The NFA Is Beginning to Fall. States Should Follow the Constitution—and Bruen.

For nearly a century, Americans seeking to own suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other firearms have faced a federal regulatory system unlike the process for purchasing an ordinary rifle, shotgun, or handgun.

That system is now undergoing one of its most significant changes since the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934.

Federal law reduced the making and transfer tax for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and Any Other Weapons to $0. Machine guns and destructive devices remain treated differently under federal law.

More recently, a federal district court in Texas concluded that certain remaining NFA requirements could no longer be justified under Congress's taxing power after Congress eliminated the underlying tax. The decision did not erase the entire NFA nationwide, but it represents another significant challenge to a regulatory structure that has existed for more than 90 years.

We believe that is a positive development.

The NFA Was Built Around a Tax

The National Firearms Act has always occupied an unusual place in federal firearms law. It is fundamentally a tax statute.

Congress originally imposed a $200 tax on the making and transfer of covered firearms in 1934. In 1934 dollars, $200 represented an enormous financial barrier for an ordinary American.

Congress has now eliminated that financial barrier for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs by reducing their making and transfer tax to zero.

If there is no tax to collect, why should Americans continue to be subjected to a special tax-registration system for these commonly lawfully owned items?

The recent federal litigation over the NFA is beginning to force courts to confront that question.

Suppressors Should Be Treated as Safety Equipment

Suppressors provide perhaps the clearest example of why America's firearms laws deserve reconsideration.

Despite their portrayal in movies, suppressors do not make firearms magically silent. They reduce the sound generated by firing a gun.

For responsible gun owners, hunters, recreational shooters, instructors, and others regularly exposed to gunfire, reducing that noise has an obvious safety benefit.

Americans should not have to navigate an extraordinary federal registration system simply because they want to reduce their exposure to damaging noise while participating in an otherwise lawful activity.

Removing unnecessary barriers to suppressor ownership can coexist with enforcing laws against violent criminals and people legally prohibited from possessing firearms. Those are not contradictory goals.

Why Is a Short Rifle Constitutionally Different From a Longer One?

Short-barreled rifles expose another strange feature of the NFA.

An otherwise lawful rifle can become an NFA-regulated firearm largely because its barrel or overall dimensions cross a measurement established by statute. That means relatively small differences in configuration can historically have transformed lawful possession into a serious federal offense without the appropriate NFA registration.

That distinction deserves constitutional scrutiny.

The question should not merely be whether a regulation has existed for decades. The Supreme Court has instructed courts to examine firearm regulations under the Second Amendment's text and America's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Bruen Changed the Constitutional Analysis

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court rejected the interest-balancing framework many lower courts had previously used in Second Amendment cases.

The Court held that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, that conduct is presumptively protected. The government must then demonstrate that its restriction is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That matters far beyond New York's former concealed-carry licensing system.

Bruen means governments cannot simply argue that a firearm restriction is desirable public policy and end the constitutional inquiry there. The Constitution comes first.

States Should Reevaluate Their Own NFA-Based Laws

Federal reform alone will not resolve the issue.

Many states have statutes that prohibit or restrict suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or other firearms independently of federal law. Other state statutes were written around compliance with the federal NFA.

Those laws deserve renewed examination.

States should review their firearms codes and ask two separate questions: Does this restriction remain sensible after changes to federal NFA policy? And, more importantly, can the state defend the restriction under the constitutional framework established by Bruen and subsequent Supreme Court decisions?

If a state cannot identify an appropriate historical tradition supporting a modern restriction on conduct protected by the Second Amendment, maintaining that restriction simply because it has been on the books for years should not be enough.

This Does Not Mean Abandoning Responsible Ownership

Supporting the Second Amendment does not require abandoning responsibility.

GunFacts.us supports firearm ownership by responsible, law-abiding adults. We support education, safe handling, securing firearms against unauthorized access, training, and holding people accountable when they use firearms to commit violent crimes.

What we reject is the idea that responsible citizens should be burdened with unnecessary restrictions merely because someone else might misuse a firearm.

Individual criminal behavior should be punished as individual criminal behavior. Constitutional rights should remain constitutional rights.

The Opportunity Ahead

The current changes surrounding the NFA provide lawmakers with an opportunity to reconsider firearms policy from the ground up.

Congress has already removed the tax on several major NFA categories. Courts are now considering what that means for the regulatory structure built around that tax. States should be doing the same.

Rather than searching for ways to preserve restrictions simply because they already exist, lawmakers should examine whether their statutes comply with the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The ultimate goal should be straightforward: Protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding Americans. Punish those who use firearms to harm others. Encourage training, safety, and responsible ownership. And require government to justify restrictions on constitutional rights under the Constitution.

That is not radical firearms policy. It is how constitutional rights are supposed to work.

Primary Sources & Further Reading

ATF — Changes to NFA Tax Remittance Provisions →

U.S. Supreme Court — New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen →