Tax stamp for cans going away?

[Noclutch]

This is probably old news to many, but it seems to be popping up more as the budget process is coming to a head.

Suppressor Tax Cut Advances—But It’s Not Enough!

The U.S. House Committee on Ways & Means has released text for the upcoming Reconciliation Bill, and buried in the pages is a major pro-2A development: a provision to slash the outdated $200 National Firearms Act (NFA) tax on suppressors to $0.

gunsamerica.com

To bury it in the budget reconciliation process is a good thing, but the margin for passage is still very slim. But what a godsend for the suppressor industry, as well as us consumers!

 

[hk940]

But it will still need to be on the NFA list, and you still can't make your own. The repubs caved

 

[Choctaw]

The RINOS need to go for what they did today is despicable. They also crushed the SHORT Act which was every bit as important as the suppressors.

 

[Noclutch]

Agreed on both above points.
But is something (no can tax) better than nothing?

 

[hk940]

Agreed on both above points.
But is something (no can tax) better than nothing?

That way of thinking is the problem, the peasants will cheer at the throwing of crumbs. There is still a registry.

 

[CapnMac]

Nobody wanted any light shined on the shaky legality of NFA 34, and its "tax stamp" regulation mechanism.
The Antis were slobbering over the notion of changing the Tax Amount, numbers from US$2000 to $10K were bandied about; along with actual cost of the admin workers handling the Title II forms.
Basically winds up a political lose/lose, and no one wants to take that back to their Districts.

 

[Gtscotty]

I called Rep. David Kustoff's office to express concern about section 2 of the HPA being left out of the reconciliation bill in Lieu of the tax being zero'd out last week. The staffer I talked to had obviously been getting a lot of calls on this and said that the change was made because the Byrd Rule limits what can be included in a reconciliation bill on the Senate side to things with a direct tax impact. Per that staffer, the calculation was that bulk inclusion of the HPA could be stripped out immediately as not being in compliance with the rule for a reconciliation bill and had basically no chance of making it through the Senate side, but a change of the tax amount had a chance of getting through.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Messing with/reducing the tax will come back to bite the 2A community as the left will simply adjust that $200 amount when they are in charge down the road. Quick calculator shows that $200 in 1934 is now $4,788.

Also, putting this into a budget bill was not the way to go about it as all they could do was mess with the tax amount. They couldn't change the NFA to remove suppresser with a budget action.

I don't think this is going to turn out well.

 

[hk940]

If the tax is reduced to 0 what will happen to a form 1?

 

[Gtscotty]

Messing with/reducing the tax will come back to bite the 2A community as the left will simply adjust that $200 amount when they are in charge down the road. Quick calculator shows that $200 in 1934 is now $4,788.

Also, putting this into a budget bill was not the way to go about it as all they could do was mess with the tax amount. They couldn't change the NFA to remove suppresser with a budget action.

I don't think this is going to turn out well.

What would have stopped them from upping the tax in the future before that's not still in force? It's not like this is a novel idea, or that upping the tax hasn't been proposed before.

 

[dogtown tom]

Ya'll would think that after a decade, two Democratic administrations and two Republican administrations and never getting to a floor vote that you would realize the Hearing Protection Act is pablum for the masses. Call it HPA/Shush/Hush or anything else you want.

 

[Roverguy]

I called Rep. David Kustoff's office to express concern about section 2 of the HPA being left out of the reconciliation bill in Lieu of the tax being zero'd out last week. The staffer I talked to had obviously been getting a lot of calls on this and said that the change was made because the Byrd Rule limits what can be included in a reconciliation bill on the Senate side to things with a direct tax impact. Per that staffer, the calculation was that bulk inclusion of the HPA could be stripped out immediately as not being in compliance with the rule for a reconciliation bill and had basically no chance of making it through the Senate side, but a change of the tax amount had a chance of getting through.

Smarter than the average staffer. This is the crux. It could still be nixed in the Senate.

 

[Jim Watson]

the Hearing Protection Act is pablum for the masses.

Applies in many areas: "We're working for you, Loyal Constituent, just send some more campaign funds and I am sure we will get the next bill in your interest passed Next Time."

 

[Ohen Cepel]

What would have stopped them from upping the tax in the future before that's not still in force? It's not like this is a novel idea, or that upping the tax hasn't been proposed before.

I'm not sure they were tracking/aware of it till now.

It is all guessing to be honest but sometimes a low profile is the better way to go. The best we could get in this is a $200 break; I see much more downside than that.

 

[Mars5l]

I guess we are 1 step closer

 

[AlexanderA]

This is intriguing. Lots of questions, which can only be resolved by reading the actual legislative language. For example, are suppressors still defined as Title I "firearms," requiring a Form 4473, or are they mere accessories that can be sold over the counter with no formalities at all?

ETA: 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3) is not amended, so silencers are still "firearms" and have to be sold with a Form 4473 and background check. This also presumably helps in states that ban silencers, but have carve-outs for silencers that are possessed in compliance with federal law.

 

[12Bravo20]

ETA: 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3) is not amended, so silencers are still "firearms" and have to be sold with a Form 4473 and background check. This also presumably helps in states that ban silencers, but have carve-outs for silencers that are possessed in compliance with federal law.

I think most will be okay with just filling out a 4473 and then walking out the door with your new suppressor.

Just my personal opinion on the matter, it should not even require a 4473 since they are no different than any other type of muffler that is used on things other than firearms.

 

[bwalker36]

I think most will be okay with just filling out a 4473 and then walking out the door with your new suppressor.

Just my personal opinion on the matter, it should not even require a 4473 since they are no different than any other type of muffler that is used on things other than firearms.

I agree with your personal opinion personally. But If i had to choose between risking them coming out of the NFA at all vs a 4473 i'm choosing 4473 all day. I don't think it will pass the senate as is, especially if it can't be a simple majority.

 

[jmorris]

I think most will be okay with just filling out a 4473 and then walking out the door with your new suppressor.

There are going to be more suppressor build threads, if they don't cost me $200 a pop...or "psst" I suppose.

 

[hk940]

Will making your own suppressor be the same as making ones own rifle or pistol?

 

[bwalker36]

I mean if they are out of the NFA doesn't that make them normal title 1 firearms (Might have the wrong term). I would imagine that means we can just make them, but Id imagine they would try to force them to be serialized like they did with homemade firearms.

 

[hk940]

I mean if they are out of the NFA doesn't that make them normal title 1 firearms (Might have the wrong term). I would imagine that means we can just make them, but Id imagine they would try to force them to be serialized like they did with homemade firearms.

How can they be a firearm if they don't chamber a round? It's just a muffler. Of course convince a jury! A SN means nothing if there is not a data base.

 

[jmorris]

Will making your own suppressor be the same as making ones own rifle or pistol?

Right now you get an approved form 1 back before you build SBS, SBR, AOW and silencers. I would assume if they pull silencers out of the NFA, you would no longer need a form 1 and just build them like any other non NFA "firearm".

I would make sure of that before I began though.

 

[jmorris]

How can they be a firearm if they don't chamber a round? It's just a muffler. Of course convince a jury! A SN means nothing if there is not a data base.

Just the way they the law is written. The form (1) you fill out now to be legal, is an application to make and register a firearm.



The type you put in 4b is "silencer".

 

[AlexanderA]

I don't think it will pass the senate as is, especially if it can't be a simple majority.

A budget reconciliation bill (which is what this is) can pass the Senate with a simple majority. The filibuster doesn't apply. However, the Senate Parliamentarian (Elizabeth MacDonough) gets to rule on whether a particular provision is germane to the budget process. She may well rule that reducing the NFA silencer tax to zero is germane, but removing silencers from the NFA entirely is not. But, since the Parliamentarian's ruling is advisory, it can be overturned by a simple majority vote of the Senators, or even by the presiding officer (J.D. Vance).