Last minute suppressor vote

[z987k]

I am awaiting passage like a child the night before Xmas, but I also concede that such a view means I've fallen for the pork given what the overall BBB will do to the country. It's sad.

Yup. I want the gun deregulation but I'm not willing to destroy the country to get it.

If I was in congress I'd be a no on the bill as a whole.

This bill is fiscally worse than anything Biden did. And not what people voted for last December.

 

[Spoonbill]

Yup. I want the gun deregulation but I'm not willing to destroy the country to get it.

If I was in congress I'd be a no on the bill as a whole.

This bill is fiscally worse than anything Biden did. And not what people voted for last December.

Rand Paul stated that he wants to split the bill in two. One for tax cuts and one for spending. I would like to see that happen and hope ending the nfa would be included in tax cuts.

 

[HighUintas]

This is off topic, but isn't the OBBB the reason Musk and Trump has this big break up? I didn't really follow any of it but my wife was telling me about it. It sounds like a shit show embarrassment to America.

 

[Leaf Litter]

This is off topic, but isn't the OBBB the reason Musk and Trump has this big break up? I didn't really follow any of it but my wife was telling me about it. It sounds like a shit show embarrassment to America.

That's the red herring. They're both egomaniacs, so it was never a partnership that was going to last, regardless of their opinions on policy.

 

[z987k]

That's the red herring. They're both egomaniacs, so it was never a partnership that was going to last, regardless of their opinions on policy.

It doesn't help that one of them spent untold money in an attempt to save us from bankrupting ourselves and the other seems hellbent on doing just that.

 

[fwafwow]

It doesn't help that one of them spent untold money in an attempt to save us from bankrupting ourselves and the other seems hellbent on doing just that.

When there was no effort to send DOGE to the Pentagon, I lost interest. Since I've realized how many times I've fallen for propaganda over the years, now I'm wondering what is real (if anything).

 

[HighUintas]

When there was no effort to send DOGE to the Pentagon, I lost interest. Since I've realized how many times I've fallen for propaganda over the years, now I'm wondering what is real (if anything).

 

[fwafwow]

View attachment 895166

I start to wonder which is really better. Maybe the third option.

 

[Leaf Litter]

It doesn't help that one of them spent untold money in an attempt to save us from bankrupting ourselves and the other seems hellbent on doing just that.

I feel like neither of their motivations have anything to do with helping or hurting America or Americans. They believe in and serve only themselves.

 

[fwafwow]

I feel like neither of their motivations have anything to do with helping or hurting America or Americans. They believe in and serve only themselves.

I tend to agree with you, except when I think more cynically and believe they are serving someone else (which may go hand in hand with serving themselves).

 

[SkeeterMcgiblet]

I was excited and optimistic that the OG rollout could coincide with the pending law changes. So I looked up the possible effective date of the bill. Assuming I'm reading it correctly (see below), I don't think that the suppressor changes will be effective until 1/1/26. Being optimistic, if the law is enacted by July 2nd or 3rd, then the changes could be effective as of 10/1/25 (it depends on if you include the end date in the calculation). I heard that Republicans have "set a deadline" (whatever that means) of 7/4 for passage by both houses and for delivery for signature, but that there is a belief it will take longer than that to be completed.

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.​

Link to complete version of H.R. 1 - a/k/a "One Big Beautiful Bill". The silencers provision is section 112029, starting on page 977.

I've never seen an effective date be tied to "calendar quarters beginning after..." I would have expected just some number of days (30, 60 or 90), or January 1, 2026.

Anyone else have a different interpretation of the effective date? I've got an Unknown OG sitting at my FFL that I've been holding off on paperwork for in hopes this could be effective immediately. The FFL has no clue, one guy says they hope its immediate, another says it'll be 6-12 months.

 

[fwafwow]

Anyone else have a different interpretation of the effective date? I've got an Unknown OG sitting at my FFL that I've been holding off on paperwork for in hopes this could be effective immediately. The FFL has no clue, one guy says they hope it’s immediate, another says it'll be 6-12 months.

See below from guns.com. I can’t see how it could ever be 12 months.

 

[2buffalo]

Senate Parliamentarian made them take this out of the bill. It's dead.

 

[Schmo]

Senate Parliamentarian made them take this out of the bill. It's dead.

Have a source? S2H podcast from two days ago said it passed the parliamentarian and was left in.

Edit: Checked GOA and you are right. Says they are reviewing their options

 

[joshs]

We're still trying to figure out why she took it out. There was some conforming language that tried to address the states that require NFA registration to lawfully possess cans or SBRs under state law. If that's why she took it out, then we may be able to move forward with full removal from the NFA. If not, then there is still potentially the option to reduce the tax (hopefully to $0).

As a little bit of background, I work for the NRA.

 

[SkeeterMcgiblet]

The plot thickens...

 

[JohnJohnson]

The plot thickens...
View attachment 898972

If anything, won't this result in longer wait times if suppressors aren't completely removed from the NFA (unlikely)?

 

[joshs]

If anything, won't this result in longer wait times if suppressors aren't completely removed from the NFA (unlikely)?

That's certainly a serious concern if cuts hit the NFA Division. There may be ways to remedy it (an eforms system that doesn't look like it's from 1995 and is actually automated would be a good start).

 

[nm.otter]

Should be no issue reducing the price of a tax stamp via the reconciliation process. It's a start.

 

[canyonhunter47]

Should be no issue reducing the price of a tax stamp via the reconciliation process. It's a start.

The argument (not saying I agree) would be that original tax was intended as a deterrent and not for revenue so changing it would be a policy goal with some incidental fiscal implications rather than a primarily budgetary change. The $200 tax in 1934 when it was passed would be almost $5k today