Suppressors - Is Anyone Following the Big Beautiful Bill And Reconciliation?

[Skans]

Just wondering if the suppressors coming off of the NFA is still in the BBB or is it being butchered to death? Anyone on top of this?

[Tom Servo]

So far it's still in there. The registration requirement is still a thing, but the $200 tax is being repealed.

Which is a problem because the tax funds the examiners who handle the registrations. I suspect wait times are going to see a dramatic increase.

[FITASC]

Last I saw, the elimination of the NFA rules was eliminated

[9x19]

The interesting point, for me: the NFA was upheld at one time because the Court ruled it was a Tax... now that it is no longer a Tax, it is just a registry of owners, which may be in conflict with other laws forbidding those.

[armoredman]

Yep

[FrankenMauser]

Donating to the GOA or FPC is debatable.
I know several people that have worked for the FPC, and one that also worked for GOA.
None of them want to ever give either organization any money, ever again.

Each person should do their own research, decide who is actually doing the work they want to see, and donate as directly as possible -- whatever org or person that may be.

[1972RedNeck]

I am cautiously optimistic. NFA survived court in 1937 solely because it was a tax as I understand it. If it is no longer a tax, someone will file suit and something will likely change. I hope it is in the direction of "shall not be infringed" but we will see.

[Jim Watson]

There is already a lawsuit filed. It might wend its way through the court system in a generation.

[44 AMP]

NFA survived court in 1937 solely because it was a tax as I understand it.

The NFA survived the court because of the specific circumstances of the case, and the govt originally lost, but won on appeal.

It wasn't about the tax, directly. It was about whether or not the sawed off shotgun in the case was a exempt from the tax, because it could be a "milita weapon". The court ruled against the govt, originally, but when the appeal came around, Miller was in the wind (possibly dead) and the lawyer who took the case originally (and pro bono) either didn't, or couldn't do it again. With no defense presented against the govt claim, the court ruled "this court has been presented no evidence" for the defense and granted the govt the win.

While, technically, this should have only applied to that single issue, the govt took it as approving the entire NFA, and ran with it, and that view is still in effect today.

We're going on 90+ years of what I consider a bad law, upheld by a flawed SCOTUS ruling, and getting that changed isn't a simple thing.

[Paul B.]

I have read several articles about Miller not showing up at the trial and that in fact he was dead, an apparent murder victim. BTW, that murder has conveniently never been solved IIRC. Probably never will be.

It would not have been hard to classify short barrel shotguns as potential militia weapons as they were used in trench warfare during WW1.
Paul B.

[44 AMP]

It would not have been hard to classify short barrel shotguns as potential militia weapons as they were used in trench warfare during WW1.

No, it wouldn't have been, but doing so was not in the interests of the Govt's case, and there was no one to argue for the defense at the appeal.

[zukiphile]

NFA survived court in 1937 solely because it was a tax as I understand it. If it is no longer a tax, someone will file suit and something will likely change.

I hope so. I also hope the cycle of hope and disappointment does not leave people cynical and detached from the issue.

The case you were remember is probably Sonzinsky in which a dealer regulated under the NFA argued that it wasn't a legitimate tax because it is really intended to prohibit people from having the taxed items. The court found that Congress gets to enact taxes, and that the tax does collect a little bit of revenue, so it's good.

You are right to notice that a tax without a tax collected is an oddity that should open the NFA $0 tax structure to a successful challenge. Whether that gets rid of the NFA regulation of SBRs and suppressor is a more complex political matter. Like the GFZA, the court could strike the law only to see it effectively re-enacted by Congress.

Having Congress carve up the NFA probably would have been a more stabile result. This business of the parliamentarian ruling that changing the scope of the tax isn't a tax matter leaves my a bit baffled. I knew reconciliation matters were supposed to be tax or spending related, but eliminating the tax and the structure and registry reflecting collection do strike me as tax related.

[44 AMP]

While I haven't looked into the details, the general process is that when the parliamentarian removes or alters sections of a bill, it is not supposed to have anything to do with the actual subject of the regulation, but the structure of the writing not complying with Senate rules.

This is also supposed to be done, when needed before the bill goes to a vote, to give the authors a chance to change the form of the language so that it cannot be challenged due to improper form, after passage.

It's another one of those things that in principle, party politics is not supposed to play a part, but of course in reality, all too often does.

[zukiphile]

Here's the challenge to the $0 tax NFA, filed July 4th no less.


https://www.law.com/radar/card/pm-58...nd-explosives/

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/te...cv00056/406278