President Trump’s big budget bill includes big, bad news for those of us concerned about gun safety, deaths and violence in our country. The new law repealed a $200 tax on firearm silencers and short-barrel rifles, which was originally enacted by the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) and re-codified in 1968. The tax cut totals $200 million annually.
Gun rights groups have long wanted to see an end to the NFA. Pro-gun advocacy groups, including Gun Owners of America, immediately filed a lawsuit after President Trump signed the budget bill to strike down the NFA as being unconstitutional. They argue that, absent the tax, the NFA is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.
In a press release, Gun Owners of America said its “team in Washington had been working behind the scenes with Congress since the November 2024 election to fully repeal the NFA.” The lawsuit was filed in conservative Texas. Emma Brown of GIFFORDS stated that “Almost 100 years of precedent has kept silencers and short-barreled firearms out of easy reach for criminals. But with this bill, Republicans are laying the groundwork to gut safeguards that stopped criminals from getting these deadly weapons. This vote is proof that the ‘law and order’ rhetoric Donald Trump has pushed for years rings hollow. In siding with the gun industry CEOs, he has handed criminals a win, and communities will suffer the deadly consequences.”
Why would we want to ease restrictions on the sale of silencers and short-barrel rifles? Are they used by hunters? Rarely. Are they used by criminals? Yes. In fact, silencers reduce the recoil of a gun, increasing the accuracy of hitting a target by a criminal. With the repeal of the NFA tax, the remaining effect of the NFA is to require background checks and federal registration of these weapons and silencers. Let us hope that the Courts will continue to uphold those remaining tools to track these dangerous weapons and devices.
Patricia A. Shoap
Retired Attorney
Are there any limits to what should be restricted/controlled by government? Life is full of risks, many of which are FAR more dangerous and likely to cause harm than suppressors and short barrels. I’d request that reasonable, thoughtful, and logical adults do a little more risk analysis.
Also, tax cuts don’t ‘cost’ anyone anything. Nothing is paid out when taxes are cut. It simply reduces the amount of wealth stolen from the people who earned it.
Wait!!! Am I reading this right. The article says that by eliminating a tax on things like silencers that it will make it easier for criminals to obtain these items. I can’t stop laughing.
Thank you Patricia for addressing this very important issue.
Thanks for articulating a serious issue so well. The only remotely amusing thing about this issue is watching pro “freedom-to-kill-whoever-we-see-fit” advocates tie themselves in knots trying to justify this action. But what can you expect from people willing to sacrifice even little children for their “right” to bear arms?
It seems odd to me that anyone should have to fight so hard to justify owning an object. Unless and until someone else is harmed, there’s no victim, including little children. Where does this intense need to tightly control and take things from people come from?
Thanks for your well thought out view! As someone who has done a lot of hunting, I never used or wanted a silencer or short barrel rifle. They are only useful to the criminally minded, not a hunter.
So owning an object requires that it be useful or wanted? If so, there’s a coffee can of roofing nails in my garage that need some complex, costly, and invasive, regulation and bureaucracy!