The United States Department of Justice filed a response to a lawsuit brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), Palmetto State Armory (PSA), the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), Silencer Shop (SS), and B&T USA (B&T), challenging the constitutionality of regulating suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs).
Earlier this year, Congress passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). This reconciliation bill sought to remove suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs from the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) list. Unfortunately for gun owners, the Senate Parliamentarian, Democrat Elizabeth MacDonough, rejected the bill, believing it was not a tax. Republicans would modify the bill to reduce the tax cost to $0, while maintaining all other requirements, such as fingerprinting, passport photos, registration, and background checks.
The $0 tax spurred numerous lawsuits from gun rights advocates. A tax must have a revenue-generating purpose. A $0 tax stamp does not generate any revenue. Democrats argue that the NFA is not a tax and that the tax is just there to help enforce the NFA restrictions. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) disagrees with these politicians’ view of the NFA. In Sonzinsky v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA is primarily a tax, which is why it is constitutional.
By John Crump
