Silencer tax is history

[venomballistics]

But the registration requirements didn't go away?. Just the tax.

saw somewhere where a handful of gun rights groups have joined forces to take this to court.
As the NFA was essentially sold as a tax that the SCOTUS called fair play, it can no longer make that claim. On those grounds, our boys are going to try to finish the job

 

[CH4]

I am thinking suppressors, once removed from NFA, will be simply considered a muzzle device.

 

[MelvinWalker]

I've read a few pundits that say this could be a double edged sword. If suppressors are taken off the NFA list then they are no longer considered firearms and therefore not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Potentially, states could ban them.

Many states have already effectively done so already.

 

[S-W4EVER]

I’ve never figured out why they included them in the NFA to begin with.

 

[Greyman50]

Guess I missed it but thought this provision was Removed from the BBB by the senate hag paralmmentarian.

 

[gjgalligan]

$200 in 1934 was some money, today not much more than a decent dinner for two. Regulation is still there. What a big nothing burger.

I don't know where you go for dinner but at that price I would have to be starving for days without any other options available.

 

[s&wchad]

Guess I missed it but thought this provision was Removed from the BBB by the senate hag paralmmentarian.

As I understand it, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that removing suppressors from the NFA didn't comply with the Byrd rule, which prevents provisions “extraneous” to the budget in reconciliation bills. Reconciliation bills only require a simple majority. Removing them from the NFA would have required 60 votes in the Senate, which wasn't going to happen.

"The House and Senate settled for reducing the NFA’s $200 excise tax to $0 on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons or AOWs."

You'll find more info here:

GOA to File “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Against NFA Registry as “One Big Beautiful Bill” Heads to President’s Desk - Gun.net

GOA to File “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Against NFA Registry as “One Big Beautiful Bill” Heads to President’s Desk FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 3, 2025 Washington, D.C. –Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), alongside our allies Palmetto State Armory (PSA), the Firearms...

gun.net

 

[glenwolde]

It will just be replaced by a fee. ATF by law is allowed to charge fees to cover the costs of providing services to individuals. They charge fees for licenses for everything they regulate. But it probably won't be $200. But it could end up being more expensive if they have a time limit or renewal fee. I mean, this is the government we're dealing with.

The NFA is still law. They just wiped out the tax.

 

[Frank Black]

As the BBB passed, the $200 suppressor tax will expire. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...moval-gun-silencer-tax-its-sights-2025-05-14/

Thought the effective date of expiration was 90-days from POTUS signing the OBBB.

But I’m now reading the tax won’t be “$0.00” until 1/1/2026.

 

[Frank Black]

0 tax but registration still intact, lawsuits to follow.

Second Amendment Groups Announce Intent to Sue Over NFA After OBBB Signing

Second Amendment groups plan to challenge the NFA's constitutionality after tax changes.

bearingarms.com

Yes, that’s why Chris Murphy and the other Dems were fighting so hard to get an amendment into the BBB to at least have a “$1.00” tax, not a zero tax.

The NFA’s sole constitutional basis is that it’s a tax statute with a registration and regulatory scheme founded on Congress’s Section I power to tax - which (historically) is almost unlimited.

Without a tax being imposed on the items listed in the statute (cans, SBRs, etc.), the NFA is no longer a tax statute. It’s purely a regulatory statute with serious 2A “infringement” implications and no constitutional foundation, or so the argument goes.

 

[Fiddler1537]

In a real, normal court that would be overruled & thrown out. It does nothing to alter the one-pull-one-shot process for us heathens. A decent lawyer would win that, as long as the judge was impartial.

In this day and age that's a big if

 

[Forefinger]

It won't matter in Illinois. In the last go-around, "silencers" were banned as well as threaded barrels. I'm mildly surprised that violin cases are still legal (I'm horrified at the thought of seeing naked violins downtown). Our legislators have learned all they need to know about "silencers" from Hollywood.

You are absolutely correct! As soon as wifey and I retired we moved the hell out of Illinois and "next door" to the free state of Indiana. Best wishes to all my friends that have to deal with the tyranny of Illinois politicians.

 

[moongoon]

Suppressor paperwork has been expedited now anyway. What used to take months now goes through in just days.

 

[ladder13]

Suppressor paperwork has been expedited now anyway. What used to take months now goes through in just days.

My first one took 11+ months just a few years ago. A month ago less than 2 days.
Get a delay purchasing a 22 rifle and one may have to wait 3 days.

 

[MAUSER888]

Sadly this isn't much of a win.

 

[DHernandez]

Since the NFA is strictly a tax scheme and the registration is for keeping track of the $200 tax, I am confident that removal of the registration process will be immediately sought in court. Without the tax the NFA is dead, at least as it pertains to silencers and short barreled rifles and shotguns.

Well the free SBR from pistol stocks still had registration with no tax, so who knows…

 

[Puller]

Sadly this isn't much of a win.

I tend to agree. The vision that we'll soon be able to walk in to Bass Pro and walk out with a new suppressor just isn't on the horizon.

 

[gwpercle]

I don't really care ... I have no use or no need for one ....\
If they was passing them out for free , I wouldn't bother standing in line ... I just have no use for one and I been shooting for 65 years now ...
Gary

 

[A10]

I don't really care ... I have no use or no need for one ....\
If they was passing them out for free , I wouldn't bother standing in line ... I just have no use for one and I been shooting for 65 years now ...
Gary

Your choice Gary. I've been shooting with hearing protection for 48 years, and prior to that was shooting for 10 without. My hearing is lousy, I hope yours is better. Keep in mind that for every 3 db difference the sound energy about doubles. Earplugs and muffs effectiveness is limited, and for industrial purposes actual reduction in noise is about half the db rating stated by manufacturers (i.e., 30 db reduction is effectively 15, due to various factors). The real answer is in engineering controls not personal protective equipment. Engineering controls consist of designed sound reduction equipment, in the case of firearms those are noise suppressors. The effective ban on suppressors (actual ban in the case of Washington State until a few years ago) is, IMO, a crime.

 

[S-W4EVER]

I don't really care ... I have no use or no need for one ....\
If they was passing them out for free , I wouldn't bother standing in line ... I just have no use for one and I been shooting for 65 years now ...
Gary

Huh?