National Firearms Act Archives -

Uncategorized

Learning From Others

August 5, 2025

by John Richardson 2 Comments

I have watched for years how other Second Amendment organizations would use postings about court filings or letter writing campaigns to not only advance gun rights but also to fund raise. Tying information about a new court case such as the joint effort to get rid of the NFA with a request for donations to help support the litigation seems like a smart marketing move. It is not only an ask but it is an ask for a specific purpose that donors will want to see succeed.

It has bugged me that the NRA has not done something similar in recent years. I started bugging John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA, about this and he responded positively. It may only be a trial but it is one that I really would like to see work.

Thus, if you want to see the National Firearms Act as it relates to suppressors, any other weapons, and short barreled rifles and shotguns be found invalid, you need to step up and help support this litigation. I don’t care if it is $5 or $500 as it all helps. The government has all the money in the world to fight our lawsuit. In other words, your tax monies! Our side only has what the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the American Suppressor Association can raise to fund it.

The appeal below is a start and one I’d like to see used by the NRA and NRA-ILA again and again. Please help it succeed by donating.

Uncategorized

Suggestions For The NFA Tax Savings

July 12, 2025

by John Richardson 3 Comments

Now that the One Big Beautiful Bill has been passed and signed the $200 tax on suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and NFA any other weapons will disappear as of January 1, 2026. Many suppressor retailers such as Silencer Central and Silencer Shop will more than likely be running promotions between then and now where they will pay the $200 tax.

Despite the tax being gone, all the other onerous provisions of the National Firearms Act on these suppressors and weapons will still be in effect. This will include background checks requiring fingerprints and photos, restrictions on taking SBRs and SBSs across state lines, and, of course, registration with the government.

The rationale for the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act going back to the 1930s was that it was a tax with associated regulations as opposed to regulations with a fee attached. Now that the tax will be zero as of January 1, 2026, that legitimacy will be called into question. Two different coalitions will file or have filed suits in Federal court challenging the NFA on these grounds.

The coalition composed of the Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, Gun Owners Foundation, and Brady Wetz have filed suit in the Northern District of Texas as of July 4th. Their attorneys are Stephen Stamboulieh and the DC firm of WileyRein LLP. This lawsuit contends that the NFA’s registration and transfer requirements exceed Congress’ Article I powers with regard to untaxed firearms. Thus, it seeks a declaratory judgment that this portion of the NFA is unconstitutional along with a permanent injunction against the ATF and the Department of Justice on enforcement of any part of the NFA pertaining to untaxed firearms.

The second coalition is composed of the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the American Suppressor Association. It is my understanding that they hope to be filing suit early this coming week with the well-known 2A law firm of Cooper & Kirk representing them. I am hoping that it actually will be Monday as that is Bastille Day which celebrates that storming of the gates of the Bastille in Paris. Instead of storming the gates of the Bastille, this lawsuit would storming the gates of an unconstitutional law.

Litigation is expensive. It is an unfortunate fact of life especially if you challenging the Federal government in court. Herein comes my suggestion on using part of the tax savings to support this litigation.

Take half your tax savings or $100 and send it to NRA-ILA to help support the litigation. Make sure to put “litigation” in the memo field. That will designate it specifically for litigation and I’m assured by NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford that it will be used for litigation. Mail that check to NRA-ILA, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030.

Alternatively, if you want to support the other coalition’s lawsuit, Palmetto State Armory is doing a special run of AR-15 stripped lowers marked “GOA-15”. $25 of each one sold at $59.95 will go to GOA to help fund that coalition’s litigation against the NFA. They are hoping to raise $250,000 this way.

My preference is to send the money to NRA-ILA. While I am a NRA Director, my preference is based upon the fact that I already have a number of stripped AR lowers in my gun safe and, more importantly, that 100% of the money will be used for litigation.

What to do with the remaining $100 in tax savings? I have some ideas about that as well.

Large numbers have a power all their own. An organization with a large membership will, all things being equal, have greater influence with politicians than smaller one. Despite the growth of the other Second Amendment organizations such as GOA, FPC, SAF, and even NAGR, the National Rifle Association still remains the largest even despite its past problems. If you have read my past posts, I take a Laswellian approach to politics and who gets what, when, and how is quite often determined by size.

Let’s set aside $50-70 to buy memberships in the NRA for friends and relatives. For example, you could buy five Associate memberships for $50. Conversely, we on the Membership Committee have been discussing creating a $25 digital membership where you are a full member but get the magazine in a digital format and are not sent any welcome trinkets. You could buy two of those for $50. Even now, you can find a regular NRA Annual membership for $35 if you search. Given that over 10 million people think they are NRA members but aren’t, imagine if even one-third actually became members. That would double the membership of the NRA overnight and return fear as a component of the NRA’s relationship with politicians. Being feared by politicians is a good thing.

With the remaining $30-50, I suggest buying a box or two of subsonic ammo.

Alternatively, you could get a carbine-length buffer tube kit and a carbine stock to convert your AR pistol into a SBR. I certainly will be considering this if the regulations were to go away.

The stark reality is that it is going to take money to get the NFA regulations on untaxed firearms to go away. Even if we win in US District Court, there is nothing to say a win won’t be appealed and then appealed again. I say spend the potential savings now so we can get what we really (really!!!!) want.

Uncategorized

It Is Only A Matter Of Time

July 3, 2025

by John Richardson 4 Comments

The One, Big, Beautiful Bill passed the House today and will be sent to President Trump’s desk for signature. He wanted it before the 4th of July and he got his wish. The vote was 218-214 with two Republicans, Tom Massie (R-KY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), joining all the Democrats in voting against the bill.

Sec. 70436 of the bill removed the transfer and making taxes on silencers, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and any other weapons. The $200 tax is retained for machineguns and other destructive devices. The effective date will be the beginning of calendar quarters 90 days or more after the enactment of the bill. If I am calculating that correctly, then the tax goes to zero on January 1, 2026 given we have already started the 3rd quarter of 2025.

Once President Trump signs the bill then the real fun begins. The NRA, the American Suppressor Association, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation issued a joint statement today stating their intention to sue.

Joint-NFA-Letter Download

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut had this to say:

“The NFA is nothing more than a tax scheme which has imposed an unconstitutional burden on Americans since 1934,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The registration of these items was only justified as the means to ensure taxes on them had been paid. With the One Big, Beautiful Bill zeroing out the tax for silencers and short barreled firearms, the registration scheme serves no other purpose than to create an unlawful barrier to keep people from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Our intention with this new lawsuit is to completely remove these barriers.”

UPDATE: The NRA just released these statements from President Bill Bachenberg, EVP Doug Hamlin, and ILA Director John Commerford.

“NRA worked throughout the reconciliation process on Capitol Hill to protect and strengthen the right to keep and bear arms,” said NRA President Bill Bachenberg. “Elections have consequences, and thanks to pro-gun majorities in both the House and Senate, American gun owners are seeing real results. A new era has begun in Washington, D.C., and the NRA is deeply grateful for President Trump’s unwavering support for our constitutional freedoms.”

“Congress has delivered a game-changing victory for gun owners – reducing the cost of a tax stamp for suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons’ to $0,” said Doug Hamlin, NRA Executive Vice President & CEO. “I thank the many NRA members and gun owners who contacted their Senators and Representatives urging them to protect Second Amendment rights. NRA looks forward to President Trump signing the One, Big, Beautiful Bill into law and building on his legacy as a champion for law-abiding gun owners.”

“Congressional Republicans took action to eliminate a nearly century-old punitive tax designed to discourage the lawful purchase and possession of constitutionally protected arms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “NRA-ILA applauds the leadership in both chambers for getting the One, Big, Beautiful Bill to President Trump’s desk. While removing the tax is a significant step forward, it is only the beginning. We remain committed to our ultimate goal: ending the unconstitutional National Firearms Act.”

Uncategorized

Not Protected By The Second Amendment

February 9, 2025

by John Richardson 2 Comments

In a decision issued this past Thursday, a panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that suppressors were not weapons protected by the Second Amendment. The case involved firearms dealer George Patterson of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The BATFE was investigating him for certain reporting violations and had obtained a search warrant of his premises. During their search, they found a suppressor made from a kit that was neither serialized nor registered in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871. A grand jury indicted him on that charge and Patterson moved to have the indictment dismissed. He argued that the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements violated the Second Amendment. The US District Court for Eastern Louisiana dismissed his motion and he appealed to the 5th Circuit.

The opinion of the court was by Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod who is a George W. Bush appointee. Interestingly, she also wrote the opinion for the en banc decision in Cargill v. Garland that found that bump stocks were not machine guns.

After examining a number of decisions in other circuits that had concluded that suppressors were not weapons, Elrod wrote:

A suppressor, by itself, is not a weapon. Without being attached to a firearm, it would not be of much use for self-defense. And unless a suppressor itself is thrown (which, of course, is not how firearms work), it cannot do any casting or striking.3 See United States v. Hasson, No. GJH-19-96, 2019 WL 4573424, at *4 n.5 (D. Md. Sept. 20, 2019) (noting that a suppressor “could be thrown at someone like a shoe or a baseball, which, most would agree, are not arms protected by the Second Amendment”). While a suppressor might prove useful to one casting or striking at another, that usefulness does not transform a gas dissipater into a bullet caster…And while possession of firearms themselves is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, possession of firearm accessories is not. Id. Accordingly, Peterson has not shown that the NFA’s registration scheme burdens a constitutionally protected right.

She also dismissed his argument that a suppressor should be considered a “‘‘proper accoutrements’ that render the firearm useful and functional'” per US v Miller noting that a firearm can still be fired absent a suppressor. His other argument pointed to Ezell v. Chicago but again Chief Judge Elrod dismissed that argument saying that the use of a suppressor is not necessary to the use of a firearm. Thus, she dismissed his appeal of the motion to dismiss from the District Court.

So this leads to the obvious question, if a suppressor is not considered a weapon and merely an accessory, then why is it regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934? The obvious answer is that it should not be.

There are currently bills in both houses of Congress that would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act. The first to be introduced was HR 404/ S364 – Hearing Protection Act. This bill introduced by Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-WY) would remove suppressors from the NFA, eliminate the $200 tax, prohibit states from imposing any taxes on their purchase other than normal sales taxes, and allow their sale with a simple background check. This bill is supported a number of organizations including American Suppressor Association (ASA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology (ADA).

A second bill, the Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing (SHUSH) Act, has been introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) in the Senate and by Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) in the House. The SHUSH Act is supported by National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It goes further than the Hearing Protection Act in that it removes suppressors entirely from Federal regulation.

From Sen. Lee’s press release:

The SHUSH Act aims to:

Eliminate federal regulation of suppressors as firearms under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).
Remove existing taxes, fees, and registration requirements associated with suppressors.
Allow current or retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms with suppressors.
Preempt state regulations on the manufacture, transfer, transport, or possession of suppressors.
Strike provisions requiring mandatory minimum sentences for suppressor possession in certain cases.
Exempt suppressors from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Provide a provision for a refund of the $200 transfer tax for anyone who purchased a suppressor within two years prior to the enactment of the bill.
If passed, the SHUSH Act will work alongside the Hearing Protection Act to further deregulate suppressors and remove them from the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I would support passage of both laws but I must say I really like the SHUSH Act better. The question is, of course, getting either bill through the Senate.

Given that the courts are refusing to treat suppressors or silencers as protected by the Second Amendment and are considering them merely accessories, now is the time to treat them like they are in countries around the world. That is, an accessory sold over the counter without regulation that protects hearing, mitigates recoil, and reduces noise pollution.

H/T Marc E.

Uncategorized

A Win In Garland V. Cargill

June 14, 2024

by John Richardson 5 Comments

In a 6-3 decision with the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court has struck down the ban on bump stocks. Joining in the majority opinion were Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Alito also had a concurring opinion. Finally, in no surprise to anyone reading this, Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion in which she was joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

From the opinion which affirmed the 5th Circuits en banc decision in favor of Michael Cargill:

We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” because it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” And, even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns

Justice Thomas examined the mechanics of how a semi-automatic trigger works in an AR-15. Illustrating this with graphic diagrams, he concluded that the addition of a bump stock does not change the single “function of the trigger”. He said it merely reduces the time between the separate functions of the trigger. He goes on to add, “A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does.” Too bad he didn’t mention Jerry Miculek by name! He goes on to say that the position of the ATF and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent are logically inconsistent. This is due to the acknowledgement that a person can bump fire without using a bump stock and that a semi-auto rifle without a bump stock fires only one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Justice Alito in his concurrence notes that the statutory language is clear and the Court must follow it. Taking note of the Mandalay Bay shooting, Alito says a tragic event itself does not change the law’s meaning. If there is to be a national ban on bump stocks, then it is up to Congress to amend the law.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor says the majority has just put bump stocks back in the civilian hands. This, of course, ignores the fact that actual machine guns reside in the hands of civilians as the National Firearms Act did not ban civilian ownership but merely taxed the possession. The rest of her dissent goes on to criticize Thomas’ opinion and its examination of the mechanics of a trigger function.

She ends with this hyperbole:

Today’s decision to reject that ordinary understanding will have deadly consequences. The majority’s artificially narrow definition hamstrings the Government’s efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter.

I am sure that the gun control industry will be wailing and gnashing their teeth over this decision regardless of how faithful it is to the letter of the law. While some states have banned the possession and sale of bump stocks which is their sovereign right, there is not now a national ban on them. It does emphasize just how important the elections in November will be for our civil rights. If President Biden wins and the Democrats take both houses of Congress, I am sure a national ban will follow forthwith.

Uncategorized

ATF Celebrates Anniversary Of NFA

June 26, 2022

by John Richardson 9 Comments

Whoever is the social media specialist at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is clueless. Their Facebook page is evidence of that.

Often their posts seem more like an effort to tee up negative comments than anything else. They go on about straw purchasing which tees up questions about Project Gunwalker aka Operation Fast and Furious. They talk about arson which tees up responses dealing with the raid on the Branch Davidian compound. Indeed, on February 28th, the anniversary of the ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, they memorialize the agents killed in the raid. You can imagine the comments that engendered!

Today’s post was celebrating the enactment of the National Firearms Act on June 26, 1934. I am posting a screen shot of it below.

Umm. The NFA Handbook says on the length of rifle barrels, “A rifle subject to the NFA has a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.”

I think ATF’s Facebook page needs to have a disclaimer on it. Something like, “This page is for entertainment purposes only. Do not rely on it for regulatory or legal issues because we will get it wrong.”

I admit the primary reason I even pay attention to the page is to read the comments by well-known libertarian Spike Cohen. His comment today is representative of them.

88 years of doing nothing but violating people’s rights, criminalizing and murdering peaceful people, and government agencies trafficking guns to cartels and terrorists.
And all because, instead of just admitting that alcohol prohibition had led to massive gang violence, government decided to blame the guns. The same guns that had been available for sale at stores and in magazines by mail for anyone, with no regulation whatsoever, and with no previous massive violence.
Turns out government has a long, proud history of making everything it touches worse.
Happy Birthday. May it be your agency’s last one.

I don’t know how many of our tax dollars go to support the person or persons responsible for handling social media for ATF but I know that it is money wasted.

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

January 1, 2021

by John Richardson 1 Comment

The quote of the day comes from an op-ed in the Washington Times. In it, Mark Houser and Matthew Larosiere discuss the inclusion of short barreled rifles and shotguns in the National Firearms Act of 1934. As originally written, the bill would have effectively banned all small concealable firearms and especially handguns. That was going too far for Congress and the handgun portion was stripped from the eventual bill that passed. However, they never got around to removing the language on minimum lengths for rifles and shotguns.

Having minimum lengths was necessary if you were going to ban handguns to prevent people from just cutting down a rifle or shotgun. However, once handguns were removed from the bill, it really served no purpose.

But even in 1934, exempting handguns from the NFA was necessary to secure sufficient support for its passage. And with the demise of the handgun ban, the minimum size rules now serve about the same function as a cancer-prone vestigial organ: They don’t accomplish anything useful, but they sure can get you into trouble.

Uncategorized

The Biden Gun Tax

July 10, 2020

by John Richardson 2 Comments

If you own an AR or AK or anything remotely classified as an “assault weapon” (sic) or own a standard capacity magazine, then a President Biden would allow you to keep them. That is, provided that you registered each and every item with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives as a National Firearms Act item and pay the $200 tax for each and every item.

Don’t believe me. Here is what it says on his campaign website.

Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.

You need to read the whole thing. It is compendium of every item that you could possibly think of on the gun prohibitionists’ wish list.

And by the way Joe, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with duck hunting.