Suppressor legal changes, maybe

Actually this sort of explains the fast turn around times on Suppressors, SBR, SBS, etc now "get the money while we can."
Because of the verbiage and the way tax laws are I would not expect a refund for taxes paid, even if removed from the tax code.
--- hmm just thinking out load ---
"EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made
by this subsection shall apply to calendar quarters
beginning more than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. "

depending on when signed will effect the effective date.

Calendar year 2025
Q1 Jan - Feb (90 days)
Q2 Apr - Jun (91days)
Q3 Jul - Sept (92 days)
Q4 Oct - Dec (92 days)
So dependent of the date when signed it "could" in lawyer language take up to 2 quarters (or 180 days / 6 months) as "we the people" count to be in effect.
Our year doesn't divide by 90 evenly.
So that said beginning Quarter calendars dates are the 1st of Jan (Q1), Apr (Q2), Jul (Q3), Oct (Q4) as effective dates, with the date of passage being greater than not equal to 90 days. Meaning the date signed doesn't start the true count, the count starts on the following day using 90 days count, thus 91 days.
So if signed say on the 1st of July would take effect on October the 1st. If signed after that would not take effect until 2026.

Still a win, if passed without anymore changes outside the "more than 90 days" to say "more than 60 days".

The other good aspect is that it would allow the "industry" to ramp up. As this will become novel for many new buyers, effectively driving prices through the roof provided the demand is there. If the demand is not there, stays the same, or lowers with a ramped up production would cause price tags to drop.
Or they "could" scale back production to protect the bottom line on certain models.

(Note I'm not simply referring to suppressors. Barrels and completed uppers are included. Watch for shortage of availability as this get closer to passage, we already see some shortages in suppressor availability)
Let's hope I'm wrong, I'm not attempting to be negative rather realistic.
The best scenario for the buyer is if Suppressors and Short barrel approval are 1 plus year approval rate. This would trigger the IRS to refund the tax stamp cost.
 
Last edited:
There is only one problem.

Changing my hat and thinking like a Jacka$$.....

Once they get back into the majority, and they will.

Use the same method to reverse it , and then adjust the tax rate for inflation ..... Which surprisingly they never have done.

The BIG question is does passage remove the tax stamp registry or is it still in place??

So... in my case if removed from the registry with amount of toys (tax stamps) I have it, could get really really expensive. ( my only saving grace is they stay on the registry and a grandfather clause)

Again not rallying against passage, but being realistic. All for the passage, but what assurance we won't get a repeat of stupidity. It is Washington DC .
Republicans don't vote as a block, Socialist and Democrats definitely do though.

NFA (signed into law by FDR (D) ) / 1968 GCA (LBJ (D) ) Assault Rifle Ban which sun setted (Bill Clinton (D) ) should have never been passed. Yet the Dems will say we aren't after your guns. They sure do seem to have a history of just that.

At one point the Supreme court (1968 IIRC) did make the NFA unenforceable with a ruling on the argument of registration being self incriminating under the 5th amendment, Congresses answer was passage the GCA of 1968 to shore up the legality and enforceability of the NFA. While targeting other commonly used guns, one example is the Walther PPK importation. One cannot import a PPK, now a PPK/S yes, but no PPK. There was bunch of firearms targeted in the GCA of 1968 and establish the licensing requirements.
Buying guns by mail order or directly was common.

Had the Supreme Court simply ruled the same AND actually reversed earlier rulings stating it was plainly unconstitutional in 1968, it remains a battle until they do reverse it . And a constant battle at that even if won.

Steak makes the best bait sometimes.

If this passes we need to lean even harder forward in the saddle. Maybe a simple definition of what infringed means to force the court to apply the actual meaning of the word as written, not interrupted.
 
Last edited:
in 1773 Samuel Johnson Dictionary had the following meaning for the word infringe
"To violate; to break laws or contracts"
Today Webster -Merrian defines
"to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"

It is important to note the wording of the definitions and the Lack of the word contract. The Bill of Rights was a contract with the States and the people respectively in order to get passage.

Moving to the Samuel Johnson's dictionary from 1773 defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence".
Quite different than what is now stated as the meaning.
During this period and after passage (ratification) of the Constitution (June 21st 1788) one needs to understand that Samuel Johnson Dictionary was accepted, While Webster's definition was rejected, often ridiculed.

For my personal usage I probably wouldn't own a MG, but a three round burst I might.
(under Arkansas Law a three round burst is not considered a MG, but Federal prevails over that, just means the state won't charge you under state law. Federal yes)
That statement of ownership doesn't mean I'm of the opinion that the law is correct or truly lawful as our founders set forth. Simply means not my choice of weapon, much Like Ruger Rifles don't own one and won't for personal reasons. Some people feel that way about certain other brands they have that right.

Just my view and thoughts from my fox hole
 
Last edited:
Screenshot-2025-06-17-at-12-08-42-PM-1024x930-1.png



Here's to a step in the right direction. 👍 Next, lets's just remove them all from a registry and or regulation and repeal/dissolve the NFA altogether. Seriously...

Just ask yourself, is the registry and NFA keeping you honest, safe, or from breaking the law, or is it really just an impediment to your freedoms that you were born with to begin with...

I want to hunt predators with suppressed SBR's, but I don't want to become the next Bryan Malinowski or Randy Weaver for wanting to do so, on a registry (Hit list.) controlled by the fifth column of communist anti-2A anti-American unelected bureaucrats at the BATFE.
 
Last edited:
Sgt_Mike said:
Use the same method to reverse it , and then adjust the tax rate for inflation ..... Which surprisingly they never have done.
Click to expand...
Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) who argued the current tax on suppressors doesn’t go far enough, and law-abiding Americans already enjoy too much freedom.
The congresswoman went on to elaborate her preferred scenarios. She said,
If we doubled it, if we just went to $400, you could sell only half as many and not lose a penny in revenue. If we tripled it, you might actually discourage some sales of silencers. Wouldn’t that be a good thing for us to be doing in this committee?

The jackasses never get tired of being on the wrong side of right.
If she, they, get their way get ready to empty your wallet.
$600 will just be the starting point, not to mention what the tax on guns and ammo would be.
They know they can't win in court or do mass confiscations, not yet at least, but they can tax us out of our 2A rights.
If we let them....
 
This is actually starting me to think of getting a "small" lathe and mill. That is heavy enough to actually hold some degrees of precision.
Another thought is that solvent traps will be offered galore vs being bait for the ATF. Although I prefer the "factory" options, one can get by with them if they pay attention to the details.
 
After the news of the Senate parliamentarian ruling removing the HPA/SHORT and the fact that Sen Thun said he won't overturn the parliamentarian.
I contacted BOTH of my Senators (whom have went out on the limb supporting the HPA/SHORT) and advised them to have Thun either add the HPA and the SHORT act back in.
Or refuse their support for the bill's passage as a block. It would only take two or three of us "flyover states" in the Senate standing as a block.
As the Senate is where it is the fairest platform for us. If it's not now it might be another 8 years or longer to never when the make up of the Congress is as favorable as it is now.
 
Last edited:
alf said:
For now, took the tax again out of the bill:

www.shootingnewsweekly.com

Senate Adds Language Eliminating the NFA’s $200 Tax on Silencers and SBRs and SBSs to the One Big Beautiful Bill

Last night, the Senate chose what’s behind door number one. They’ve added language to the One Big Beautiful Bill that would eliminate the NFA’s $200 tax on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and machineguns.
www.shootingnewsweekly.com www.shootingnewsweekly.com
Click to expand...
Watching this with interest.
I would like to think and make statements my call yesterday made a difference. But I know better.
Probably more like it was the other thousands of Arkansans whom called them when it was taken out. Fact is if enough rain drops collects together one can have a flood.
So to whomever took the time regardless of state to call your Senators offices on this Thank you.
 
AND IT Begins now look here look here.
Get Top Suppressors and Exclusive Deals <<< link to silencer shop promotions to show my point

I know the verbiage of removal from the NFA has been altered HOWEVER the tax is removed within the bill. Once signed by POTUS it's a done deal no tax.
NOW the provision of the NFA/GCA68 for SBR/SBS/Suppressors do not have the protection of "well Congress can levy taxes" as has been held up in the past. It completely changes the Government's defense in the constitutional challenges from the grassroots and national organization. It will take time as it will have to run through the court system. So if the Attorney General directs to take no action to defend It could very well be hamstringed at the lower courts.
 
Last edited:
Been watching the House all day.
HERE
vote on House Resolution 655 voting NOW...
216 Yea ( all Republican)
212 NAY (Democrats)
4 No Vote (Republican, which if all four swing to NAY, makes a tie brings in the Speakers Vote, or they or even 1 chose a Present Vote Majority Yea votes wins )
(some of those 4 No Votes are traveling back to vote.)

What is Resolution 655? It is to accept the Senate's changes as written to the Big Beautiful Bill. Placing it on the President's desk.
OK Resolution 655 rollcall 186 (Mrs Foxx amendment " adding at the end of the resolution the language that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion") passed now voting on rollcall 189 on the resolution as amended.
3:23 AM EST 07/03/2025
Nay 213
Yea 219
more debating.... getting ready for the final vote.
 
Last edited:
Earlier I went outside and started cutting the grass, stopped about half way through decided I reaaaally needed a haircut, and some time to check out the OCL 5.56 Plutonium can. Went to the local dealer here, he had it in stock . I fondled it for quite a bit of time. Told them to set me one aside I'll be by Monday with the cash less the sales tax so it will be in lay away.

While there the Bill passed, which sparked a discussion on the effective date, which the shop thought it was to go into effect. Naturally I spouted off with what I understand of the effective date would be 1 Jan 2025 provided the President signs prior to the last two days in September.

But stated heck I could be wrong come back home pulled up the text of the bill. Yep there is a effective date and what I though to be true was.
As I was carefully reading the bill I realized I am wrong earlier that this bill removed the tax status, on the items.
This silly line is what gets me
" (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4182(a) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``For purposes of the preceding sentence, any
firearm described in section 5811(a)(2) shall be deemed to be a firearm
on which the tax provided by section 5811 has been paid. ''

I'm neither Lawyer, tax expert, nor CPA. But to my silly third grade education. A argument that it is not taxed could be null and void in court.
But the Line above that cut and paste is:
"
(a) Transfer Tax.--Section 5811(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Rate.--There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms
transferred a tax at the rate of--
``(1) $200 for each firearm transferred in the case of a
machinegun or a destructive device, and
``(2) $0 for any firearm transferred which is not described
in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Making Tax.--Section 5821(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Rate.--There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the
making of a firearm a tax at the rate of--
``(1) $200 for each firearm made in the case of a
machinegun or a destructive device, and
``(2) $0 for any firearm made which is not described in
paragraph (1).''.
."

so I don't know now I did have a opinion earlier, now not so sure. Would be nice if it could be challenged I could see this going either way.

Source
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

SECTION 70436

In closing I do know that the ATTORNEY GENERAL does have the authority to wave the tax. Just like was done during the Pistol Brace SBR rule. So Pam Bondi "could" give us a small Christmas present early by waving the tax until the effective date.
Like the saying goes "can't kiss no movie stars without asking".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top