconciliation – its also a back door end run around the filibuster and lets the majority party in the senate pass what ever they want with a simple majority. If that precedent is set it means the democrats could do the same thing in the future then the republicans can do it then the democrats could do it etc…. This is why its euphemistically called the ‘Nuclear Option’, it ‘nukes’ (i.e. destroys) the filibuster (elimination of the filibuster in reconciliation bill proceedings). It would allow each party’s senate majority justification to use it and there would be this never ending thing of each party simply ignoring the Byrd rule and passing a bill with a simple majority – and neither party really wants to do it no matter the threats to do so unless both sides agree to it in a majority vote – each side knows what it would lead to if only one side does it to set the precedent.
Oh also, Vance can advise and consult with the Senate majority leader – but its a function of the Senate majority leader to apply the Parliamentarian’s advice on what did and did not fit the Byrd rule. Vance can’t constitutionally do that, one an elected senator can do that in the senate. Vance is no9t an elected senator.
Plus, 1975 was a different time. Back then we didn’t have democrats causing and enacting stuff like we have today: waging warfare all the time against any political opponent, calling for the literal murder of the president or ‘conservatives’ they don’t like, weaponizing the government against the American people, money laundering money through USAID to fund stupid stuff like a gay and trans comic books in South America for 6 year olds and trans brothels in the middle east for people with AIDS because the trans brothel hookers had AIDS and all sorts of unsavory stuff, trying to overthrow the United States to install a Marxist Socialist government, foreign born congress members calling for JIhad on U.S. soil thus slaughter of American citizens and doing this call on the floor of Congress in congress session, invading the U.S. with illegal aliens trying to change the voting demographic so democrats keep control of congress and the presidency, inciting left wing loons to commit violence and destruction under the guise of ‘protest’, healthy children as young as 3 being coerced into believing they are the opposite sex and other healthy children being butchered with democrat funded frankenstein pseudo science to convert them to an imaginary opposite gender, and actual tyranny president called Biden and a VP that can whip up a word salad in a heartbeat anytime she speaks and then sounds like a 2 AM drunk …. and the list is wayyy to long to continue here….
“A blatantly partisan claim that a tax wasn’t covered is perfect cause to tell her to pound sand. ”
No it isn’t. Being wrong is not grounds for overrule or dismissal. That’s just a disagreement, its why she would do it that might be grounds for overrule or dismissal. If she can justify her decision she cant be overruled or dismissed, if she has no justification then she can be overruled or dismissed.
Murcowski is a RINO. And the uniparty tried to put her father in prison. During the Obama Biden administration.
But she will always be a uniparty player. As a female she is part of the problem. Yes I said it. A liberal republican like her supports big government. She has said she does not support the Trump agenda. She would be very happy with another Bush in the White House.
The position of “parliamentarian” is a modern creation. A creature that protects senators. Because they can blame the senate parliamentarian when things don’t go the way the voters wanted.
Yes it makes many voters mad, watching the “sausage” being made.
Rand Paul my senator voted against it. And I’m glad he did. And he had some not so nice things to say about senator Mercouski.
Those of us who remember the process that created the United States. We understand why the word “compromise” is extremely important in politics.
Even if a “compromise” is also very corrosive, to the future.
There is no magic wand to make the world the way you want it to be.
The fight against slavery didn’t stop in 1776. And the fight to end the NFA has not ended either.
This is a great victory. I’m not getting everything I wanted. But I’m getting what I voted for.
I don’t believe a Jeb Bush administration would have supported the repeal of this stamp tax.
I choose repeal of this tax. The libertarians would be much more happy with drugs being made legal.
They are certainly comfortable with the increase in crime that comes with it.
“Murcowski is a RINO”
A RINO is just a democrat in a republican costume thus a left wing idiot.
However good the ultimate result was, one fact remains: Vance still stabbed us in the back to protect Murkowski
Why are you giving Thune a pass? If Vance did have the power to do that, then maybe he didn’t want to step on Thune’s toes. They have to work together for a few more years.
(I had a longer comment, but it won’t post. The page just refreshes. I have no idea if it went to comment purgatory.)
I’m not giving Thune a pass. I called his office.
1 202 224 2321.
I got it from a Brandon Herrera on YouTube.
I hope you call too. And hopefully every reader on this website.
This is how our government works. You call them and tell them you are not happy.
You are going to be fun in 2028.
This lawsuit will be fun to watch, as I envision it may involve the use of one of the left’s favorite tactics against them.
FPC et al. will file this suit in one of their favorite “test case” venues (my money is on N.D. Tex., Fort Worth Division, where they will draw either Judge O’Connor or Judge Pittman). They will thus have a friendly court, with any appeal to the incredibly friendly Fifth Circuit.
That’s a huge headstart.
But recall who has to defend the lawsuit? That’s right, the Trump DoJ, which is now actively pro-2A.
So what might we see? We may see our side take a page from the Obama / Biden administrations’ tactic of “sue and settle.” This tactic involves the government collusively working with various environmental groups to file a lawsuit, which the gov’t would then just take a knee on, and allow a binding judgment to be entered. The government would then point to the judgment and say “our hands are tied — the court made us do it”!
So here, imagine FPC / ASA files the lawsuit and moves for a preliminary injunction. Trump DoJ says (as it has in other cases recently), “you know, the plaintiffs are correct — this law is actually unconstitutional, and thus we won’t waste the court’s time or taxpayer dollars defending it or opposing the requested relief. Go ahead and enter judgment.”
Badda bing! Binding federal judgment that the remaining regs on cans, SBS, SBR, AOW, are toast and thus cannot be enforced against FPC / ASA members. (Hopefully they will file it as a class action so that the final judgment would apply to everyone.)
And when California, NY, NJ, etc., try and intervene and claim *they* object and will defend the lawsuit, DoJ will point to the various SCOTUS decisions involving challenges to the 2020 election results, which held that states don’t have standing!
Pass the popcorn. This is gonna be fun.
I’ve noticed that strategy. A couple examples are some former FBI employees that sued with great results.
G.K. Chesterton once said “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up”
We know why the NFA was enacted and are ready to remove it.
The legal logic is impeccable, the only problem with this suit I see is that, since Rahimi, I no longer trust the majority on the Court to follow legal logic where it actually leads. And the original ruling that the NFA could only be upheld as a tax law dates back to a time when the Court was much less accommodating to Congress’s claims of unenumerated powers. These days Congress routinely gets away with regulations of firearms that don’t even pretend to be based in the power to tax, instead they use the commerce clause, which the Court has edited to just read, “to regulate;”.
So the only question, really, is if 2 of the ‘conservative’ justices think suppressors are ‘icky’.
But it’s worth a shot!