![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/mil-marine-demonstrates-suppressor-1800-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) was signed by President Trump on the 4th. I’m sure for many on the Left the world will have immediately started to crumble, and for some on the Right the clouds parted and a single beam of light reached down to angelically halo… oh, stop it.<\/p>\n
Okay, the bill was reportedly 900 pages, which makes it far shorter than the ‘Affordable Care Act’ famously described by Nancy Pelosi roughly\u00a0 as “if you want to read it, you have to pass it.” No matter what, at the length of a thick War and Peace-class book it’s not something you want to wade through unless you have to.\u00a0 There is, however, one part of it which surprisingly passed.<\/p>\n
The National Firearms Act of 1934 famously restricted the sale of many types of firearms and accessories, like full-automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, sawed off shotguns (with an interesting loophole*) and suppressors. To purchase one, you must get fingerprinted, undergo yet another background check, and pay a $200 tax per item. Now, in 1934, this was a good chunk of money (almost $4500 in modern equivalent) so for years NFA items were very rare and mostly limited to the well-heeled. With time, and no indexing, though, the tax has become more affordable. Hearing protection, coupled with a desire FOR it,\u00a0 has also improved. The days of putting a .45 case or a wad of cotton in your ear is gone, and you can no longer simply identify old shooters by how often they go “Huh?” Suppressors are even mandated in some countries, wereas here they are stigmatized and restricted by the same folks who scream bloody murder about poorly muffled two-stroke weedeaters.<\/p>\n
The BBB has reduced that tax to $0. Don’t get too excited, there is a 90 day window before that takes effect (although some companies are proactively not charging it or absorbing it already.) But hanging a suppressor on your .22 or reducing your AR’s muzzle blast to lawnmower levels will get cheaper. For now, you still have to go through the printing, background checks, etc. hassle because all that wasn’t ended – yet. (If you live in a free state which allows suppressors and your local gun show is affiliated with Silencerco, they have in-store kiosks where you can do all that nonsense in one go at the store.)<\/p>\n
Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Palmetto State Armory, Silencer Shop, B&T USA, and others say the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0only upheld the NFA in 1937 as a tax law, and that legal basis no longer applies after Congress reduced the $200 tax to zero dollars.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Supreme Court has made clear that the NFA survives only as a tax law,\u201d said Sam Paredes on behalf of the Gun Owners Foundation board. \u201cOnce the President signs this bill and the tax disappears, the registry becomes an unconstitutional relic.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Washington Examiner<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Does this mean we can buy what we want? Not yet, and I am dubious that both this Republican administration and conservative Supreme Court will agree. ** But at least the suppressor tax is headed out for now, which might make them a bit more affordable – and maybe make the poor range officers who HAVE to listen to close range gunshots all day have a bit better day. Not to mention KoB’s neighbors at his North wall.<\/p>\n
* A shotgun with a barrel cut to less than 18″ barrel is an NFA item – but if it was built with a pistol grip, not a buttstock, it can have a pistol length barrel.<\/p>\n
** The Republicans campaign as gun-lovers but don’t act it. The ban on new machine guns? Reagan. Ban on bump stocks? Trump. Trump has openly supported ant-gun measures (banning assault weapons, waiting periods) in the past, his AG Pam Biondi supported red flag orders and age bans on purchasing guns Florida\u00a0 Bearingarms.com <\/a>\u00a0 The Supremes have sidestepped definitive 2nd Amendment decisions for decades and have declined to hear many cases which would provide such decisions, allowing things like “assault weapon” bans to take effect despite their own decisions and precedents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"