• HideTV Turns 1 Next Week!

    To celebrate the anniversary, we’ve got a full week of planned of exclusive giveaways, special live streams, limited-edition merch, and more surprises along the way. Keep an eye out!

    View thread

House Budget Proposal to remove Tax on Suppressors but not remove it from the NFA

#251
The Senate Parliamentarian has declared the NFA provisions to be not budget related.

Senator Thune already said last night he is not going to challenge parliamentary decisions - WTH?

So maybe it is a done deal, maybe not.

Contact Sen. Thune.

Contact your state's two Senators.

Contact the Vice President, who is the presiding officer in the Senate and has the power to decide this. The Parliamentarian simply advises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Eunozs
#254
hlee said:
Senate parliamentarian ruled that HPA ans SHORT violated Byrd rule and removed them from bill.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that is not a vote.

It is not a done deal unless the Senate goes along with her decision. She is in an advisory role. She does not really have any power. The decision lies with the Senate and the Presiding Officer (VP JD Vance)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JR_77
#255
It wasn't "they voted" or didn't vote, it was the Senate Parliamentarian.

Screenshot_20250627_135328_Chrome.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Angry
Reactions: JR_77, 10ring'r, AMGtuned and 2 others
#256
Is anybody getting tired of the blame game, "Oh, the Democrats blocked it. We tried." ????

So the only question from here is whether the Republicans meant it, in which case they will fix this, or they knew from the beginning that they could pretend but would not have to follow through, so 2A folks would keep voting for them while they point and said that bad old MacDonough, she did this. She's a Dem, you know. We're Republicans. We support your Second Amendment rights.

There is a really good argument that this is a tax issue directly affecting the budget.



OR, it is just the Republicans doing this:


1751028988780.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franko, WaltHer, MediumSpeed and 4 others
#259
Let me reiterate.

The Parliamentarian, Ms. MacDonough, does not have any real power. She is in an advisory role.

You ought to be lighting up the phones and email inboxes of the Senate, your Senators, Sen. Thune, and VP JD Vance.

They do not have to abide by her decision. It is voluntary to do so.

Items with a $200 tax collected on each transfer are budget items.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JR_77, AMGtuned, NoDopes and 3 others
#262
Malum Prohibitum said:
Let me reiterate.

The Parliamentarian, Ms. MacDonough, does not have any real power. She is in an advisory role.

You ought to be lighting up the phones and email inboxes of the Senate, your Senators, Sen. Thune, and VP JD Vance.

They do not have to abide by her decision. It is voluntary to do so.

Items with a $200 tax collected on each transfer are budget items.
Click to expand...
They are the same tyrant scum as the democrats
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMGtuned, SilentStalkr and Terry Cross
#264
Malum Prohibitum said:
thereload.com

Senate Parliamentarian Strips Silencer, Short-Barrel Shotgun Deregulation From Budget Bill

The Senate’s top rule keeper has determined the effort to delist silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and other guns from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 doesn’t fit within budget reconciliation rules.
thereload.com thereload.com
Click to expand...
The backlash ruffled feathers on The Hill, with some staffers complaining that the gun groups were fooling their followers on what could be done through the budget process.

“When these groups tell their members that major Second Amendment reforms can be accomplished through the Budget Reconciliation Process, that is misleading and dishonest,” a senior GOP staffer told The Reload at the time. “I thought a general rule of thumb – no matter what context – was to always under promise and over deliver. The sad part is that our most supportive Second Amendment voters are going to be disappointed no matter what we do because Congress cannot deliver what has been advertised to them.”

The Senate text also didn’t break out the section delisting the devices from the section zeroing out the tax on them, as the final House text did. That left no room for the parliamentarian to keep the less-controversial tax cut portion–at least on the first pass.

Now, gun-rights activists face a race against the clock as Republicans are trying to meet a self-imposed deadline for final passage of the bill that gives them just a week to get the behemoth to President Donald Trump’s desk. It’s unclear how much time remains to rerun provisions that have been knocked out of the bill or to offer up amendments on the floor after that process is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JR_77, XP1K and lash
#266
Malum Prohibitum said:
Is anybody getting tired of the blame game, "Oh, the Democrats blocked it. We tried." ????

So the only question from here is whether the Republicans meant it, in which case they will fix this, or they knew from the beginning that they could pretend but would not have to follow through, so 2A folks would keep voting for them while they point and said that bad old MacDonough, she did this. She's a Dem, you know. We're Republicans. We support your Second Amendment rights.

There is a really good argument that this is a tax issue directly affecting the budget.



OR, it is just the Republicans doing this:


View attachment 8716377
Click to expand...
Its not over. Keep calling your senators.

Screenshot_20250627_145300_Instagram.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10ring'r, AMGtuned, JR_77 and 2 others
#267
Malum Prohibitum said:
Is anybody getting tired of the blame game, "Oh, the Democrats blocked it. We tried." ????

So the only question from here is whether the Republicans meant it, in which case they will fix this, or they knew from the beginning that they could pretend but would not have to follow through, so 2A folks would keep voting for them while they point and said that bad old MacDonough, she did this. She's a Dem, you know. We're Republicans. We support your Second Amendment rights.

There is a really good argument that this is a tax issue directly affecting the budget.



OR, it is just the Republicans doing this:


View attachment 8716377
Click to expand...
I think you know the answer to this, but by all means y’all spend your whole day blowing up phones and such. I would love to be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10ring'r, AMGtuned, doubloon and 1 other person
#272
SilentStalkr said:
JD Vance could have voted as well
Click to expand...

JD would be acting as the Presiding Officer I *think*, as such he would have the power to overrule the parliamentarian. If it wasn't him the it would be either Grassley or Roberts ... all "republicans", all with the power to overrule the strike depending on who's presiding
 
#274
Malum Prohibitum said:
they knew from the beginning that they could pretend but would not have to follow through,

There is a really good argument that this is a tax issue directly affecting the budget.
Click to expand...

Si.

So, below are the questions the parliamentarian has to ask itself about provisions in order to strike.

I have no idea which of these definitions were invoked to strike HPA/SHORT, not sure how to find out or if anybody knows

#3 seems like a stretch, #4 seems like less of a stretch

Either way, the presiding officer (Vance or Grassley or Roberts) has the power to overrule parliamentarian strikes but they didn't. A parliamentarian strike hasn't been overruled in a few decades.

Senators have absolutely no power to overrule at all unless they are 60+ strong and there are only 53 RINOs in office. The rest are communists or nihilists.

The senators understand these rules better than anybody. They had to know what they were proposing was eligible for strike and they absolutely knew they don't have the votes to push it through if struck. But by all means call them if you don't already own a fidget spinner.

The Rulz (I think)

A provision is considered to be extraneous if it falls under one or more of the following six definitions:
  1. it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues or a change in the terms and conditions under which outlays are made or revenues are collected;
  2. it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
  3. it is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
  4. it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision;
  5. it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the “budget window” covered by the reconciliation measure
  6. it recommends changes in Social Security
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SilentStalkr and JR_77
#276
Yep this was never going to happen, especially once they tacked on removing SBR's and Silencers from the NFA, they might have had a slightly colder snowballs chance in hell if they had just left it as removing the $200 tax stamp.

This was always just about them tacking something on and being able to tell their voters they "tried". Knowing it was going to get removed, because they never had a chance at 60 votes and they were never going to buck the parliamentarian ruling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaltHer, Flyingbullseye, SilentStalkr and 2 others
#278
I bet they kept all the money thrown at them tho from lobbyist to try to even get this on the bill. I told you guys. I waited at the tree for years. Nobody came. These people only get two things. One is money and the other is violence and chaos. People burned crap down and had the summer of love and people took notice. But nope, they don’t care about rogue conservative beliefs at all because they know you won’t ever go against the grain. We all too busy busting our ass in the system. They know this and know they can do whatever they want. But yeah, people keep on believing this old system still works. No i don’t know of a better form of gov, but this one is clearly broken. Won’t matter in a few years tho. We will be ruled by Muslims anyways so…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: doubloon, BurtG and XP1K
#280
CMP70306 said:
The Republicans should tell her to fuck off and pass it anyway, that’s what the Democrats do to them every time they get in power so turnabout should be fair game.
Click to expand...
YES!!!! Pass the bill out of the senate and house then send it to Trump to sign.

This so called neutral Parliamentarian is making these decisions based on the “Byrd Rule.” Robert Byrd, Biden’s mentor and former KKK member, is dictating rules from the grave on how the senate is run?

Screw that…move forward with or without the parliamentarian and the “Byrd Rule.”

If she throws a fit then replace her. Keep moving forward.

IMG_0966.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevieb92 and AMGtuned
#281
CMP70306 said:
The Republicans should tell her to fuck off and pass it anyway
Click to expand...

They can't if you're talking about HPA/SHORT. The only "republican" that had the opportunity to tell her to fuck off was either Vance, Grassley or Roberts whichever one was acting is acting as the presiding officer.

The only gun thing Senators can pass without overruling the parliamentarian is the removal of the $200 tax which is in the bill itself.

JR_77 said:
This so called neutral Parliamentarian
Click to expand...

This is the same parliamentarian that struck stuff the dem's wanted from bills under Brandon's watch.
 
#283
Longshot231 said:
Didn't the dems ignore her and kept their crap in the bills anyway?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of it.

The last time either side controlled 60 or more seats in the senate was the dem's in the mid-late '70s. Before that it was the dem's again for the entire decade of the '60s. The republicans haven't had a super majority since before we've had 50 states, somewhere in the around 1920.

AFAIK, a parliamentarian strike has not been overruled since the '70s but theoretically there was support from both sides for it. One was fired around 2001 I think.


It is uncommon, though not illegal, for the Senate Majority Leader to overrule the advice of the parliamentarian. The last time the parliamentarian was formally overruled was by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller in 1975, and officials from both parties mutually altered the controversial motion within a week.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JR_77
#284
If it survives and the $200 tax stamp removal lives on to pass, it's better than nothing, and in reality they had to know the rest was going to run afoul of the Byrd rules. They were not going to get anything that was not directly budget related, but I suppose nothing ventured nothing gained. Completely unrelated if it passes suppressors will magically increase in price by approximately $200 due to tarrifs, or obama care, covid, etc. Because they know customers are conditioned to factor in that extra $200 anyway. :rolleyes:

Once the feds lose ~$150,000,000 in NFA stamp income per year, they will probably slash the ATF budget and we'll be back to them taking 2 years to approve forms in a cave somewhere in PA next to the folks doing federal retirement paperwork by hand :)
 
#285
doubloon said:
This is the same parliamentarian that struck stuff the dem's wanted from bills under Brandon's watch.
Click to expand...
To make sure there are no foxes in the henhouse, these parliamentarians should be fired & replaced each time a republican comes into power just as Trump appoints a new AG for example. If republicans control the senate then a new parliamentarian should be appointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XP1K, BurtG and doubloon
#286
JR_77 said:
To make sure there are no foxes in the henhouse, these parliamentarians should be fired & replaced each time a republican comes into power just as Trump appoints a new AG for example. If republicans control the senate then a new parliamentarian should be appointed.
Click to expand...

Most, if not all, have always served across multiple POTUS and senate terms. As long as 30 years for the longest I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JR_77
#287
ToddM said:
If it survives and the $200 tax stamp removal lives on to pass, it's better than nothing,

...

Once the feds lose ~$150,000,000 in NFA stamp income per year, they will probably slash the ATF budget and we'll be back to them taking 2 years to approve forms in a cave somewhere in PA next to the folks doing federal retirement paperwork by hand :)
Click to expand...

No $200 tax for "transfers" (Form 4) but registration will likely still stand and the $200 tax for "making" (Form 1) may still stand. Not entirely sure.

Frump & Friends already have plans to eliminate the BATFE regardless of tax revenue.

Bondi defends Justice Department proposal to end standalone ATF​

 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: whiskeytower and lash
#288
doubloon said:
Most, if not all, have always served across multiple POTUS and senate terms. As long as 30 years for the longest I think.
Click to expand...
I agree how it’s been in the past however in this day and age of political warfare you can’t leave any stone unturned. They should get replaced when there is a transfer of power just like the FBI director. FBI director used to serve across multiple POTUS terms but not anymore.

I’m glad I thought of this idea so hopefully the senate republicans will read my comments here and make the appropriate changes going forward.

IMG_0838.gif
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: lash, MarshallDodge and doubloon
#289
The entire purpose of the registration process was to ensure payment of the tax. The massive criminal penalties were to ensure compliance with paying the tax.

This article was written before the anti-gun cunt axed the HPA and SHORT Act. Nevertheless is a well written article about why the NFA was a tax scheme but had the desired effect of crushing ownership of SBRs, SBSs, gun mufflers and firearms with giggle-switches.


Here's a portion of AG Cumming's testimony. The truth about a taxing scheme comes straight out of his mouth.

AG Cummings Testimony.jpg


Here is a link to a record of the hearings in 1934. The above testimony is taken from page 19.

play.google.com

National Firearms Act, Hearings, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, on H. R. 9066 - Google Play

play.google.com play.google.com

Now a word about how the NRA stabbed gunowners and future generations of gunowners in the back in 1934. NRA president Karl T. Frederick would have been better off not showing up for the hearings.

 
  • Like
Reactions: XP1K, JR_77 and lash
#292
Longshot231 said:
The entire purpose of the registration process was to ensure payment of the tax.
Click to expand...

So why does the Form 1 include tax exempt check boxes and why is there is an entire Form 5 for tax exempt transfer and registration?

If the tax for suppressors goes away it's simple enough to add a tax exempt box to the Form 4 and the Form 1 for suppressors or add another criteria for suppressors to a Form 5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mauserman
#293
doubloon said:
So why does the Form 1 include tax exempt check boxes and why is there is an entire Form 5 for tax exempt transfer and registration?

If the tax for suppressors goes away it's simple enough to add a tax exempt box to the Form 4 and the Form 1 for suppressors or add another criteria for suppressors to a Form 5.
Click to expand...
From the Tax Exempt boxes of the Form 1:

"Tax Exempt because firearm is being made on behalf of the United States, or any department, independent establishment or agency thereof."

"Tax Exempt because firearm is being made on behalf of any State or possession of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or any official police organization of such a government entity engaged in criminal investigations."

One reason is that the Form 5 is used to transfer the firearm to a beneficiary upon the passing of the owner. So the tax has already been paid.

Are there any exemptions from the making or transfer tax provisions of the NFA? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Yes. These exemptions are noted below, along with the required form to apply for each exemption if applicable. Your completed forms must be approved by the NFA Branch before you make or transfer the NFA firearm. Tax exemptions and application forms: Transfer and registration of an NFA firearm...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMGtuned and lash
#294
Longshot231 said:
From the Tax Exempt boxes of the Form 1:

"Tax Exempt because firearm is being made on behalf of the United States, or any department, independent establishment or agency thereof."

"Tax Exempt because firearm is being made on behalf of any State or possession of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or any official police organization of such a government entity engaged in criminal investigations."

One reason is that the Form 5 is used to transfer the firearm to a beneficiary upon the passing of the owner. So the tax has already been paid.

Are there any exemptions from the making or transfer tax provisions of the NFA? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Yes. These exemptions are noted below, along with the required form to apply for each exemption if applicable. Your completed forms must be approved by the NFA Branch before you make or transfer the NFA firearm. Tax exemptions and application forms: Transfer and registration of an NFA firearm...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov
Click to expand...

Correct. Those are the CURRENT reasons for tax exmept. This is a NEW reason for tax exempt.

I hope I'm wrong but ...

The point is tax exempt transfer already exists but registration remains because they are defined as NFA firearms.

Removing the tax does not change the definition of suppressor as an NFA firearm.

All they have to do is add another box to both the Form 1 and the Form 4 that says.

"Tax Exempt because firearm is a suppressor."

But the Form 1 is NOT for transfers, it's for making and registration ... all about that make, 'bout that make, no transfer

The Form 5 maybe doesn't even need to change because there is a blank were the word "suppressor" could be written for "Other". It depends on if the part of the bill that removes the $200 tax modifies 5811 (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53) ... I don't remember.


W1Zgvzt.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Longshot231 and lash
#295
Things that make you go hmmmmm

new article today ... registration required, no tax ... includes verbiage for making tax

New Senate Budget Language Would Scrap Taxes on Suppressors, Short Barrel Firearms​

By Cam Edwards | 10:01 AM | June 28, 2025


After Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the language repealing the taxes and registration requirements for NFA items like suppressors, short barreled firearms, and "any other weapons" could not be included in the One Big Beautiful Bill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and others quickly floated an alternative: zeroing out the making and transfer taxes, while keeping the registration requirements in place.

That language has now been included in the text of the budget bill that's slated for a preliminary procedural vote in the Senate later today (you can find it on page 491).

The new language would zero out the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as "any other weapons", which should satisfy the demands of Second Amendment organizations NRA, GOA, SAF, FPC, American Suppressor Association, F.A.I.R. Trade Group, and the National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers; who released a joint statement on the reconciliation bill Friday night.
Click to expand...


Page 491

SEC. 70436. REDUCTION OF TRANSFER AND MANUFAC8 TURING TAXES FOR CERTAIN DEVICES.
(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 14 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).’’.
 
Last edited:
#296
doubloon said:
Things that make you go hmmmmm

new article today ... registration required, no tax

New Senate Budget Language Would Scrap Taxes on Suppressors, Short Barrel Firearms​

By Cam Edwards | 10:01 AM | June 28, 2025





Page 491

SEC. 70436. REDUCTION OF TRANSFER AND MANUFAC8 TURING TAXES FOR CERTAIN DEVICES.
(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 14 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).’’.
Click to expand...
Okay, so it’s a token nod to the base, but still keeps the registration and reporting requirement. Not a win in my book.

Or am I missing something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: clcustom1911, SilentStalkr, XP1K and 2 others
#297
lash said:
Okay, so it’s a token nod to the base, but still keeps the registration and reporting requirement. Not a win in my book.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

It (the language IN the bill) ALWAYS included registration but this time it includes $0 for making.

And not just suppressors ... anything not in paragraph 1

It was the HPA and SHORT amendment struck by the parliamentarian that got rid of registration, not the bill.

$200 for each firearm transferred in the case of a machinegun or a destructive device
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#299
doubloon said:
It ALWAYS included registration but this time it includes $0 for making.

And not just suppressors ... anything not in paragraph 1
Click to expand...
True. I concede that point. Though I was given the vague impression that there was intent for removal from NFA completely. And not by just internet gossip.

So I guess then that SBRs are okay, Except! You must register with the feds, with the fore knowledge that the record will remain forever. Hmmm…
🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: clcustom1911 and doubloon
#300
lash said:
Though I was given the vague impression that there was intent for removal from NFA completely.
Click to expand...

There was with the HPA and SHORT as "amendments" to the bill. Those are what got struck by the parliamentarian. (I think)

There has always been two moving pieces to the NFA stuff.

1) The original verbiage in the actual bill which only dropped the tax down to $0 and only on suppressor "transfers" but didn't change registration. The original words only specified "transfers".

2) The HPA and SHORT amendments to the bill which dropped suppressors, SB-things, etc. from NFA. Arguably a better deal than a $0 tax with no registration but it was MORE than JUST a tax change. It was a regulation change and probably why it was struck unchallenged.

This new bill verbiage, assuming all the links I followed are true, accurate and up to date goes back to the original IN THE BILL text that dropped suppressor taxes down to $0 but kept registration and now includes SB-things, etc. in the $0 tax change which is just a tax change and not a regulation change. And it includes "making" not just "transfers".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

longshot2000
Suppressors one man's view: BUY SUPPRESSORS
Replies
10
Views
2K
FuhQ
FuhQ
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class High Magnification 6-36/7-35 FFP Scope Review
Replies
126
Views
10K
Charcoal Victorious Alp
C
riffraff
MISSOURI STEEL TACTICAL SERIES (MOST) 2021 CENTERFIRE SCHEDULE AND INFO
Replies
2
Views
2K
Joshcole
Joshcole
JamieD
Training Courses Wolf Precision's Long Range Shooting School in Somerset, PA - 2020 registration is open!
Replies
6
Views
2K
BigPrince
B
M
Petition to remove SBR from NFA
Replies
1
Views
561
Dshooter
D
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts