Posted on 12/21/2025 5:59:07 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Gun owners’ number one fighter in Washington, D.C., Representative Andrew Clyde, along with five senators and 35 other House members, have sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
In this letter, they’ve made it clear that the DOJ is out of line with Congress’ intent.
Specifically, they cite the Justice Department’s recent defense of the National Firearms Act in the Gun Owners of America case that we’re affectionately calling the “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit.”
The case itself, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, centers around the recent removal of the $200 tax from items regulated by the National Firearms Act. Specifically, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, AOWs (short for “any other weapons,” a catch-all term for items that don’t fit neatly into the other categories of regulation), and silencers.
Previously, purchasing one of these highly regulated items would require a $200 tax payment, a background check including fingerprints and passport photos, and a lengthy wait.
But thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump in July, that $200 tax payment was removed from those aforementioned items.
Unfortunately, the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act remain. That’s why we at Gun Owners of America are suing ATF and the Department of Justice to remove the registration requirements on these items.
The National Firearms Act and its registry, the NFRTR or National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, have been declared a legitimate use of Congress’ article 1 power of taxation.
Keyword: “Taxation.”
The NFA registry is a registry of tax payments, and those tax payments are associated with firearms. This is a sneaky way to get around calling it a gun registry, instead – it’s a tax registry.
But what do you do when the tax has been decreased to zero dollars?
Well, the Department of Justice wants to keep the registration requirements in place, along with the penalties for noncompliance.
That’s like if the IRS abolished the income tax but demanded that you still complete your W2 or 1099 tax forms every year, otherwise face prison time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
To make matters worse, the DOJ used common anti-gun talking points to justify their defense of this unconstitutional registration scheme.
Here are some of the highlights:
Rep. Clyde and 40 other members of Congress disagree. In fact, here’s what they had to say:
The registration requirements under the NFA are, in fact, inseparably linked to its taxation provisions. Registration serves as the mechanism by which the ATF accounts for the tax paid on each firearm, identified by its serial number.
The tax stamp affixed by the ATF to an NFA transfer and registration application reflects both the firearm’s serial number and the amount of tax paid for the transfer.
Moreover, the NFA’s criminal provisions pertain exclusively to the failure to pay or register the payment of this tax with the ATF. Any reinterpretation of the NFA that allows registration to persist once taxation has been removed contradicts the statute’s text, its structure, and Supreme Court precedent.
Following the OBBBA’s elimination of the tax on a broad class of firearms regulated under the NFA, the constitutional foundation for applying the NFA’s transfer and registration requirements to those $0-tax firearms no longer exists.
These requirements now operate without any corresponding exercise of Congress’s taxing power. As the Supreme Court upheld the NFA’s provisions only as “in aid” of that power, and since the relevant excise taxes have been repealed, the transfer and registration requirements should likewise be understood as repealed with respect to firearms now subject to a $0 tax.
The Department’s recent filing ignores this reality and instead offers a theory that would convert the NFA from a tax statute into a free-standing federal gun registry – an outcome Congress has never authorized and has repeatedly rejected.
In our lawsuit, we establish that thanks to two Supreme Court cases from the 1930s, US v. Sonzinsky & US v. Constantine, the Supreme Court has said that the NFA is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power, and in addition, a tax that generates no revenue is therefore not a tax at all.
Rep. Clyde also states this plainly in his letter, saying:
As you are well aware, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act in 1934, imposing an excise tax of $200 — equivalent to nearly $5,000 today — on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms. The NFA also established burdensome registration requirements for gun owners seeking to transfer NFA-regulated firearms…
Congress enacted the NFA pursuant to its taxing power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in Sonzinsky v. United States, held that the NFA’s registration provisions were “supportable as in aid” of Congress’s proper exercise of the taxing power. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in United States v. Constantine held that a tax that doesn’t generate revenue cannot be justified as a tax.
The National Firearms Act’s legal foundation is that it’s an outgrowth of Congress’ taxing power. But when that tax is removed, does the federal government still get to maintain a registry?
The answer is obviously no.
We want to work with the Department of Justice to abolish unconstitutional gun control, not fight them tooth and nail as they defend it. At any time, they can decide if they want to be on the side of the Second Amendment.
Maybe this letter from Congress will help the DOJ see that!
We in Tennessee have a similar problem. The state courts have ruled that a law unconstitutional that makes it possible to charge a person with carrying a weapon for the purpose of going armed despite the law that makes Tennessee a constitutional carry state. Yet the ark Rino governor has tasked the state AG with defending an unconstitutional law.
The Cartels distribute guns to their drug marketeers (pushers) so they can protect their market from competitors. When they control their market, they know their addicts and will maximize their drug purchases from them. A competitor does not know the addicts and their sales will experience a drop, which the Cartels don't want.
The Cartels get some of their guns from Mexican police departments who sell them to supplement their operating costs. The Cartels know how to smuggle those guns across the border. Murders by drug gangs using those guns are the major cause of murders in our cities.
“I always wanted to try one of those DIY, 2L pop bottle mufflers on a 22lr rifle.”
a cop buddy demonstrated one of those for me ... good for about 2-3 shots ... works on .22 handguns too ...
I believe there is a 10c tax on those, 5c in some states:)
What does any of that have to do with this story or my reply to another poster who said that the 41 members of Congress were shilling for the cartel?
Remember?
The Washington Post columnist known for advocating for stringent gun control laws who subsequently shot an intruder at his home.
Carl Rowan.
The incident occurred in June 1988, when Rowan shot an unarmed teenager, Ben Neal Smith, who had been swimming with friends in Rowan’s backyard pool in Washington, D.C., late at night. Rowan stated he feared for his life and that the young man “lunged” at him after being warned to stop; the victim disputed this account.
The incident sparked a significant controversy and accusations of hypocrisy from gun rights advocates, particularly the National Rifle Association (NRA), because: Rowan had a public record of writing columns that favored strict gun control measures, such as handgun registration and background checks.
The handgun he used in the incident was reportedly unregistered, a violation of Washington D.C.’s tough gun control laws at the time.
Rowan defended his actions in a subsequent column, arguing there was no inconsistency between supporting gun control laws and defending one’s family when faced with a perceived threat in a society with widespread violent crime.
He was ultimately charged with a misdemeanor for possessing an unregistered firearm, but the charges were later dismissed.
The communists on the march...
A common sight in the Disunited States, these days...
There are only two options:
1. Surrender...
or
2. Mass knee-capping...
My point is the Drug Cartels would favor the 2nd Amendment because of the importance of guns in their drug markets. In case of the tax on certain firearms and sound suppressors, the Cartels have that problem covered when their guns are smuggled into the U.S.
I agree. Suppressors are basically a miniature car muffler. Granted, they are machined to fit a particular weapon and precision crafted, but they are not worth the outrageous prices of today.
One of the most popular weapons is the AR15, one would think mass producing a silencer for that weapon would bring the price down to less than a hundred bucks. They could be accessory items on the shelves of all sporting goods stores.
There are already dozens of companies that make supressors for the AR platform. From .22LR up to .300BO.
Pretty much every caliber, up to and including the 20mm, have at least 1 manufacturer currently kicking out cans for it. Some cans are even multi-caliber.
How many of the 41 congresscritters actually voted for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.