This isn't a win.
Posted by boogiedownbronxite@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 307 comments
One reason why I hate political parties. The NFA is still in place. Not surprised, just angry. And challenge the NFA in court? That would be a dragged out process....!
GrappleApparatus@reddit
Can we shut the fuck up. This IS a win. Not a huge one, but it is a fucking win. Can the gun community stop acting like everything that isn’t the complete removal of the NFA is a complete total loss? Accept the win. Push for more.
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
Who's we
GrappleApparatus@reddit
You
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
You're the one willing to compromise on Liberty. You're the problem
amanke74@reddit
It's still kind of a win. Because it's been established in federal court that the registration and regulation of the NFA only serves to aid in enforcing the tax. If there is no tax then the registration and regulation serves no purpose and will probably be struck down in a federal court. US v. Ross 1972 is the case if anyone is wondering
Drake_Acheron@reddit
Yeah, this is a win. The biggest enemy that I’ve seen so far to 2A is actually the 2A community. Anytime we get a win no matter how small, the loudest voice voices I hear are bitchers and moaners about how it’s not really a win because we didn’t get the whole 9 yards.
You got idiots like this simultaneously saying “our representatives don’t listen” while only telling their representative “you suck”
I’m fkn tired of it. What’s to motivate Republicans to fighting for the second amendment if every time they do, they get hate from both sides?
amanke74@reddit
I don't think some people understand how politics work. It doesn't work like this, one side gets everything they want and the other gets nothing. That's how some people think that it works. Unless we have the super majority in both houses then there has to be a compromise
DevilishBooster@reddit
That’s what I’ve been saying. I’m by no means a lawyer or well-versed in law in any way, but it seems like a pretty clear solid grounds for a legal challenge all the way up through the Supreme Court. If the federal government’s whole argument is that it is a database for tracking tax payments, and those tax payments no longer exist, then there is no justification for maintaining any form of registration or database because there are no taxes to collect, so it is in violation of the 2ndA and therefore unconstitutional.
amanke74@reddit
Yeah it goes from tax enforcement to gun control and the gun control does pass the tests set forth in bruen. The bruen decision is only needed if it somehow makes it past the Ross decision
SpiderPiggies@reddit
You could even argue that this is a better outcome than if they'd just repealed those parts of the NFA (assuming you get the courts to rule it unconstitutional now). The pessimist in me says it'll be stuck in beaurocratic limbo for decades without a ruling though.
amanke74@reddit
I don't think it will get stuck, the SCOTUS has proven that they don't really want to take on these issues by making the bruen decisions and if a lower court tries to undermine their authority, they will probably shut it down.
Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit
I mean this is probably the best we can get and I'll be happy if it knocked down to $0. The Parliamentarian already made it clear the HPA and SHORT Act couldn't be included in the budget bill and there's not 60 votes in the Senate to pass it. It suck and I was hopeful, but even taking the $200 off will help.
Mr_E_Monkey@reddit
Until the dems gain a majority and use this same process to raise the tax.
corporalgrif@reddit
BUT I WANT EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW!
in all seriousness yeah it sucks that these acts got neutered to hell, but the people saying "the Republicans didn't even try" or "just overrule the parliamentarian" are acting like impotent children.
If the Republicans weren't even trying the HPA wouldn't have made it in the house & the short act wouldn't have been introduced at all, this is literally the best they could do without 60 people to beat the filibuster.
And if they were to overrule the Parliamentarians decision next time the democrats have a majority they will 100% do the same thing to get what they want in retaliation, keep in mind the NFA would still exist so if they wanted to democrats could reinstate regulation & increase the tax to something like $2,000 next time they gained power.
Do not give someone the rope they will use to hang you with later, short term victory can be long term defeats
halo121usa@reddit
I think the point you’re missing is the next time the Democrats regain power it doesn’t matter about the parliamentarian they’re going to raise that tax to $10,000
So yes, this is an absolute loss.
corporalgrif@reddit
I feel like they'd be more likely to touch it if Republicans just overruled the parliamentarian honestly.
Thing you notice about politics is that it's a big game of vindictive chicken, both sides will do something to fuck with the other ideally without doing something that changes precedent.
But occasionally like in chicken they hit each other, and precedent gets broken, and once it gets broken that becomes a new way to fuck with the other side.
But no one wants to be the side that breaks that precedent, once it's broken they'll be happy to abuse it, but until than they will wait.
HSR47@reddit
The filibuster is a good example of that.
The democrats “broke” it for judicial appointments at the end of the Obama regime’s second term, and then McConnell made them rue that decision with every judicial appointee the senate approved during the first Trump administration.
Under Biden there was talk of breaking the filibuster more broadly, but it never moved past that stage, because the democrats knew it would be a colossal mistake that would haunt them.
DrZedex@reddit
They could have done that at any point in the last 90 odd years. This doesn't change that.
halo121usa@reddit
Yeah… Hit me up in about 4 1/2 years and tell me the same thing 😂😂😂
BlackbeltKevin@reddit
They ignored her opinion on the removal of medicare for trans procedures.
WarlockEngineer@reddit
Because they'd rather fight culture war bullshit then do anything that helps people.
Big_Z_Diddy@reddit
No!
Fire the UNELECTED bureaucrat that unilaterally removed the NFA language from the Bill, and out that shit back in.
This isn't about the tax, it's about begging the government for permission to exercise our Second Amendment rights. It's about the registration scheme that the leftists will ABSOLUTELY use the next time they are in power. If you think Biden was bad with his anti-gun shit, just wait until Gavin Newsom or one of the other leftist loons in Government get back in control.
I mean ya'll COULD have just repealed the NFA completely (it IS a tax law afterall), but no, ya'll have no spine.
This was a once in a lifetime opportunity and ya'll squandered it. But then again, it really wasn't meant to become law, now was it?
Myte342@reddit
It is a win... because it proves the intent of the law is to create a Registry of owners, not collect a tax. That is MUCH easier to fight against in court than the tax.
Drake_Acheron@reddit
Yeah, this is a win. The biggest enemy that I’ve seen so far to 2A is actually the 2A community. Anytime we get a win no matter how small, the loudest voice voices I hear are bitches and Moore about how it’s not really a win because we didn’t get the whole 9 yards.
You got idiots like this simultaneously saying “our representatives don’t listen” while only telling their representative “you suck”
I’m fkn tired of it. What’s to motivate Republicans to fighting for the second amendment if every time they do, they get hate from both sides?
SeismicReaction@reddit
Absolutely dead on. When Trump did the bump stock ban in his first term, it was actually a strategic compromise that quelled a massive sweeping gun control bill from forming in Congress after the Las Vegas shooting. Now of course I didn't like the ban itself and neither did most of the 2A community, but I acknowledged that it was a necessary evil, and that a small compromise is sometimes the only way to keep the core agenda rolling. But that ban basically got nothing from the 2A community except whining and complaining, and the left of course said it wasn't nearly enough. So both sides didn't like Trump for that. But at the end of the day, Congress did not end up passing a giant gun reform bill that session, so the compromise seemed to serve its purpose.
PrometheusSmith@reddit
From what I've read and understand, using budget reconciliation bills to change policy or legislation is a no-go, meaning that removing things from the NFA under the guise of "budget policy" is not acceptable. They can probably get away with changing the tax, but removing things from legislation was never going to fly and a few people were talking about that weeks ago when HPA and SHORT were added. Turns out they were right.
absentblue@reddit
This is the part that seems gray to me. The NFA was passed as a tax law, the SCOTUS upheld it as a tax law at the time. The argument at the time is they had to be a tax because the clear intent was to restrict certain guns from being cheaply and easily obtained. They specifically avoided calling it a regulation or registry because even then they knew it was unconstitutional on its face.
So by all means it should qualify to be in the budget bill since it’s tax law. Now that it’s a tax law with zero tax then there’s no reason to have to register anything since the whole point of doing that originally was so it could be taxed.
PrometheusSmith@reddit
I think that you may be conflating two similar points; The tax itself and the need to register things that are taxed. It would seem that the argument that you can change the amount of a tax but not what is being taxed in a bill to change the budget, incomes, and outlays of the federal government.
The budget bill changed the amount of taxation but being a budget only bill was not able to change the process and definitions of things that are taxed. I guess the way I'm looking at it is that a budget bill can change the numbers, values, and rates of taxation, but not whether or not the government regulates and taxes things period.
antariusz@reddit
Except the Supreme Court also ruled that registration is only constitutional as part of the government’s ability to tax (who has paid, who hasn’t paid, and what has been paid)
They explicitly stated that if the government taxed it zero, then it would be unconstitutional, and that the court wouldn’t weigh in on whether 200 was a fair amount, or “any amount” was the “correct” amount required to tax, only that zero tax would have been unconstitutional, which is the point of the bill, so that it can be then ruled an unconstitutional infringement.
PrometheusSmith@reddit
Yes, but that's outside of the budget reconciliation process. If this was all an end around to get the suppressor and SBR portions of the NFA repealed, then they will have succeeded.
However they don't get to test the constitutionality of a tax in a budget reconciliation and the test of something being allowed in a budget bill is whether or not it is strictly a budget issue, not whether or not it will end with something being unconstitutional.
antariusz@reddit
Yea, exactly, I don’t understand the black pill dooming in this thread.
It’s a multistep process.
Congress did what the could do with what they have (a slim majority). Now the Supreme Court will need to do what it needs to do and uphold its own previous rulings.
tannerite_sandwich@reddit
There's no way you can think this is a calculated win. They took the SHORT act, which was an act in itself that could have completely eliminated the NFA but instead they shoved it in a budget bill which, by it being a budget bill only allows them to reduce the tax to zero, don't get me wrong that's better than nothing but what we all need to kind of fear now is the administration doing nothing about the NFA for the next 3 years and saying oh we gave the gun people a win were done now and the next democratic administration coming in and in their process of undoing all of Trump's policies, actually INCREASE the tax to what it was in the 1930s. $200 in 1934 was the equivalent of just under $5000.
If you look at the Assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, what happened was AR sales exploded which made it impossible to make a new AWB again because no dem president in their right mind would make millions of armed civilians criminals overnight. The elimination of the NFA HAS to happen he next 3 years or were screwed.
Everyone has to understand, the stock market crash of 1927 was under a Republican president which caused everyone to vote for ALL the prominent social liberal policies today, creation of social security, the FDIC, the SEC, and ding ding, the NFA. Now it's forcing the NFA to have to be repealed before the next dem admin or you know they will use this tax to make it financially impossible to purchase NFA items, just like it did 90 years ago. NFA items were largely under the radar but now they are in clear view.
antariusz@reddit
How do you think they could have passed a bill with the democrats able to filibuster anything that would have lowered gun restrictions?
GibbsSamplePlatter@reddit
citation on this? interested
illestdomer2005@reddit
That’s my silver lining hope if this passes as-is.
antariusz@reddit
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/300/506/#513
They already have precedent, they just need to uphold what the previous court established as law.
illestdomer2005@reddit
Right. Now they just need someone with standing, no? Who has been charged with illegal possession of an SBR/SBS or silencer, let GOA go to task.
DrunkenArmadillo@reddit
Do like in Thompson Center v US and send a letter to the ATF requesting to have your suppressor removed from the registry under the pretext that it serves no purpose. They will deny you and you then have standing.
antariusz@reddit
Someone with standing will be someone who fails to register a silencer AFTER THIS LAW PASSES and is then charged with owning an illegal item (10 years in prison and a felony) for not registering their silencer, despite the fee being free.
illestdomer2005@reddit
Not a lawyer, but I don’t know that it will have to wait for someone to have violated it after the law passes. Obviously, it has to pass before anything can be done about an unconstitutional law though.
chuckbuckett@reddit
Yes, they’re likely looking at how much money the atf gets from the 200 dollar stamps and wether that is enough to cover any of their operating costs (probably not because the amount hasn’t been raised in over 50 years.) This is our best chance to change the law because once they prove there’s not enough funds to keep covering the ATF processing costs of the paperwork they will stop making people register them.
PrometheusSmith@reddit
The NFA branch is on record for transferring 1.4 million suppressors in the first half of 2024. If we just assume they did the same in the second half, the NFA branch took in almost 600 million dollars for suppressors alone. The entire ATF had a 1.6 billion dollar budget in 2024, meaning that the suppressors alone covered over a third of the entire ATF's budget last year.
I think the NFA processing is pretty lucrative.
chuckbuckett@reddit
That’s not what I said. If the ATF takes over that 600 million dollars as part of their operations to process the registrations of suppressors then it doesn’t make sense for them to keep the tax at 200 when they could cut it back to 0 and also save themselves another 100 million dollars that they could have been using for other purposes.
ThePenultimateNinja@reddit
Now imagine them trying to make that same argument when the tax is $0. Hopefully this gives us a chance to get rid of the NFA once and for all.
fordag@reddit
Exactly and the people who put it in the bill knew that and knew it wouldn't pass muster.
They also knew a bunch of people who don't know any better would go along with them blaming the person whose job it is to prevent bullshit legislation from being put through.
Any-Attorney9612@reddit
Can the next administration now use budget reconciliation to re-increase the tax back to $200 or even worse to a new amount consistent with inflation?
Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit
Possibly if they get the votes, but per the map in the next 2 or 3 election cycles. Democrats are essentially locked out of a Senate majority for awhile.
Any-Attorney9612@reddit
I only ask because of the directionality. In the reconciliation they can apparently lower a tax but can they increase or introduce a tax. I guess I'm just wondering if this part can for sure stick around now without a real bill coming along to change it (which I can't imagine both sides agreeing on anything but the tamest of bills.)
EternalMage321@reddit
My understanding of how things are shaking out is that taxes can be increased or decreased in budget bills, but eliminating or adding taxes constitutes a POLICY change and needs it's own bill outside the budget to pass muster. That's good because it means they can't amend the NFA in a budget bill with simple majority to encompass an Assault Weapon Ban. It's bad because they can increase the tax to any amount they want, effectively eliminating the market.
throwawaydonut6@reddit
Yes they can raise or lower revenue related things. They always could change the cost through regular bills or budget reconciliation. Just nobody paid any attention to it since it was introduced so it just sorta stayed at $200.
maxm2317@reddit
You're not wrong. And hopefully, Democrats being locked out of a Senate majority stays that way. Forever.
mastercoder123@reddit
Yah cause the repubs are so good...
maxm2317@reddit
Yeah, not all of them are good. Romney, especially.
RandoAtReddit@reddit
Nothing is forever.
maxm2317@reddit
You're right, unfortunately.
wildraft1@reddit
Per the map? I wouldn't bet one red cent on that "logic" at this point. The VAST majority of voters aren't one issue voters, and the GOP is actively pissing off a huge chunk of their historical supporters right now. The Senate majority is most definitely in peril right now, and probably rightfully so.
FreudianStripper@reddit
That's exactly what the narrative was last voting cycle, and look at the state of politics right now
GrillinFool@reddit
That’s the narrative from a side that is hovering around 20% approval and projecting.
MyInevitableDestiny@reddit
Yea because republicans having majority has done such great things for firearms rights gtfo. BOTH sides are corrupt monstrosities that dont care about the average American.
Probate_Judge@reddit
To significantly change the law, you need a super majority.
Simple majority is why they're trying to make tax down to zero. They're taking this route because the Big Beautiful Bill is about budget, which means that it is all that can be done. This is not a bill that removes/replaces law, it adjusts taxes/fees/rates/etc.
Not being able to do anything else because they don't have a super majority is not what makes republicans corrupt.
Don't get me wrong, many are. It's just that this topic is not what makes them so.
Sabre_Actual@reddit
The Republicans aren’t implementing AWBs or running on their gun control achievements. Federal Rs being wimps doesn’t change that Republican justices gave us Heller and Bruen and Republican states are actively decreasing restrictions on ownership and carry.
IHeartSm3gma@reddit
Yep, it was tbd dems who put the short & HP text in the bill!
Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit
It most certainly has on the state level. Federal level is a different story, but if Democrats had a majority we wouldn't even be getting the $200 tax repeal 🤷
PrometheusSmith@reddit
Possibly, but you'd probably be much better off asking someone that is more well versed in legal-ese than me, as I'm just armchair quarterbacking this.
I think I recall reading something about not being able to use a sin tax to make something completely illegal, and making suppressor transfers cost $5000 would almost certainly fall into that.
Quw10@reddit
Just curious but wasn't that sort of the point of the $200 tax to begin with since back in that time period it was a pretty sizable chunk of change?
tannerite_sandwich@reddit
$200 in 1934 was the equivalent of somewhere around $4500. So think about what it would be like if you had to pay $4500 on top of your $800 suppressor. Im concerned that now this is $0 but the NFA is still in place the next liberal majority will correct the tax to be equivalent to what it was in 1934 which would be around $5000 for the stamp.
Now we absolutely have to get rid of the NFA in the next 3 years or before the next fem majority or suppressors and SBRs will 100% be harder to get.
antariusz@reddit
Straight from the mouth of the Supreme Court. It is only legal because it is a tax. All taxes make something more restricted, and it’s not the courts job to say whether a tax is excessive or not, only that a tax of zero would be unconstitutional. Which is the point of making the tax zero.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/300/506/#513
PrometheusSmith@reddit
Yeah, but the whole NFA was horribly flawed to begin with. It was originally meant to ban pistols, hence the restriction of making long guns into short, concealable guns. The inclusion of pistols was stripped out but the short barrel stuff was left in because almost every long gun in existence used a barrel over 18" at the time. The rifle thing wasn't changed until a bunch of people lobbied that the rimfire barrel length be changed to 16" and the government accidentally sold a bunch of SBRs off as surplus after WWII. Turns out that the M1 Carbine doesn't have an 18" barrel like everyone thinks, so the centerfire rifle barrel length was made to match the rimfire length of 16".
Physical__War__@reddit
Every door opens another door for a future administration and potential abuse. You think that’s bad? SCOTUS’s injunction ruling just turned executive orders into the Wild West.
ifunnywasaninsidejob@reddit
They can change the tax amount because technically the $200 fee does go into the government’s budget.
TendstobeRight85@reddit
All of your "pro-2a" representatives were well aware of this fact. They are pushing this because it lets them look like they are doing something, and allows them to blame someone else (the parliamentarian who is just doing his legally defined job) for their failures to act on the issue.
Dont be a partisan lemming. Nothing short of an actual law focused on repealing these acts, is going to undo these legal injustices. The fact that the GOP owns literally all branches of government, and still isnt removing these laws, should tell you everything you need to know about who is actually fighting for your rights.
Hold_Left_Edge@reddit
That would be all well and good IF the supreme courts hadn't previously decided that the NFA was a tax law and not a policy law.
It would have been perfectly acceptable and applicable and the GOP just let it get removed.
ValiantBear@reddit
You're not wrong. I expected the Byrd Rule to force their hands and ultimately gut HPA and SHORT. But, by invoking it, they are saying there isn't a strong enough revenue link to justify its inclusion. Back when the NFA was passed, it passed only because it was successfully passed off as a tax/revenue concern, otherwise it would have been unconstitutional. So, they can't have their cake and eat it too. It either is a tax provision that can be ruled on in a budget bill, or it isn't and it's unconstitutional. This isn't a win, sure, especially considering what could have been if it snuck through the process. But it does pave the way for future wins, hopefully.
alrashid2@reddit
The NFA is not constitutional though so it should also be a no go.
theyoyomaster@reddit
That's the lie they are telling us. The NFA is purely a tax and all registration requirements are tangential aspects directly associated with collecting said tax. It does not violate the Byrd rule in any way shape or form because as originally written, the HPA/SHORT only ever modified an existing tax. To say that it is non budget policy is 100% false and goes against nearly a century of supreme court precedent.
PrometheusSmith@reddit
That's your opinion, but the one that won the argument was that removing things from the NFA is using a budget bill to change legislation.
LiberalLamps@reddit
You are taking the partisan parliamentarians decision as fact, when it is just her opinion.
If she had been impartial and followed Supreme Court precedent the original HPA and Short act could have been included because the NFA is a tax law only. The NFA registry is only a registry of having paid the tax. When you pay the tax you get a tax stamp.
It may functionally be a gun registry, but for the purposes of the law and being constitutional the NFA is only a tax. If it was a regulatory law it would be unconstitutional. So for the parliamentarian to say it cannot be included in the tax bill because it is is regulatory and not a tax flies in the face of 90+ years of legislative and judicial history.
PrometheusSmith@reddit
Then go argue it with the parliamentarian? You're acting like I'm somehow the one responsible for it, or I'm condoning what happened. Really, I'm just as much of a bystander as you are.
The way I read it, legislation decided that suppressors and SBRs need to be taxed and legislation, not budget changes, need to be what decides that they are no longer taxed. You can change the amount of a tax but you can't decide that something is no longer eligible to be taxed with a budget change.
But like I said before, I'm not the one deciding or somehow approving what was decided. I'm just someone reading what other people wrote about what happened.
theyoyomaster@reddit
It’s not, it’s actually Justice Harlan Stone’s (later Chief Justice) opinion, joined by the entire court for a unanimous 9-0 ruling that the NFA in its entirety is purely tax based. This was 100% decided in 1937, the current parliamentarian just decided her personal opinion outweighs SCOTUS.
hbomb57@reddit
The nfa is purely a tax, if it wasn't it would be flatly unconstitutional. You can add and remove taxes not just tax rates in reconciliation. They screwed us, I'll will never vote for any of them that votes this through without the HPA or SHORT. It time they learn they have to do something for our votes other than not being democrats.
Shamcow@reddit
This was always just bait for the 2A community. They can’t use budget reconciliation to pass policies/legislation. They put it in there, knowing it would get nixed, then point their fingers at the other side for it. This is just a bait and switch.
Who will benefit the most from it NOT passing? Who will get to run on it again next election, and they pinky promise if you vote for them they’ll “do what they can?” It’s been the same old story for decades now
TheHancock@reddit
Exactly.
scroapprentice@reddit
Agreed. How do we get public lands hunters and shooters to support this while we sell off public lands? Oh let’s just loosen up some gun stuff a bit. They are already working around it anyway.
Wave the carrot to hide the stick(s)
deltavdeltat@reddit
This was a huge red herring. It was 0.5-0.75% of public land ADJACENT to residential areas to be used only for more residential area. I really hope you all are not shooting next to residential areas. Additionally, only a small part of the population can easily access these areas for hunting, shooting, etc.
k1ckstand@reddit
This isn’t the point. The point wasn’t the amount of land, the point has been the precedent. This admin has been crystal clear that they want to sell off public lands to the private sector. Once the ball gets rolling…
scroapprentice@reddit
Agreed, at the end of the day, I think the people that use it, value it and don’t want to give an inch. The people that don’t use it don’t even realize they own it and can use it any time. They believe the mike Lee line that the feds are locking us out when in reality, in my state, I’m barred from state land about 50% of the time and always welcome on fed land.
And this is coming from someone who hates the federal government. The only thing I like them for is management of public lands because they have a track record of keeping them public.
It’s sad that so many people place zero value on wild, public places and will never utilize them. Eventually, they’ll be gone but I want them to survive my kids lifetimes
scroapprentice@reddit
I disagree but you can have your opinion. I shoot on a shooting range in a population center, about 200 yards from a neighborhood. You can absolutely shoot a mile from a city.
The bill never defined population center. Is that a mountain town of 100 people or LA?
Our housing issue is in the big cities. How much BLM and NF land borders NYC, Denver, Houston?
The original bill didn’t specify the 5 miles. Was that a red herring too?
But again, you can have your opinion and I’ll have mine
antariusz@reddit
It’s a 2 step process. They can remove the tax via budget reconciliation. And then the courts can repeal the registration because it is no longer a tax, as they’ve explicitly ruled that it is only constitutional because of the fee paid.
LinuxBroDrinksAlone@reddit
This is also how they're attempting to go after fuel economy requirements, by setting the fines to $0. The agency, regulations, and reporting requirements will still exist and cost money, but at then end the companies get a fine for $0.
The HPA and SHORT provisions are a tiny consolation prize on top of a massive steaming pile of shit.
ThatBeardedHistorian@reddit
It was never a win so long as it was piggybacking that BS bill that's trying to pass, but go off single issue boy.
spatialdiffraction@reddit
A reduction in taxes makes suppressors more affordable which will increase the adoption rate. Increased ownership will increase support for elimination of the registry. It's a win, just not to the level we had hoped.
Drake_Acheron@reddit
Yeah, this is a win. The biggest enemy that I’ve seen so far to 2A is actually the 2A community. Anytime we get a win no matter how small, the loudest voice voices I hear are bitchers and moaners about how it’s not really a win because we didn’t get the whole 9 yards.
You got idiots like this simultaneously saying “our representatives don’t listen” while only telling their representative “you suck”
I’m fkn tired of it. What’s to motivate Republicans to fighting for the second amendment if every time they do, they get hate from both sides?
Sqweeeeeeee@reddit
I've done form 1 suppressors and SBRs in the past. If this passes, I'll be filing about a hundred of each to get those free tax stamps locked in, in case the tax is increased in the future.
The more in circulation, the better. And hopefully this will provide an avenue for the registration portion to be challenged as an illegal firearm registry, since it can't be called a tax registry anymore.
Arkele@reddit
Can you pre file w/o a suppressor or lower?
Sqweeeeeeee@reddit
Form 1 is to manufacture your own, and you are required to file before you start.
Form 1 suppressors may be outside the capabilities of many people, but most people are capable of making a form 1 SBR
Arkele@reddit
Ahh ok, thank you for the clarification, that makes sense. I might as well do the same even if I never complete them.
Michael1492@reddit
It's law, they don;t have the votes to repeal the NFA.
This is the first progress we've had, it may not be what we wanted, but it's a step to restoring our rights.
The Parlimentarian removed the HPA and SHORT acts, despite SCOTUS ruling the NFA a tax. Without the votes in the Senate, there's not a lot they can do.
Drake_Acheron@reddit
Yeah, this is a win. The biggest enemy that I’ve seen so far to 2A is actually the 2A community. Anytime we get a win no matter how small, the loudest voice voices I hear are bitchers and moaners about how it’s not really a win because we didn’t get the whole 9 yards.
You got idiots like this simultaneously saying “our representatives don’t listen” while only telling their representative “you suck”
I’m fkn tired of it. What’s to motivate Republicans to fighting for the second amendment if every time they do, they get hate from both sides?
BlackbeltKevin@reddit
Yet they can ignore the parliamentarian when it comes to removing Medicare for trans treatment.
akbuilderthrowaway@reddit
There's little guarantee that it would work. If they did override, any one Democrat could make a point of order, and then it would suddenly need 60 votes again. Vance could, I believe, ignore it, but thats kinda a nuclear option. That's a can of worms they don't want in the senate.
It's much more likely that if the parliamentarian gets replaced, it's when all the dust settles and eyes are off the process again.
DarthMonkey212313@reddit
Except that didn't happen. That got changed/removed too.
halo121usa@reddit
THIS ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
MrPBH@reddit
Yeah, but the children or something. We gotta protect them from drag queens guys! /s
JollyHateGiant@reddit
They didn't try to push it through even when they had the votes. Neither side, at the federal level, want to return our freedoms.
Diligent-Parfait-236@reddit
They have never had the votes.
ItamiKira@reddit
They had the votes in trumps first term.
Galen_Meric@reddit
You need 60 votes to push through something. In Trump's first term, they had either 51 or 53 votes. If you are going to make a claim, at least do a super quick Google search first.
e7ang@reddit
I’m sure most these dudes don’t know what the filibuster or cloture is. I doubt most have even heard the terms before. Nothing but pitchforks and ignorance around these parts.
JollyHateGiant@reddit
Do you guys really think you're so much more brilliant than others to know what a filibuster is and the requirement to get around it? You're bringing up a point that most of America learned in middle school.
Besides the condescending tone, let's look at the facts. After 2016, Republicans had a simple majority in the House, Senate, and won the presidency.
This is on top of the fact that the presidency's campaign included a platform of supporting the HPA. Weird how when Republicans had the power, it was never brought to the floor.
Anyone defending these shit bags are simply coping. Fuck bipartisan politics. Let's bring actual improvement to this country, vote out any Democrats and Republicans. Vote independent from here on out...
e7ang@reddit
Seeing how the vast majority of people in this thread seem to believe a simple majority is enough to pass this bill, then yes I do think I’m more knowledgeable on this subject.
Diligent-Parfait-236@reddit
>"Everyone knows what the filibuster is and the requirement to end it!"
>thinks a simple majority is enough
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
Like I said. One reason why I hate political parties.
asoupo77@reddit
The best way forward is mass noncompliance. Fuck the government. Both teams.
Drake_Acheron@reddit
Nah fuck that man.
This is a win. The biggest enemy that I’ve seen so far to 2A is actually the 2A community. Anytime we get a win no matter how small, the loudest voice voices I hear are bitchers and moaners about how it’s not really a win because we didn’t get the whole 9 yards.
You got idiots like this simultaneously saying “our representatives don’t listen” while only telling their representative “you suck”
I’m fkn tired of it. What’s to motivate Republicans to fighting for the second amendment if every time they do, they get hate from both sides?
halo121usa@reddit
I’m in the same boat with you, but… No one will do it because we are all scared of the government
I thought the whole idea of the second amendment was for the government to be afraid of us..
Everybody makes fun of the Democrats for going out in protesting and closing down streets
Imagine what would happen if 10,000 people with illegal short bell rifles showed up on the street
I bet your money the cops wouldn’t start firing rubber bullets 🤷♂️
bangstitch@reddit
You dont need to show up on the street and flaunt your suppressor to take part of the non compliance movement. Plenty of people are already not complying but you would never know because you dont need to present your tax stamp or lack of every time you use it.
lilcoold12345@reddit
That type of non compliance won't get anywhere. You'll just get arrested the next time a cop happens to pull you over and you'll lose your rights forever.
Thousands of people carrying rifles telling the goverment to go fuck themselves could see change.
TacticalMaverick7@reddit
That happened in Virginia, in 2020. Thousands showed up and were ignored
lilcoold12345@reddit
Well that's not completely true. There were AWB's and magaginze restriction in there which were then taken out. The red flag BS passed but it could've been much worse if Nobody showed up.
NiceGuysFinishLast@reddit
At my range you do... Sad face.
halo121usa@reddit
And that’s why most gun ranges suck big donkey nuts…
We have a bunch of ranges around here like that. They think that they are the “gun police” ..
NiceGuysFinishLast@reddit
To be fair, somebody did something very illegal that got atte tiom from multiple 3 letter agencies. The owner is covering his ass and I understand it, even if I don't like it. The range is his livelihood, he's protecting himself.
Still, fuck the ATF.
bangstitch@reddit
What was that?
NiceGuysFinishLast@reddit
Things that shooty faster than normal.
bangstitch@reddit
I thought there was a specific indecent that had been newsworthy or something. I understood that aspect.
CrankyOperator@reddit
Jeeeezus that sucks. If any range ever asked for my papers, that's it, fuck them lol. Wild and sad.
TheHancock@reddit
You won’t at mine!
c-lab21@reddit
That's why I shoot on BLM land.
... For now.
TacticalMaverick7@reddit
That happened in Virginia 5 or 6 years ago.
CrankyOperator@reddit
Yes. I say that as someone with A LOT to lose. Fuck it. Sadly, suppressors aren't something most can easily just make (vs an SBR.)
Fragbob@reddit
Anyone with a 3d printer and a little experience can 3d print a fully functional suppressor. The plans are available for free on the internet if you know where to look and there are communities like /r/fosscad devoted to shit like this.
CrankyOperator@reddit
I'd argue that's still not what most would consider "easily."
Is it super hard? No. Most won't go through all the trial and error etc. especially when you consider the time to learn. Internet nerds? Yes. Most people? No.
Fragbob@reddit
You're thinking of 3d printing 5 years ago. 3d printing now is extremely accessible. Like the newer generation of printers are essentially 100% plug and play.
If you're smart enough to do basic maintenance on your gun you're smart enough to run a 3d printer.
CrankyOperator@reddit
I don't disagree, but truly most people over 30 will not simply due to any effort and time. It's still not plug and play.
unclefisty@reddit
And the ATF will happily shoot you, your dog, your wife, and your infant child.
c0lew0rldd@reddit
Shoot back
LiberalLamps@reddit
Everyone in the country should be issued an M1 Garand with two enbloc clips of black tip .30-06
Can't think of a better way to make police think twice about no knock warrants and getting the right address when trying to raid a house.
JimmyQuickhand@reddit
If you can shoot back at the ATF for more than 15 minutes you’re legally allowed to leave
CrankyOperator@reddit
THIS IS THE HACK THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!
c0lew0rldd@reddit
I let out an audible chuckle for that one
TheHancock@reddit
Based
Milksmither@reddit
You can shoot back, but you can never win. They will just escalate until you're destroyed.
Hope you don't have family in the house.
c0lew0rldd@reddit
If they’ve already taken my family, I’ve got nothing to live for anyway lol. It’s about defiance more than anything. Fuck the alphabet boys.
TheHancock@reddit
Came here to say this…
Ignore my flair! Lol
Belkan-Federation95@reddit
Why would anyone be desperate enough for sex to do that? (Sorry exhausted and in pain. Humor is broken)
Belkan-Federation95@reddit
The best way forward is to get ranked choice voting or something like that passed so that third parties have more of a chance, then starting one that appeals to gun owners on both sides.
Sit_back_and_panic@reddit
I agree completely, but we know that’s not going to happen. I despise both wings of this shitty bird just like anybody else, but I’m also under no illusion that we’re gonna take any kind of risky stand like that
c0lew0rldd@reddit
Way too much surveillance. We’d be deemed as domestic terrorists. Snowden proved it
Drake_Acheron@reddit
Shut the fk up OP and take the small god damn wins we can.
FFS it’s assholes like you that drag us down. The 2A fight will be 150x more successful by praising every tiny chip we make, just like the tyrants cheered every chip at our rights.
Reported. Hopefully this BS gets taken down.
If every time we get a tiny win, all our representatives hear is bitchers and moaners like you, they aren’t going to want to pursue 2A issues.
diprivanity@reddit
Week old account massively karma farming? This sub is being narrative formed by bots.
emperor000@reddit
Glad I'm not the only one that recognizes this.
HuskyKMA@reddit
It's most definitely still a win. You "all-or-nothing" types do more harm than a lot of Democrats.
emperor000@reddit
Lol. Most of these all or nothing types ARE Democrats blackpilling and astroturfing.
GALACTON@reddit
Agreed
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
BS
emperor000@reddit
There are no real wins in politics anymore.
Do you guys get paid to astrlturf and blackpill like this or is it a volunteer type of thing?
FortyFiveCentSurgeon@reddit
All the comments here don’t understand how policy and politics works. This is football, a game of inches, and we win (or lose) over decades of time. Occasionally we get a huge play and move the ball 40 yards but the majority of the time it’s not how to win. The playbook is about getting first downs, not hail mary passes with low success rate.
I’d love nothing more than to see the NFA repealed entirely but it’s a low probability win, and we have to push for whatever inches we can get, and then plan for the next set of downs after that.
absolutely_not_ATF@reddit
So is this a punt? A 2 yrd run on first down? A tipped pass that was almost intercepted but knocked down?
FortyFiveCentSurgeon@reddit
Haha 😆
Naw. We have possession still it’s just a new set of downs.
Congress needs to act. Or challenges in the courts. Those are next two plays in the playbook.
kingholio6092@reddit
If you have to ask permission it isn’t a right
Own-Contribution-188@reddit
Bets on this not this not getting resolved before a Democrat led Congress and presidency and they do the same thing, but instead drastically increase the tax portion?
onewade@reddit
They would have to have both houses and then it's not that easy. However, the goal is to have them completely removed before then. In reality, the court might be the best option
Stellakinetic@reddit
So, I see what he’s saying though. If a $0 tax is the best we can hope for, it may help in later legal cases. The whole reason the NFA is a “tax”, is because otherwise it would be unconstitutional regulation, so they disguised the regulation as a “tax”. If we can get the actual monetary value of the tax removed, it would make it a lot easier to argue that it’s not actually a tax, and that it is in fact an unconstitutional regulation which infringes on the 2nd amendment. If you aren’t charging money, it’s harder to argue that something is “simply a tax”, and not a veiled regulation.
TheHancock@reddit
You guys know mass non-compliance could work…?
HK_Mercenary@reddit
You wanna be the first one arrested for not complying? Cause not many people do.
TheHancock@reddit
I started my company to get machine guns to the masses. To dispel the stigma around guns. I’m doing my part.
Straight_Variation_3@reddit
Are you time traveling to 1986 or something?
TheHancock@reddit
Come shoot machine guns with us, or buy an FRT from us, (or 37mm launchers, flamethrowers, flashbangs, teargas grenades, and more!).
Our law enforcement training facility is open to the public because no one should be limited in access or training because they are “just civilians”.
RevolutionaryMail303@reddit
They went from “we are charging you money to infringe on your rights” to “we will infringe on your rights for free”.
Starman562@reddit
Look smart guy, either you’re committed to gun rights 100% and already have a suppressed minigun, or you understand that this is a country with laws and legislation is the way to make things last. Either way, snark is pointless and you’re simply demeaning people putting in the work. You expect politicians who hate your right to own guns to suddenly come to the table and give you back the unimpeded right to a suppressed short barrel rifle because the Constitution tells them to? What, were you born yesterday?
RevolutionaryMail303@reddit
You sure told me lol. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself that this is a good thing. Let’s face it these congressmen are hoping they could buy our silence with this. Removing the tax was never the point and everyone knows it, even if you try to convince yourself otherwise. The whole purpose was to remove the ask daddy for permission part, but they think that if they save us $200 that we will shut up and color. So respectfully, take your self righteous school marming and fuck off.
akbuilderthrowaway@reddit
It is. It's it the best it could have been? No. But it is progress.
If there was a zero dollar tax for the last 91 years, do you honestly think nfa items would be a "rare" as they are now? No. The tax absolutely does make a difference to the bottom line of this situation.
DrZedex@reddit
That's...still objectively better
Mayes041@reddit
Ya, I understand the disappointment going from it looking like the Hearing and Short acts were going through to only removing the cost. But that's not nothing. Between recently improved wait times and now (hopefully) the removal of a $200 tax stamp, shorties and suppressors are going to become WAY more common. And once suppressors and SBRs are in common use, well, there's a chance. Again, I get the disappointment, but political progress is a frustrating quarter step forward, eighth step back sorta deal. This is a win, it's smaller, but it is ripe to grow. Don't quit making noise about the problems, but crack a beer and get a tax-free can
CoffeeExtraCream@reddit
It's not about the money. It's about the registry.
Mayes041@reddit
I'd say it's both. The more people with practical shorter firearms, and quieter firearms, the harder they're going to be to regular. If you had a list of all 400 millions guns in the US, how useful is it really? It's a practical step forward. Also any potential resistance against the government isn't hurt by SBR or suppressor restrictions. You can get both without the government knowing if you want and it's not even hard.
akbuilderthrowaway@reddit
Let's not pretend like their digitized database of 4473's isn't searchable either. They have a registry for normal guns. Ultimately, the nfa at this point just makes it impossible to import nfa items, more annoying paperwork, and wait times.
illestdomer2005@reddit
Said it in a separate comment, but I am concerned wait times go back to shit because…no longer getting tax revenue…
DrZedex@reddit
I agree that this has the potential to be a real problem. Especially after doge does it's thing forks everything up and leaves the ATF unable to do the one thing we actually need it to do.
I can only hope to get a tall stack of Form 1 before the end of Trumps term as a hedge against future forkery.
I'm willing to roll the dice on it though. Free stamps will likely lead to a huge uptick in sales and that can only be good in the long run. The more people have these things, the more the public will realize they're not actually a problem, much less one worth expending political capital to try to ban/regulate.
amanke74@reddit
I don't even think the common use test will apply. US v. Ross 1972 determined that the registration serves only to aid in the enforcement of the tax. Basically the NFA is only a tax bill but the items are registered so they know who to levy the tax against. Once the tax is gone, the registration has no purpose. It should be relatively easy to get a federal court to strike it down, especially since now it's straight up gun control and the bruen decision clearly states how to decide those
NH_Lion12@reddit
It's made it accessible to a lot more people.
nick200117@reddit
It’s the biggest problem with the 2A community, every win we get gets shat on because it’s not a total win. Years and years of infringement is not going to be magically fixed, we have to chip away at it like they chipped away at our rights
PlayingDoomOnAGPS@reddit
Amen! Take what we can get and immediately come back for more. It's worked for them for 80+ years. Now it's our turn.
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
Yep! It's still infringement!
e7ang@reddit
Sure it is. It’s a 200 dollar win.
justlookinatshit@reddit
I think this just said precedence that the fee can be changed what stops it from being 10,000 in a few years..
LegendActual@reddit
Alternatively it makes the NFA an illegal gun registry under the 86 FOPA instead of a legal tax registry.
Galen_Meric@reddit
Exactly! And also it makes it super basic Texas v US territory.
justlookinatshit@reddit
I believe the Supreme Court just shut down the ability for District cords to hold things up nationwide, which will affect us for firearms significantly
Seared_Gibets@reddit
I know they did something about dc's posing injunctions nationwide in regards to EO's, but what else did they attach?
LegendActual@reddit
I thought it was individual local courts not the districts?
Belkan-Federation95@reddit
Isn't that a good thing?
halo121usa@reddit
You hit the nail on the head… As soon as Democrats regain power,
These people’s precious tax stamp is going to be $10,000
But it’s constitutional because you know… Tax
🤷♂️
DanBrino@reddit
This bullshit all started with Alexander Hamilton's broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. The claws written by James madison, and then elaborated on in many debates, letters, and even the Federalist papers.
It was only ever supposed to include the things written directly after it in Article 1 Section 8, but the first leftist ruined this country from the beginning.
DasKapitalist@reddit
You realize the Democrats tried to assassinate the current president...twice...right? Do you really think budget reconciliation precedent is going to give them a lot of pause?
They hate the 2A, they dont care about law or precedent, so you have to assume they'll do anything to disarm you.
halo45601@reddit
That would require the Democrats to have a trifecta and the will to actually try it in a reconciliation bill. That isn't to say that couldn't try, but they always could've tried. It looks doubtful that the Democrats are going to regain the Senate anytime soon. The only reason they were able to maintain a majority at all was because of their luck in holding seats in West Virginia and Montana. Those states are probably not going to elect another Democrat for Senate for decades.
Democrats have plenty of vulnerable seats in swing states too. Georgia is likely to flip back to have at least one Republican senator in the next few election cycles. Plus flippable seats in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania. Republicans have some too obviously, with Maine being the most likely D pickup in the near future, but the the Dems have really made a series of historical blunders in losing the ability to be even competitive in a lot of states.
halo121usa@reddit
The last time Democrats controlled the presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate was during the 111th Congress, from January 2009 to January 2011, under President Barack Obama.
Don’t act like that wasn’t very long ago !
You will see a $10,000 tax stamp
halo45601@reddit
Uh no, the Democrats had a slim trifecta in 117th Congress which was 2021-2023 until they narrowly lost the house in the 2022 midterms. My point being, both recent Democratic trifectas were dependent on them holding seats that are no longer competitive to the Democratic party.
Also by that same logic, the Republicans could just reset the tax stamp back to $0 the next time they hold a trifecta. It would be pointless and just serve to invigorate support for Republicans. Although I wouldn't put it past the Democratics to try something so pointlessly hostile to the second amendment.
The trifecta from 08 was partially from exceptional circumstances, but also the democratic party in 2008 was far more conservative and held Senate seats in states that would be unimaginable in 2025 such as:
South Dakota Missouri Indiana Louisiana Nebraska Florida TWO in West Virginia TWO in Montana
halo121usa@reddit
Whatever makes you feel better about your logic, bro…
The Republicans have a “slim trifecta “ right now… and they could’ve used that to do some good. But they’re not going to so why the fuck are we even talking about this?
Aeropro@reddit
The tax could already be changed. Though it’s not ideal, perfect is the enemy of good enough.
I would love for congress + Trump yo pass a constitutional law, but really, it’s up to the Supreme Court to strike down the NFA, and it’s had almost 100 years to do that. Honestly, US vs Miller should have had farther reaching implications than it had, as terrible of a hearing that was; the 2A still should have come out ahead.
Individual7091@reddit
Why do you think there needs to be precedent for that? That was always a possibility.
justlookinatshit@reddit
I will be honest this is not been a point of research for me prior to the past week or so. Seeing as it’s the first time it has changed is added concern for me
DrZedex@reddit
That was true before and this doesn't change that in any way
sugarsmaxx@reddit
This is important and why we should not celebrate this change.
SgtToadette@reddit
Tactically I can see this being a net gain. It’s not perfect, but if handled properly can be a stepping stone towards more concrete wins.
Given the short lead times on approvals, reducing the cost has to potential to expand ownership of NFA items. That can build a more robust market and give us more people with real skin in the game.
There’s a lot of people on the sidelines who have put off getting a can or SBR because of the cost and paperwork involved. The paperwork end has become more streamlined thanks to companies like Silencer Shop, and with no stamp cost, there’s very little reason not to start considering a can as a standard accessory like an optical sight or light.
All that means when the issue comes up again, we have more people making phone calls and we can change the culture by normalizing ownership.
gannon7015@reddit
Just here for the comments. You guys crack me up.
Fannagly@reddit
Shut the fuck up and take ground where you can already
Plastic-Turnip-8539@reddit
This is why politicians dont fucking listen to us. Because any progress they get which isn't much but its still something you go and bitch about. Even if they handed you a full auto AK you would complain still. They can't just go poof and its all perfect. It takes fucking time. Shut your mouth and stop bitching.
Psychopomp66@reddit
I called this as soon as it was announced. It wouldn't pass because it had nothing to do with budget reconciliation, it was only meant to galvanize support from single issue voters.
Deleter182AC@reddit
Hmm if I had to trade off the procces of 200$ for still signing I’m fine with that because if they even add that on a form 1 it be great . Though does this affect also for creating or buying Destructive devices ?
PingCarGaming@reddit
Are they still trying to seel protected land?
Sweaty_Pianist8484@reddit
Man why is it so hard for me as a law abiding citizen to own an automatic weapon
RamenBoi86@reddit
It’s still a win, we can’t expect full deregulation and be unwilling to accept small victories. Small victories over time from antigunners are how we have gotten here in the first place. So realistically that’s how we’re going to gain those back
Swimming_Schedule_49@reddit
Horrifically heartbroken, but I appreciate the folks who tried. Fire the parliamentarian immediately.
RedJamie@reddit
Why would you fire the parliamentarian over this
Swimming_Schedule_49@reddit
Be she “the appointee” made the unilateral decision to exclude it from the bill saying it didn’t relate to the budget. Removing a $200 tax she sounds budget related
midweststressed@reddit
So the move here, by their own logic, is for Republicans to pass a change to the NFA that they say is unconstitutional, so that they can do some case fabrication and judge shopping and allegedly get the whole NFA thrown out. This is a bald faced lie to sell you their plan to gut healthcare and hook their rich donors up with massive tax breaks. The odds of you getting unregulated suppressors and SBRs out of this bill are almost nonexistent, the courts will just revert the law back to it's original state if anything. This is a group of red blooded Americans, right? Y'all need to wake up. They're not taking money from welfare queens in the hood, they're running off with your rural childbirth and elderly care coverage. SBRs are a fight, but the suppressor thing is an issue that's winnable with good communication and will pull the momentum in the right direction. Don't fall for a gimmick because you've circle jerked yourselves into this ridiculous uproar about all regulations being illegal, when you could actually gain credibility for once by beating Democrats up on the sensibility of suppressors.
Hold_Left_Edge@reddit
I WANT MY CAKE BACK!
Pitiful-Raspberry-68@reddit
Its better than nothing, im taking the win
boogerpicker556@reddit
I'm disappointed too. But our rights have been lost one tiny piece at a time, we can get them back the same way.
mjsisko@reddit
You aren’t getting anything back!
boogerpicker556@reddit
Not with that attitude
mjsisko@reddit
Sorry you don’t like reality. What do you think you are getting? List it out.
boogerpicker556@reddit
Eliminating the tax for a can or SBR would be a win. It's a half win compared to deregulation, but it's better than no win and maybe it's something we can build on. Or just be angry and give up.
mjsisko@reddit
Except it’s not, if this actually passes any name brand can will either be out of stock for the next three years or triple the price. Manufacturers aren’t going to invest to expand production knowing that democrats will just put the tax back and increase it when they return to power which they will. This is a net loss
To those downvoting me, intelligent people all agree that this isn’t the way to do this and this will end up taking More from us.
TheGreatTesticle@reddit
It defeats the "it's not a restriction, it's a tax" argument. In theory it's even more unconstitutional than it was before now.
ShortGuess2387@reddit
It was never a win when you factor in the selling of millions of acres of public land and parks.
Sfisch91@reddit
That's already been removed.
Disco_Biscuit12@reddit
Honestly it’s better than nothing. I’d rather this be finalized in 2-6 years than never, which is where it would have gone if it gets entirely removed from the BBB
theEdward234@reddit
This is not even close to the win. Many people who were going to pay 200 anyway, will just go about their day thinking that 2a for a win because now it's free. I would rather pay 200 extra and now have to deal with NFA bullshit that shit. Wtf.
alrashid2@reddit
200 dollars is a range day's worth of ammo.
I'd rather pay $1000 and not register
thenovicemechanic@reddit
OP, we've seen a fair bit of this ragebait over the last couple days and many disagree with your sediment over this not being a win.
However, I do have a request: Would you care to explain why your profile is exactly seven days old and how you already have 10k karma? Your post history makes me quite suspicious.
J7mm@reddit
Omg did we find a fed in the wild?
rock_the_Glock@reddit
Facts.
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
I'm a New Yorker, I don't owe you anything
BaronBexar1824@reddit
I want a big DUB, but I will take a small dub if I can get it. I don't want to encourage anyone to lick the boot, but if the Republican Senators stick their neck out to pass this AND actually get criticized by their base for it, how likely will they be to stick their neck out next time something like this comes along?
AltGunAccount@reddit
My state bans any and all NFA items, so removing the tax does absolutely nothing here as it’s still illegal to own anyway.
Feels like we don’t get many wins, Bruen was supposed to make all states allow citizens to carry, I still can’t legally carry here and many states are the same.
At what point have we just lost and it’s time to admit bureaucracy doesn’t work if the bureaucrats aren’t willing to play ball, and they never will be?
BeenisHat@reddit
This is a win. It's a small win, but you guys really need to learn to take the W's when they come along. The Supreme Court has been ignoring valid cases recently, hoping the 2nd Amendment stuff will die down. Not surprising given how much Trump hates the gun owners in the USA and wants to ignore due process.
Throwing a tantrum and calling out elected representatives, especially when it looks like congress is going to flip next year is really not a great plan.
HSR47@reddit
SCOTUS isn’t “hoping this will die down”, they’re hoping that they don’t have to be the first & only branch of government weighing in on the side of individual liberty on this issue.
If this change actually passes into law, and if the U.S. DOJ started suing states over anti-gun policies, it would signal to SCOTUS that the legislative & executive branches are onboard with restoring RKBA, which would likely get SCOTUS to start hearing more 2A cases, and deciding favorably on them.
LeGrandeBehike@reddit
Now the NFA is there forever
HSR47@reddit
Hard disagree.
First, this will massively expand the reach of NFA—It’s not just the $200 poll tax, it’s all the incentives wrapped up in it that incentivize people to demand higher quality/higher performance products, while also ensuring that no secondary market exists.
The removal of those incentives, and the removal of the biggest regulatory block on the resale market, will result in tons of options for cheaper NFA items, which will expand the number of NFA items registered & sold, and the number of registrants at a pace faster than we’ve ever seen before.
Second, it opens new grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the NFA as a whole, since the existing precedent makes it abundantly clear that it’s the “tax” that makes the NFA “constitutional”.
Congressional action to remove that legal fig leaf will almost certainly result in the courts declaring the NFA unconstitutional with respect to everything Congress nixes the tax on.
Additionally, if the court does that, there is a nonzero chance that the resulting jurisprudence opens up a clear opportunity to challenge 922(o) (i.e. the so-called “Hughes amendment” which has been interpreted as a ban on machineguns made/registered after May 19th, 1986), which might actually end up being successful.
If that happens, would you consider it to be a win?
DrZedex@reddit
Unlike it was yesterday? It was already here forever, at least now it's cheaper
HolyShitidkwtf@reddit
All or nothing. This is a tax, and taxes are susceptible to change in this bill. Eliminate the NFA all together.
AKC74Y@reddit
Bunch of absolute knobs arguing that a $0 tax is not a win.
It’s a huge gargantuan fucking win. Massive. Now Joe Blow with his 5 AR pistols can make them into 5 SBR’s. Any Neanderthal with a 3D printer can churn out form 1 silencers all day long. There’s nearly no reason not to SBR every single AR lower or handgun you own. There’s no reason not to buy cheap, consumable silencers.
Not only does that have implications for “common use” in a future SCOTUS case, but it’s also pushing the needle in favor of NFA items for the whole culture. SBR’s and silencers won’t be exotic, they’re going to be much more available.
Getting mad because the paperwork is still a PITA is understandable, but don’t pretend like this isn’t a huge step in the right direction.
Sal_Ardeat@reddit
Imagine trying to push forward this horrible Bill for peanuts regarding 2A. Massive tunnel vision.
Sorimatsu@reddit
It's a win in that you don't need to pay the damn tax.
mjsisko@reddit
It’s a major loss in that once democrats are back in power they will bring the tax right back the same way but increase it to be equal to what it was, currently that stands at 4800$. This can only be properly done via a bill that repeals the NFA. Anything else is a net loss for gun owners
Jos_Meid@reddit
By that logic, if democrats got back in power, why wouldn’t they repass the NFA if you repealed it?
mjsisko@reddit
Because that would require a full vote which they won’t get, same reason republicans won’t even try. Using budget tricks to get around the 60 vote means they are allowed to do the same thing. Once precedent is set it’s very hard to undo.
Peacemkr45@reddit
It's ALWAYS the same bullshit. "We did what we could do but the other side thwarted our efforts. If we had more money, we could push even harder next time... Blah Blah Blah". Screw them. If you can't get the job done on a clean bill, you get primaried and are then forced to live under the policies you pushed down on the serfs.
spicyfartsquirrel@reddit
It is a step in the right direction even if we all, including myself, want them removed from the NFA.
It is easy to be critical when we dont see the gains we would like. Those liberties werent lost all in one go but in small bits. Which often they must be regained in steps as well.
I would love a once and done, but often the back lash makes it worse. Only using this as an example not covering this topic. Pro life pushed for a complete ban on abortion in believe wisconsin or Michigan. They got hit with massive back lash and resulted in a bill being passed allowing even later term abortions then was previously legal. So I would love them completely off but know it must be done carefully to prevent a backlash where significant ground is lost
james_lpm@reddit
For fuck’s sake people!
This is a budget reconciliation bill. Take the win. Under normal rules we wouldn’t even get this far.
It’s literally more than a century of anti-gun legislation that has been built up. We are not going to dismantle all of the in one law or one presidency.
awdorrin@reddit
I think it is a good step forward. Another battle won, towards the ultimate goal.
IHeartSm3gma@reddit
Yes it fucking is you morons.
The gun community never accomplished a goddamn thing because you all can’t accept anything less than perfection and throw a fit when only good pops up
gwhh@reddit
It’s a dirty, but solid win.
KrinkyDink2@reddit
Budget bills are never a win. You’re always getting bent over on taxes and your kids future is getting sold off consistently every time. “Winning” was never even on the menu. Something even remotely positive for gun rights in a pork filled budget bill is relatively new though.
Clarkearthur601@reddit
Nobody needs SBRs and silencers. I don’t know why everyone is getting upset.
PrometheusSmith@reddit
Nobody needs to hear? That's a new one for me. Many local departments and branches of the military are deciding that silencers are basically mandatory for the health and well being of anyone who uses one.
Also, why should it matter that my rifle has a 15" barrel instead of a 16" barrel? Or a 14" or a 12" or any size? A rifle is a rifle. So long as pistols are legal then any size is kosher, and the only debate is whether or not the rear end of the rifle should be against my shoulder or not.
Clarkearthur601@reddit
Sure. You’re just trying to find excuses and loopholes for your unhealthy obsession. Come on man. Get some help bro.
PrometheusSmith@reddit
I don't give a single fuck as to what you think of my hobby.
Clarkearthur601@reddit
Well enjoy your hobby for now. Eventually they will become illegal as the should be. You just cant stop logical progress in society.
Dry_Cat5325@reddit
It's a step in the right direction
Jos_Meid@reddit
These kinds of posts annoy me “Oh, Republican law doesn’t give me everything I want right now, even though it makes the situation way better than it was before? I guess Republicans are just as bad as Democrats who want to actively oppose what I want.” That’s what you sound like right now. Instead of complaining that not everything is great, maybe make some recommendations? Or continue to pretend that the parties are equivalent. Purity politics is the enemy of actually doing any good.
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
Keep kissing the boot
Jos_Meid@reddit
Ah yes, the oppressive boot of checks notes reducing firearms restrictions.
halo121usa@reddit
Why do you think I’m saying that I’m pretty much done voting.
Both parties only give a shit about themselves… None of them give a fuck about us so what’s the point?
You’re literally proving my argument
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
I'm NPA for good reason
B1893@reddit
Yeah, the NFA will remain, which sucks, but I see eliminating the $200 tax as a small win - for the time being.
Unfortunately, when the majority flips, I can also see the democrats not only putting the $200 stamps back, but increasing it to an insanely high cost.
They'll sell it as "adjusting for inflation," which would be about $4800, and I don't think it was be an uphill battle like a federal AWB.
ExoticGeologist@reddit
Democrats have attempted to raise the NFA tax and adjust it for inflation before. It's not like the NFA was a sacred cow before the Democrats wouldn't touch.
skylinesora@reddit
OP is the type to believe all or nothing. No middle ground exist. I’d rather steady progress than no progress at all
ExoticGeologist@reddit
Gun control has won for decades by progressing one bill at a time, we should do the same.
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
Steady progress? No. It's compromise. That's exactly what you're okay with.
elevenpointf1veguy@reddit
If you expect to win a century long war in exactly one battle, then I got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
We lost our rights incredimentally - we have been STEADILY regaining them incrementally, and this is a massive victory on that front.
Dont let perfect be the enemy of good enough, today.
Now we have good standing to challenge this in the courts for the first time in nearly a century.
unlock0@reddit
This is actually worse because if it’s $0 then how can you argue it’s an unconstitutional tax?
antariusz@reddit
Because the Supreme Court literally said that they aren’t in the business of ruling on what an appropriate amount of taxation is (that is the job of the legislature to assess taxes) but only that a tax of zero dollars would be unconstitutional.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/300/506/
illestdomer2005@reddit
So I will start by saying Andrew Clyde is my rep; so, I am biased, but I think he’s the best friend we have. I still want the House to add HPA and SHORT back and send it back to the Senate again, but if Senate GOP (Thune) won’t dismiss the parliamentarian, we’re probably not making any headway.
Taking the tax down to $0 shows that this was just a ruse to get a registry instead of actually generating revenue. You would then love to think this sets up very well for anyone with a felony suppressor, SBR, or SBS charge to challenge the NFA as unconstitutional.
My practical concerns (beyond rights) is that taking the tax to $0 means fewer resources to approve stamps along with whatever terror combining ATF with DEA represents. I haven’t followed enough of the other items gutted that may have been added back to have a strong feeling about BBB, but I am inclined to want it to fail without HPA and SHORT.
Thatsthatandchicken@reddit
It's called chipping away. All or nothing doesn't happen. Take the small win and prepare for the next one.
boogiedownbronxite@reddit (OP)
It's not a win
antariusz@reddit
It’s literally the same thing the left did to erode gun rights, so it’s the same thing we can do to restore them.
toreadorranger@reddit
It is certainly not a loss.
ToiletTime4TinyTown@reddit
Not a win. If they can decide this legislative period “the fee goes from $200 to $0 “they can just as easily decide next session “the fee goes from $0 to $10,000. These people are so addicted to power over us they will claw and scratch to keep from giving it up.
gordonfactor@reddit
With the Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress this is something they could absolutely push through if they really wanted to. I don't think they will, it's one of those issues that gets the base excited and motivated to vote for them and then it's an easy thing to cop out on and claim some bureaucratic or other shenanigans. Both sides are filled with career criminals that lie and manipulate for money and power. If you don't think that is a bipartisan thing then you're kidding yourself.
Physical__War__@reddit
NFA still in place. Billionaire tax breaks. Billions in funding cut to hospitals in rural areas. $2.5 trillion estimated deficit balloon. Big fucking turd 💩
ellieket@reddit
Save $200, get $2T further in debt. Cool.
Spartan_Shie1d@reddit
You're a fool for not seeing this as a win.
Repealing a 100 year old law would be an insanely drawn out process, especially one tied to gun control. Legislatures always balk at repealing long standing laws.
A SCOTUS decision would be much faster and more likely.
vuther_316@reddit
Will I agree that this is very disappointing, it does at least open the door to a legal challenge against the NFA. I believe SCOTUS originally upheld the NFA as constitutional because it was a tax, if the tax becomes $0, then that justification goes away.
renasancedad@reddit
This whole thing is a sham, I appreciate the legislation on 2A but why try and add it to a Budget Bill where it’s already been flagged by the Parliamentarian. Have the balls to present the bill on its own merit, and address the budget needs individually as well so either will have real chance. Hiding stuff in a 1000 page bill is exactly what we don’t need.
8064r7@reddit
Because they can't pass anything that isnt simple majority since we are now in decade 2 of lame duck congresses.
8064r7@reddit
I agree, these are distractions, not victories in private firearm access/ownership.
Further agree that the politicization & using of firearm access/ownership as a bargaining chip doesn't reasonably make progress for anyone wherever you fall in your opinions.
2A also grows weaker every day of this administration as other implied rights enshrined by the bill of rights are eroded/manipulated.
In the future it will only take a single very rich donor or collective of donors to successfully lobby 1 of the major parties to erode the current legal precedents & understanding of 2A. This should deeply trouble pro-private ownership & Constitutionalists everywhere.
alcoholicprogrammer@reddit
Keep calling your reps + majority leader Thune. Keep leaving messages (respectfully, so it's not filtered out) bitching about this and let them know this is not a compromise that you're ok with. It only takes 10 minutes to leave a message and you can do it while you're heating up your lunch, working on your yard, or taking a shit in the bathroom. Keep the pressure on, or they'll walk away from this thinking they actually got a win. Let them know you're unhappy and that they'll lose your support at the midterms if they don't push harder on this.
Senate switch board: (202) 224-3121
Senate majority leader John Thune's office number: (202) 224-2321
sttbr@reddit
Is it what we wanted? No, but it absolutely is a WIN
Considering that the two biggest historical hurdles to suppressor ownership will now be gone (time and money) people are gonna start buying the shit out of them, and that absolutely is a good thing.
FunSpongeLLC@reddit
Win: better gun laws
Lose: Walmart's and condos in the places you used to shoot and hunt
matadorobex@reddit
Yeah, this still maintains the idea that the state can regulate firearms, which it has no constitutional authority to do.
livewire98801@reddit
it's not a win, but it does move the ball down the field.
I'd rather have the full versions, but I'll take this if we can get it.
irsh_@reddit
Republicans are only "Pro 2nd" until they have your vote. Trump is NOT pro 2nd amendment. That was made clear last term to anyone who cared to pay attention.
yourboibigsmoi808@reddit
Trump not being “pro 2a”
Is still infinitely better than the Democratic party’s explicit “Anti 2A” stance
irsh_@reddit
"ThEy'Re CoMiNg To TaKe YoUr GuNs!!!!111"
WiseDirt@reddit
No matter the length of the journey, it all starts by taking a single step. This may not be everything we want, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
Camp-Unusual@reddit
Exactly this! Everyone bitching about it make it less likely that ANYONE will continue to fight for our rights. Why in the hell would they continue to fight for a bunch of petulant toddlers who are going to bitch either way?
x0Kharnage0x@reddit
Between Thune not overriding it and the VP not overriding it, things are abundantly clear we are not a nation of laws attempting to be moral and just but rather a nation ruled by coercion, violence, and extortion.
The political process is very obviously a lost cause.
Somedudeness@reddit
Let's take what we can get. That's what the other side does and they seem to get a whole lot more done than we do for gun rights.
Gr4p3-S33d@reddit
It’s not the win we want but it’s the win we need. I would love repealing the NFA and Hughes amendment, but you have to work toward those things. The more proliferation of these items the closer you get to less restrictions. Look at abortion. The pro-life side has been attempting to make progress against abortion for decades in incremental steps. NOT MAKE A PRO OR ANTI ARGUMENT FOR ABORTION.
These last few years we have seen progress, some of which were set back by the ruling in nationwide injunctions, but progress nonetheless. We need to get in the mindset of not letting perfect get in the way of good. I’ve made my calls to thune and my reps, and if an opportunity arises to push for his ouster along pro gun lines, I will take it. But if we don’t take codified wins, we are fooling ourselves. The battle is in all three branches of government. There’s idealism and then there’s realism
The realistic and pragmatic approach is to take the win. The pragmatic approach for the founding of the country was to permit some slavery, then to count slaves as 3/5, then Jim Crow, then equality. Societal and cultural mindsets are shifting, we need to keep the momentum and not look like petulant babies who miss the forest for the trees.
edventure_2025@reddit
It is a win. Just not the whole ball game.
legitSTINKYPINKY@reddit
I mean it’s definitely a win.
Big_bat_chunk2475@reddit
Take the wins you can get. This is going to be a step by step process for the right to keep and bear arms
NotJayKayPeeness@reddit
Bunch of dick riders in the comments still happy to be on an unconstitutional registry because they don't have to pay 200 bucks are the exact nobodys who keep voting for the assholes who keep legislating our rights away.
NotJayKayPeeness@reddit
Bunch of dick riders in the comments still happy to be on an unconstitutional registry because they don't have to pay 200 bucks are the exact nobodys who keep voting for the assholes who keep legislating our rights away