Last minute suppressor vote

[Axle]

Obviously we want them deregulated and the tax gone, but if we can only pick 1, I’d personally rather have them out of the nfa and keep the $200 tax.

 

[joshs]

Obviously we want them deregulated and the tax gone, but if we can only pick 1, I’d personally rather have them out of the nfa and keep the $200 tax.

The problem is whether or not it can be done through reconciliation, which only takes a majority vote in the Senate. Otherwise, we need 60 votes in the Senate, which we don't have for any positive NFA reform.

 

[Okie_Poke]

It looks like our best bet at this point is for the Senate to try to amend its version to match the House's more limited version of this and hope at least the elimination of the tax survives. But full removal from the NFA appears to be dead. Not really surprising, but it is disappointing.

Here's a couple of takes that are more measured than the "fire the Parlimentarian" pitch the GOA is pushing right now:

Silencer Deregulation Plan Fails in the Senate

The Hearing Protection Act was stripped from the Senate budget reconciliation bill for not meeting the Byrd Rule.

www.outdoorlife.com

Senate Parliamentarian Strips Silencer, Short-Barrel Shotgun Deregulation From Budget Bill

The Senate’s top rule keeper has determined the effort to delist silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and other guns from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 doesn’t fit within budget reconciliation rules.

thereload.com

 

[nm.otter]

$5 tax stamps would still be good for our collective hearing health.

 

[nettereo16]

Disappointing but removal of the extortion fee is better than nothing. I’m already on the NFA so would probably get a few more items. Hopefully it removes a barrier for others to get their first and we can flood the NFA as “common use”

 

[Spoonbill]

Disappointing but removal of the extortion fee is better than nothing. I’m already on the NFA so would probably get a few more items. Hopefully it removes a barrier for others to get their first and we can flood the NFA as “common use”

I think we are there on the common use prt now it is just up to someone to figure out a way to sue the government over it.

https://www.guns.com/news/2024/10/09/suppressor-numbers-nearly-double-in-3-years-now-486-million-and-counting

 

[mt terry d]

There’s a reason it’s always called a “bill”

 

[mt terry d]

You’ll never win playing their game on their turf. Score a point or two? Maybe. Nothing more. Someone needs to start building and selling suppressors stamping them “Not for use in any state other than such and such”. A micro-mfg facility in Idaho. One in Montana. One in Wyoming. Etc.

 

[ThickPines]

You’ll never win playing their game on their turf. Score a point or two? Maybe. Nothing more. Someone needs to start building and selling suppressors stamping them “Not for use in any state other than such and such”. A micro-mfg facility in Idaho. One in Montana. One in Wyoming. Etc.

I think Texas tried that. Not sure what ever came of it though

 

[Axle]

You’ll never win playing their game on their turf. Score a point or two? Maybe. Nothing more. Someone needs to start building and selling suppressors stamping them “Not for use in any state other than such and such”. A micro-mfg facility in Idaho. One in Montana. One in Wyoming. Etc.

Someone tried this here in KS about 10 years back. If I remember correctly, they were selling cans for use only in KS. It was all supposed to be legal. The feds said no, and the people involved lost in court. I am not a lawyer and don't know all the details, but here's an article about it.

2 Kansas men 'collateral damage' in gun control dispute

A man who relied on a Kansas law that purports to shield from prosecution anyone owning firearms and accessories made and kept in Kansas says he may sue the state after the U.S.

apnews.com

 

[fwafwow]

It looks like our best bet at this point is for the Senate to try to amend its version to match the House's more limited version of this and hope at least the elimination of the tax survives.

It appears this is what was done on Friday night - dropping the tax to $0 for anything other than machine guns and destructive devices. See pages 491-492 here.

 

[mt terry d]

Someone tried this here in KS about 10 years back. If I remember correctly, they were selling cans for use only in KS. It was all supposed to be legal. The feds said no, and the people involved lost in court. I am not a lawyer and don't know all the details, but here's an article about it.

2 Kansas men 'collateral damage' in gun control dispute

A man who relied on a Kansas law that purports to shield from prosecution anyone owning firearms and accessories made and kept in Kansas says he may sue the state after the U.S.

apnews.com

"The Supremes reject without comment".

So, the Government won't "allow" people the right to use a mechanical safety device which is of
benefit to everyone. Won't even consider commenting. All hail the Supremes!!
And people think this government is "By, of and for the People" LOL!

And just like that no one bothers to challenge it.

 

[HuntHarder]

In the grand scheme of the BBB, I think the NFA part was simply a bargaining chip the right was willing to lose. Hopefully, at some point soon, atleast the $200 tax goes away. I am ok with the current process, just not the extra fee. I do not agree with the current process but am willing to compromise with eliminating the bs $200 charge.

 

[joshs]

Eliminating the $200 tax on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs is in the version of the Senate bill currently being debated. The parlimentarian hasn't ruled on reducing the tax to $0 (only full removal) but that will likely happen when the provision is challenged on the floor (fingers crossed on that).

 

[Spoonbill]

You’ll never win playing their game on their turf. Score a point or two? Maybe. Nothing more. Someone needs to start building and selling suppressors stamping them “Not for use in any state other than such and such”. A micro-mfg facility in Idaho. One in Montana. One in Wyoming. Etc.

That’s what state’s are doing with marijuana, even though the feds can still arrest someone, they don’t. I don’t think it will work out the same with suppressors unless we have someone like Thomas Massie as president.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I am ok with the current process, just not the extra fee. I do not agree with the current process but am willing to compromise with eliminating the bs $200 charge.

I am not ok with the current process, and I am only OK with removing the tax only if it is the first step towards taking suppressors off of the NFA list and removing the requirement for them to even be serialized and tracked. They are not firearms by any current legal definition, including the NFA, so until they are considered "accessories" and allowed to be sold as such, I am not going to be happy.

I am fine with slowly chipping away at things, just like our opposition does, but our side has a habit of "compromising" and then stopping, while their side keeps chipping away. Remember, their goal is completely banning and destroying firearms. Our goal should be complete freedom. If they are tugging from their end, and we are content with tugging from the middle, we will lose.

 

[joshs]

I am not ok with the current process, and I am only OK with removing the tax only if it is the first step towards taking suppressors off of the NFA list and removing the requirement for them to even be serialized and tracked. They are not firearms by any current legal definition, including the NFA, so until they are considered "accessories" and allowed to be sold as such, I am not going to be happy.

I am fine with slowly chipping away at things, just like our opposition does, but our side has a habit of "compromising" and then stopping, while their side keeps chipping away. Remember, their goal is completely banning and destroying firearms. Our goal should be complete freedom. If they are tugging from their end, and we are content with tugging from the middle, we will lose.

The problem is that they are legally considered "firearms" under both the NFA and GCA. While we thought we had a chance to get them out via this reconcilliation bill, the parlimentarian made that more difficult. Reducing the tax to $0 is likely the best we can get right now. The more gun owners also become suppressor owners, the easier it will be to get positive legislative and legal change, and reducing the tax is hopefully a step in that direction.

As an example of this process, the Supreme Court only recently affirmed the right to carry a firearm outside the home in the Bruen case, but that process started in the 1980's with the shall issue movement. SCOTUS was only really validating the status quo when they ruled in 2022 because 42 states already had shall-issue concealed carry.

 

[HuntHarder]

I am not ok with the current process, and I am only OK with removing the tax only if it is the first step towards taking suppressors off of the NFA list and removing the requirement for them to even be serialized and tracked. They are not firearms by any current legal definition, including the NFA, so until they are considered "accessories" and allowed to be sold as such, I am not going to be happy.

I am fine with slowly chipping away at things, just like our opposition does, but our side has a habit of "compromising" and then stopping, while their side keeps chipping away. Remember, their goal is completely banning and destroying firearms. Our goal should be complete freedom. If they are tugging from their end, and we are content with tugging from the middle, we will lose.

Yeah, understanding how far apart the far right and the far left are from each other is eye opening. I tend to fall in the middle on a variety of issues. Knowing that the current administration has made strides that clearly are against the far left's agenda. I guess I think the current extra hoops we jump thru to obtain cans are unnecessary, but in reality, aren't really a deterrent in my eyes. In a perfect world, everyone is happy, but in reality that will never happen. Generally, after an agreement or deal is reached, both sides should walk away not totally happy.

 

[mt terry d]

Not picking on you HuntHarder, just using your POV as an example of us all, myself included.

Liberty or tyranny.
It's like pregnant or not pregnant.
Pick one
We've all become pretty content to argue about "degrees of ........" rather than the foundational principle
in the matter.
"If forcibly taking 100% of a man's labor is slavery, exactly what % can you take without
it being slavery?" asked the Freedom and Liberty for All American citizen.
Yeah. Don't ask, that's just silly. Shut up and just pay the tax; don't rock the Freedom Boat.
So, the next bunch of selected clowns propose a $1,000 tax stamp. Why not?
But they might toss a few crumbs, (suggesting removal of the Fee") under their table
because we peasants will get our instant gratification while not really changing anything
of importance.
I don't hear any of the "representatives" fighting the basic premise that somehow the
Federal Government needs to "allow" us to own something, because they all want us to cheer on our "side" and bicker amongst ourselves about how much they will take from us, not that they don't have
one daMn right to forcibly take anything.

 

[Joshbish]

Honest question here, does removing the cost of the tax stamp help, hurt or doesn't matter on getting SBRs and suppressors out of the NFA completely in the future?