Last minute suppressor vote

[IdahoBeav]

With the tax stamp fee waived, how will any retailers be able to sell Banish?

 

[TxLite]

Too bad it got taken out of the bill....we get screwed again,

They put it back in and it passed the senate. Back to the house for concurrence then headed to Trump’s desk

 

[J. Swartz LLC]

Too bad it got taken out of the bill....we get screwed again,

Indeed. And all the next administration has to do is jack the price back up. And higher probably. Hate that they caved and did what they did.

 

[5811]

With the tax stamp fee waived, how will any retailers be able to sell Banish?

Quieter than a tbac u7 at the silencer summit.

 

[joshs]

Indeed. And all the next administration has to do is jack the price back up. And higher probably. Hate that they caved and did what they did.

It's a statute. An administration can't change it without going through Congress.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

The final version making it $0 tax on suppressors, if properly leveraged, could be used to overturn parts of the NFA. The NFA has been allowed to stand for decades because "its a tax, which is legal", and not therefore legally considered an infringement on the 2A. $0 = not a tax, therefore making that aspect of the NFA definitively regulatory in nature, and thus ripe to get overturned. Further, it could comfortably be argued that the Byrd Rule ruling supports that interpretation, because removing items from the NFA was deemed 'regulatory' in nature, which if true, then the NFA is a regulation that infringes on the 2A and not simply a tax. That aspect of what just happened should, in reality, open up the entire NFA to be overturned by the SC.

To be fair - I doubt it will happen - before it trickles up to the SC, some future legislation will probably re-instate the tax (likely at a much higher rate, now that we've established precedent for changing the tax rate in the NFA), and even if it did make it to the SC before that happens, the SC backstabs us often enough anyway, that it would in no way be a sure thing. But - it's an opening created that never existed before, so... one of y'all with the money and the time, feel free to take the shot, please and thanks.

 

[HandgunHTR]

The final version making it $0 tax on suppressors, if properly leveraged, could be used to overturn parts of the NFA. The NFA has been allowed to stand for decades because "its a tax, which is legal", and not therefore legally considered an infringement on the 2A. $0 = not a tax, therefore making that aspect of the NFA definitively regulatory in nature, and thus ripe to get overturned. Further, it could comfortably be argued that the Byrd Rule ruling supports that interpretation, because removing items from the NFA was deemed 'regulatory' in nature, which if true, then the NFA is a regulation that infringes on the 2A and not simply a tax. That aspect of what just happened should, in reality, open up the entire NFA to be overturned by the SC.

To be fair - I doubt it will happen - before it trickles up to the SC, some future legislation will probably re-instate the tax (likely at a much higher rate, now that we've established precedent for changing the tax rate in the NFA), and even if it did make it to the SC before that happens, the SC backstabs us often enough anyway, that it would in no way be a sure thing. But - it's an opening created that never existed before, so... one of y'all with the money and the time, feel free to take the shot, please and thanks.

Just a point of clarification, the $200 tax is still in place for machine guns and destructive devices.

So, what this current language allows for is the challenge that the Form 1/4 required for the making/transfer of a suppressor, SBR, or SBS is a defacto registry and therefore illegal under the 2nd Amendment and those items should be removed from the NFA altogether.

That portion of the bill goes into effect 90 days from signing. I would expect the lawsuit to be filed on Day 91.

 

[HandgunHTR]

For those interested, here is the actual language that is in the bill that was just passed by the Senate.

SEC. 70436. REDUCTION OF TRANSFER AND MANUFAC-14
TURING TAXES FOR CERTAIN DEVICES.15
(a) TRANSFER TAX.—Section 5811(a) is amended to16
read as follows:17
‘‘(a) RATE.—There shall be levied, collected, and paid18
on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of—19
‘‘(1) $200 for each firearm transferred in the20
case of a machinegun or a destructive device, and21
‘‘(2) $0 for any firearm transferred which is22
not described in paragraph (1).’’.23
(b) MAKING TAX.—Section 5821(a) is amended to24
read as follows:25
464
BAI25351 FR8 S.L.C.
‘‘(a) RATE.—There shall be levied, collected, and paid1
upon the making of a firearm a tax at the rate of—2
‘‘(1) $200 for each firearm made in the case of3
a machinegun or a destructive device, and4
‘‘(2) $0 for any firearm made which is not de-5
scribed in paragraph (1).’’.6
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 4182(a) is7
amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘For pur-8
poses of the preceding sentence, any firearm described in9
section 5811(a)(2) shall be deemed to be a firearm on10
which the tax provided by section 5811 has been paid.’’11
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by12
this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning13
more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act

Edit, sorry for the crappy formatting, but that is the cut and paste from the online document.
Here is the link: https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/file_8654.pdf

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

Just a point of clarification, the $200 tax is still in place for machine guns and destructive devices.

So, what this current language allows for is the challenge that the Form 1/4 required for the making/transfer of a suppressor, SBR, or SBS is a defacto registry and therefore illegal under the 2nd Amendment and those items should be removed from the NFA altogether.

That portion of the bill goes into effect 90 days from signing. I would expect the lawsuit to be filed on Day 91.

I'm with you, and your description definitely is more technically on-point than mine - that said though, if we can open the door to the items with $0 tax being an infringement that can be overturned, would that not also make for a more compelling legal argument than previously existed, in terms of arguing that the entire thing is an infringement?

 

[weaver]

How soon will a $0 stamp be a reality? I have an OG that should be arriving at my SOT any day now and wondering if it’s worth waiting it out?

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

How soon will a $0 stamp be a reality? I have an OG that should be arriving at my SOT any day now and wondering if it’s worth waiting it out?

90 days from when Trump signs it, is my understanding.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I'm with you, and your description definitely is more technically on-point than mine - that said though, if we can open the door to the items with $0 tax being an infringement that can be overturned, would that not also make for a more compelling legal argument than previously existed, in terms of arguing that the entire thing is an infringement?

It absolutely would, but I am pretty sure this administration is not keen on removing machine guns from the NFA, especially considering what they did with bump stocks last time.

It is going to be a pretty hard battle to get machine guns and destructive devises to be unregulated.

I am just fine using the grabbers tactic of death by a thousand cuts against them, provided we actually do it.

I am already seeing posts and videos that have people bitching up a storm that we didn't get more. That is why we keep losing. When the grabbers get a little bit, they rejoice and then move on to the next slice. We want the whole damn cake back and throw a tantrum if we don't get it.

 

[joshs]

It's actually more like 180 days because of the way the effective date provision is written. We tried to get an amendment to make it effective on passage, but were unsuccessful. We're working to see if it's possible for ATF to forebear any taxes between the date if/when it is signed and the effective date of the tax reduction sections. This would be the same authority ATF used for registrations without tax payments as part of the pistol brace rule.

 

[greyghostnw]

In the end its possible to be more detrimental to change the process currently. In some states it currently is legal but the literature states only if regulated by nfa. So if they no longer are regulated by nfa you no longer can purchase. Just saying theres a loop hole to still f… you.

 

[Gila]

The tax in 1934 was equivalent to about $5,000 which was meant to deter most people from obtaining one. I would think that hearing safety out weighs any other reason to have suppressors regulated. Hearing protection wasn’t an issue back in 1934 like tobacco usage. Paying tax or not is still registration of a firearm. In which case the Federal Government determines who should own one and who shouldn’t.

 

[joshs]

In the end its possible to be more detrimental to change the process currently. In some states it currently is legal but the literature states only if regulated by nfa. So if they no longer are regulated by nfa you no longer can purchase. Just saying theres a loop hole to still f… you.

That issue had been on our radar since we first drafted HPA in 2015 and there is a section in the bill to deal with those states. Most of the states have good state legislatures and/or AGs, so it would be possible to deal with them under state law pretty quickly anyways. There are three or four states where there would likely be problems, but their headed towards banning most cool stuff in those states already.

 

[UnckleBob]

Does the tax repeal have a date attached to it? I have an AB Raptor 8 that came in off back order yesterday. I have not gone through any of the ATF approval process.

 

[joshs]

Does the tax repeal have a date attached to it? I have an AB Raptor 8 that came in off back order yesterday. I have not gone through any of the ATF approval process.

Here is the text of the effective date: "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." That effectively means January 1, 2026. As noted above, we're trying to work to get ATF to use its tax forebearance authority (like it did for SBR registrations under the pistol brace rule) for any of the covered firearms purchased after the bill becomes law but before the Jan. 1 effective date.

 

[JF_Idaho]

Does the tax repeal have a date attached to it? I have an AB Raptor 8 that came in off back order yesterday. I have not gone through any of the ATF approval process.

No one can answer that. If and when the bill passes as written I would imagine it ends as soon as Bill is codified.

 

[Mike D Texas]

Don’t get too excited over this. The $200 tax was never my issue with suppressors/sbr/sbs purchases.

What I’m concerned about is if they do this, it potentially sets a precedent where through the same reconciliation process, a future anti gun administration could effectively reinstate the tax through the reconciliation process and pretty much set it to whatever they wanted adjusted to current rates accounting for inflation.

It needs to be killed outside the reconciliation process, but to get enough feckless Republicans and enough Democrats to overcome the filibuster is an almost impossible task.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro