I’m writing an article that centers around removal of suppressors (and short barrel firearms?) from NFA as part of the “Big Beautiful Bill” and I’ve run across a snag I can’t find a ready answer for. I’m hoping some of you can help.
In my research I came across an article by National Gun Trusts stating:
“Under the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’, the tax stamp cost would be cut to zero ($0), however the tax stamp application process would remain intact.”
But the White House quotes NRA-ILA’s John Commerford claiming, ““This morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed President Trump’s One, Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes the complete removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA).”
I asked some advisors and they replied: “My understanding is that they would be removed from the umbrella of the NFA, then subject to the GCA which requires Form 4473,” and “That is also my understanding. There would be no point in issuing a tax stamp with a $0 value, and if that was the case it would be a situation of keeping the NFA registration in place. “
True enough. No point. When did that ever stop the government from doing something?
I then checked the text in the bill itself, and it says:
SEC. 112029. MODIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF SILENCERS.
(a) In General.--Section 5845(a) is amended by striking ``(7) any silencer” and all that follows through ; and (8)'' and inserting and (7)”.
(b) Transfer Tax.–Section 5811(a) is amended to read as follows:(a) Rate.--There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of-- (1) $5 for each firearm transferred in the case of a
weapon classified as any other weapon under section 5845(e),(2) $0 for each firearm transferred in the case of a silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code), and (3) $200 for any other firearm transferred.”.
(c) Making Tax.–Section 5821(a) is amended to read as follows:(a) Rate.--There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the making of a firearm a tax at the rate of-- (1) $0 for each silencer (as defined in section 921 of
title 18, United States Code) made, and
“(2) $200 for any other firearm made.”.
(d) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall
apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
I don’t see anything about eliminating stamps or applications, but by the same token, both outcomes can’t be right. I put in a request to National Gun Trusts asking if they could help clarify and will report back what they say.
In the mean time, if anyone has knowledge (as opposed to opinion) on who is right, please educate me in a comment to this post.
UPDATE
I got my answer:
“Section 5845(a) is amended by striking ‘(7) any silencer’ and all that follows through…”and going there that shows it is completely removed from the definition of affected “firearms.”
Navigating this stuff is confusing for someone who isn’t used to it.
I read the same section of the bill as you. Unless there is an amendment or a substitute that has not yet been posted online, then I concur with you that the bill would retain the NFA procedures and registration requirement for suppressors, despite cutting the tax to $0. It would be illogical because the ostensible purpose of registration is to keep track of who owes the tax (on the next transfer). But since when has logic ever been part of law making? Sec. 112029 as currently written is unacceptable. Leave it to the GOP to disappoint.
An alternative interpretation: Subsection (a) of the bill removes “silencer” from the definition of (NFA) “firearm” for the purposes of the NFA. The NFA uses the term “firearm” throughout, but its provisions only apply to the specific term of art “firearm” as defined in Sec. 5845, not all “firearms” as definied in a dictionary, by typical rules of statutory construction. Thus one could conclude that it effectively removes “silencers” from the purview of the NFA altogether. But then it is not clear why it would need to explicitly modify the making and transfer taxes from $200 to $0. Again, who said law making had to be logical? IANAL, so apologies for cluttering up your comments with my thoughts.
Yes confusing, wiley weasel wording where only a trained lawyer can navigate such muddy waters thereby continuing a full employment policy for those with law school degrees. It is the main cog in the judicial system an early form the the modern matrix.
I’m glad you guys got it figured out. My eyes would’ve glazed over, reading that stuff for more than a few minutes.