If the Senate Parliamentarian had allowed reconciliation to include removing items from the NFA, couldn't a future democrat majority use reconciliation to add them?
Posted by DarthMonkey212313@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 33 comments
As long as the NFA is law, then gun control would be easy, just add things to the NFA and/or up the fees to absurdity. "Assault weapons" are now NFA items and tax stamps are $10,000 type things.
what-name-is-it@reddit
The one positive we learned from the brace = SBR debacle and the amnesty period to register them was that the masses don’t acknowledge new laws. I think the real reason it was overturned was the massive non compliance.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit
There may very well be nothing government officials hate more than a populace who proves how impotent they really are when pushed to proactively ignore them. Democrats are usually (but not always) just barely smart enough not to force the people to play that trump card.
Hence, the Dems will scream like crazy about the woes of gun ownership as a means to raise money without doing anything about it on a national level. (The states are up for grabs where the less intelligent Democrats are happy to pass laws that immediately get ignored.)
Hoodfu@reddit
Not sure what ignoring looks like, but after NY passed the safe act a guy who didnt register his guns and had bought them legally was ratted out by a roommate who called the tip line. He was looking at decades of felonies and ended up fleeing the country. When the penalties for these things are life ending, I can't see any reasonable person just ignoring them. I and many people I knew moved out of state.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit
Anecdotes aside, plenty of recently passed state laws have the problem of mass non-compliance by residence who never flee the state.
Hoodfu@reddit
I've heard such things like for magazines in certain states, but it's my understanding that those states have loose regulations on when it was bought or was it in parts when you bought it. States like NY however have no such carveouts and it's just big boy felony for any kind of possession.
ReactionAble7945@reddit
Here is the long and the short of it.
First they get the tax removed.
Then we all do what we do.
Then the democrats up the tax. Which they can't say is anything but a tax.
We take the NFA law to the courts, saying that the tax is an infringement.
The court has already ruled against taxes being used to unfairly block the poor people's rights. Law get tossed.
.
And with every new SBR, SBS, AOW, machine gun, muffler, they stop being uncommon, which is being argued in another case.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit
This might be the smart move.
ReactionAble7945@reddit
It is the only move we have unless we fold or convince the democrats to fold.
I think passing legislation which states that police (fed, state, local...) can not have anything that a civilian at that location can not have, would move things along quicker as all the LEOs in the country would quickly pitch a fit.
And the people who are responsible for any mistakes are the people who passed the laws. So, the governor of California passed the legislation to stating that no one can have any gun not on this list... and LA police department has thousands of them. ... So, governor you are charged with thousands of counts of ....
OH, so now the city has to register all the guns that are SBS and SBR and
joelfarris@reddit
Want an odd rabbit-trail to this thought?
In the future, if a short-barrelled rifle is required to be registered as an NFA item, but there is no tax due as part of that registration...
Then couldn't it be easily argued that one long gun owner with a 16" barrel does not have to register their weapon, but another gun owner with a 15.5" barrel does, and that constitutes not only a gun ownership infringement, but a defacto federal registry, with no taxation authority involved?
ReactionAble7945@reddit
Exactly.
When you can't cut down the tree with an axe, it is worth it to whittle at it and it may die and rot.
DisorganizedFarmer@reddit
Dropping the tax to 0$ sets the same president. Next go around for Dems they could make it 100,000$.
DarthMonkey212313@reddit (OP)
If the tax is so high as to become a ban, it then must examined as such by the courts instead of the current dodge of "it's not a 2A issue, we aren't stopping them, it's just a tax."
Admittedly Rs dropping it to $0 or even $5 allows the Ds to come back a raise it later which is why this is at best temporary relief. We need the GCA\NFA gone or at least knee capped by legislation or court rulings.
AM-64@reddit
You realize that was why they made it $200 back in the '30s right?
It essentially banned any NFA items from anyone who wasn't Uber wealthy. The average pay back for something like manufacturing back in 1934 was roughly $1000 per year.
It's just not adjusted for inflation and since US currency is no longer backed by gold, inflation is drastically higher and the NFA tax doesn't scale. (If it did it would be something like $4800 now)
DarthMonkey212313@reddit (OP)
I am aware, but the hysteria around mob violence at the time that brought the support for the law initially stuck around until WWII came along and made it temporarily moot (all firearm an related production was going to the military). The post war aversion to violence coupled with the lack of any real challenges to it in the courts. It wouldn't be until the 60's that they needed to defend it as just a tax to keep it legal. By then $200 was still burdensome, but no longer the impediment it had been initially.
akbuilderthrowaway@reddit
Sets the precedent? They always had the ability to fuck with it. They just haven't.
DisorganizedFarmer@reddit
There's what you can do and what you can get away with. now they can say:
republicans did it first we are just following their lead.
The money will be used for operating costs of the nfa/atf
This money will help all the victims of gun violence.
Non gun people and fools will believe it and everyone else will be left holding the bag.
SaltyDog556@reddit
Here's the fucked up thing. And this is the argument that the parliamentarian is wrong.
If they wanted to tax something they coidl add it. Meaning they could add it to the form 1/4 registration and approval requirements.
But removing the tax they can't remove it from the process requirements? Bullshit. That in itself may be a reason to get the NFA declared unconstitutional as it has internal inconsistencies.
Agammamon@reddit
If the NFA is repealed a future congress could just vote to re-implement it too.
ReactionAble7945@reddit
HERE IS THE FIX...You can contact the Vice President here https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Dear Mr. Vice President,It is my understanding that you have the power to overrule the senate parliamentarian. As a strong second amendment supporter, I am appalled at her egregiously partisan actions in removing the changes to the National Firearms Act taxes from the Big Beautiful Bill that would have removed suppressors and short barreled rifles using language from the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT act.This NFA is purely a tax. You fill out an application to pay a tax, submit a $200 tax payment, and receive a tax stamp. The process to do so is burdensome and onerous, not to mention it is a clear infringement on Americans' civil rights.Please, have the courage to give American gun owners this win by overruling the senate parliamentarian. We have been loyal Republican voters for many decades, but we rarely if ever get anything in return. This bill was the best chance we have had in most people's lifetimes to see real progress toward restoring our second amendment rights. Please don't squander this monumental opportunity.Thank you for your service to our country, and for your attention to this matter.Regards,
DarthMonkey212313@reddit (OP)
How does that stop democrats from adding it back in, and even adding more things when they regain the majority?
Sudden_Publics@reddit
Historically republicans rewrite rules to bend the law to their means, democrats clutch their pearls, then when they come back into power they do absolutely fuck all to leverage the new powers that they themselves were given by their predecessors changing the game.
Yale as old as time. Limp dicks.
DarthMonkey212313@reddit (OP)
I think you have that backwards. Removing the filibuster on nominees- Dems. Blocking qualified candidates on only ideological grounds - Dems. Not allowing the other sides leadership to choose participants in special committees - Dems.
Sudden_Publics@reddit
Ah, so what I should have said is both sides continually erode at our democracy but only the Dems are too limp dicked to abuse the power they create.
HWKII@reddit
That’s the neat part - it doesn’t. And also, nothing stops the next budget bill from upping the tax stamp to $20,000.
At its root, this is the problem with having a Congress which has become increasingly useless. Frustrations have led to cutting corners, ignoring process and dismantling institutions and every election - whether we elect a Democrat or a Republican, we take another step towards actual Fascism. This only serves to make the 2nd amendment a more essential freedom, and a bigger target for politicians.
akbuilderthrowaway@reddit
It's useless because the federal government isn't supposed to have the authority to regulate shit like this without constitutional amendment.
HWKII@reddit
No argument from me, but there are a lot of things they should be doing but don’t, so people push and push and tolerate/demand more and more abuses of the executive and the judiciary in the name of “progress” without stopping to consider the consequences.
garden_speech@reddit
You are missing their point, which is not about the changes to the dollar amount, but rather, to the items on the NFA. They are saying -- if the parliamentarian had allowed a full removal of suppressors from the NFA in a budget bill, this would open the door to adding other items to the NFA in a budget bill -- a.k.a., the Democrats could add all semi autos to the NFA in the next budget bill.
Yes, they can fuck with the tax amount, but they can't add/remove items as long as this parliamentarian is in charge.
codifier@reddit
So long as said parliamentarian isn't going to play party politics and say this time it's (D)ifferent.
Clownshoes919@reddit
You need 50 votes in the senate for Vance to step in. He can’t do it on his own.
LiberalLamps@reddit
If the original version had passed it would nearly impossible to undo because it was going to delete the language from the NFA that caused certain items to require a tax stamp. Adding it back would have been "regulatory" and not Byrd compliant.
The current version where they change the tax from $200 to $0 is extremely dangerous, because all they have to do is change the number to $10,000 or something.
And I am skeptical the courts will strike down the registry scheme even with a $0 tax stamp, Bruen specially said permits are okay.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit
In our zeal, we pushed our law makers to drive at this issue more than they should have in one swing. While deeply disappointing, the smarter play would have been to remove just the tax stamp. Even though I would love for the rest of the NFA to get trashed, the legal mechanisms simply aren't in place for that to happen at the moment.
We have to keep in mind that the 2A is just 1 issue among 10,000 political issues going on right now. It is actually kind of remarkable that Republicans managed to pull together to make this a priority.
If we can get rid of the tax stamp, I will take this as a small but significant win.
garden_speech@reddit
Yes, this is true and is something everyone is ignoring or intentionally missing. If the parliamentarian said removal of suppressors from the NFA entirely is Byrd compliant, it would imply that adding items should also be Byrd compliant.
People are focusing on the "well Democrats can already change the dollar amount" part but missing the "they can't add new items to it" part.
DarthMonkey212313@reddit (OP)
As for where that leaves us, I think a stand alone bill would have issues getting through the Senate with 60 votes. Unfortunately the courts are probably the best bet, and that's a long shot. Miller affirmed the NFA in the 30's but was bullshit considering only one side argued and is honestly problematic for the court to hang it's hat on with the "suitable for use in a militia" argument in the opinion. To succeed there though we would probably need one more strongly pro gun justice without losing Thomas.