Absolutely. There's no reason that a simple can can't be mass produced and sold for less than the price of a cheap Tasco scope. They're not rocket surgery.
$200 transfer tax removed for short barreled rifles and shotguns
- Thread starter Elkins45
- Start date
I get the removal of the $200 part but isn't the paperwork still onerous?
Definitely onerous. It's a national registry of such items.
That's why that GOA group has already filed suit. I don't know the real story behind the origination of the registry and if the tax was the workaround that the gov't needed to put in place, but based on GOA's version, it would seem that the registry would have to go away.
dnewton3
Staff member
The lawsuits are being filed to remove such items from the NFA and ultimately dismantle most of it. The claim is that, because of the SCOTUS decision decades ago, the NFA restrictions were legal because they were a "tax", and Congress has the authority to levy taxes. So a de facto registry exists to prove/track that taxes were paid for ownership of the NFA items. Sound familiar? It was the same logic that got the PPACA (aka "Obamacare") through SCOTUS scrutiny; it was argued and declared a Congressional tax, so it was deemed legal. The NFA case law came from US v. Miller; a very convoluted case. Tom Grieve did an excellent review of the case on his YT channel, but I won't link it because he always adds a QOTD at the end of his videos, which often quotes scripture. (Just search "Tom Grieve US v. Miller NFA" and you'll find the video).
Now that the "tax"on suppressors, SBRs and SBSs is to be rescinded, the authority (need; requirement) for NFA registration is now void. (So goes the theory). It makes perfect sense, but it will meet fierce resistance. In short, there is no legal authority to track items which no longer need to have a tax paid under the NFA; no tax = no registry of non-existent payment.
This will take several years to play out in the courts ...
This would make suppressors, SBS and SBRs normal firearms (not subject to the NFA), and hence a simple form 4473 should suffice with a NICS check.
There is a bit of interesting irony in that some anti-2A states are attempting to claim that suppressors are not "firearms" (despite the incredibly clear language in federal law in 18 USC 921; see below). The basis of the claim is that suppressors are accessories and not firearms covered by the 2A. So ..... let's break down this logic here. Two ways to look at it:
- if suppressors are firearms, they are covered by the 2A, and then they can be argued to be "common" and therefore not subject to state restriction (ala the "in common use" doctrine from SCOTUS case law).
- if suppressors are not firearms (despite the federal law saying they are), then why are they on the NFA in the first place ??? If they are accessories, there should be no reason for them to exist on the NFA whatsoever. And so states which are pro-2A should be able to allow them and those state residents would not have to apply for the NFA registry. In fact, if they are accessories, then no serial number would be required, and no NICS check either. Scopes, magazines, mounted lights, etc .... none of these "accessories" are controlled via registry.
Ya can't have it both ways ... Suppressors can't both be firearms (protected by the 2A and subject to registration) and accessories (not protected by the 2A, and therefore not subject to registration) at the same time. That defies all logic.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18 section:921 edition
relim) OR (granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section921)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim
I never thought I'd see this in my lifetime, but I am cautiously optimistic as I said previously. Let's get these suppressors, SBSs and SBRs off the NFA!
Now that the "tax"on suppressors, SBRs and SBSs is to be rescinded, the authority (need; requirement) for NFA registration is now void. (So goes the theory). It makes perfect sense, but it will meet fierce resistance. In short, there is no legal authority to track items which no longer need to have a tax paid under the NFA; no tax = no registry of non-existent payment.
This will take several years to play out in the courts ...
This would make suppressors, SBS and SBRs normal firearms (not subject to the NFA), and hence a simple form 4473 should suffice with a NICS check.
There is a bit of interesting irony in that some anti-2A states are attempting to claim that suppressors are not "firearms" (despite the incredibly clear language in federal law in 18 USC 921; see below). The basis of the claim is that suppressors are accessories and not firearms covered by the 2A. So ..... let's break down this logic here. Two ways to look at it:
- if suppressors are firearms, they are covered by the 2A, and then they can be argued to be "common" and therefore not subject to state restriction (ala the "in common use" doctrine from SCOTUS case law).
- if suppressors are not firearms (despite the federal law saying they are), then why are they on the NFA in the first place ??? If they are accessories, there should be no reason for them to exist on the NFA whatsoever. And so states which are pro-2A should be able to allow them and those state residents would not have to apply for the NFA registry. In fact, if they are accessories, then no serial number would be required, and no NICS check either. Scopes, magazines, mounted lights, etc .... none of these "accessories" are controlled via registry.
Ya can't have it both ways ... Suppressors can't both be firearms (protected by the 2A and subject to registration) and accessories (not protected by the 2A, and therefore not subject to registration) at the same time. That defies all logic.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18 section:921 edition
relim) OR (granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section921)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelimI never thought I'd see this in my lifetime, but I am cautiously optimistic as I said previously. Let's get these suppressors, SBSs and SBRs off the NFA!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,207
Yup. There are quite a few guys at AR15.com that have explicitly said this and already started.
There is also a good chance that Bondi and Driscoll will decide to not fight this suit and let the court make the law rather than wait for congress.
MolaKule
Staff member
Or, the court may ask Congress to modify and or clarify the law.
Suppressors are an accessory. How can anyone call them a firearm ? They don't have a trigger, they can't shoot a bullet, and the devices that use them function just fine without them, just like a scope/dot, etc.
It doesn't work that way and that's not the courts job. Their job is to interpret the law as written. If they interpret it differently than Congress intended, then Congress can consider changing it or leaving it as-is. Even if they find it is unconstitutional, the law just becomes unenforceable until it's fixed.
The National Firearms Act explicitly defines silencers as firearms. It's not rational but it's the law.
dnewton3
Staff member
Not accordingly to federal law ... as I showed in the link. 18 USC 921 clearly declares suppressors ("silencers") as "firearms" for the purpose of that Title.
I understand your position, but that is why I believe there's a huge amount of dichotomy and confusion. The law takes no real logic into account. (that could be said of many laws). IMO, the failed logic may well work to a pro-2A favored position. Either way, it's a win for 2A. Either a full win for all, or a major win for some.
As far as an individual filing a Form 1 for an SBR or silencer they wish to make themselves...the process IS the punishment. There might be 10% of the population who could both navigate the necessary steps and have the conviction to follow the process all the way through. I believe that to be by design.
MolaKule
Staff member
I never said this is the courts responsibility. In many of the court's decisions, however, they have stated that certain statutes may need to be modified or clarified by the Congress, effectively throwing the issue back in the lap of Congress.
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/how-courts-do-and-dont-respond-to-statutory-overrides/
There certainly is a reason: economics.
Imagine you were a one man shop making silencers. What’s a decent daily salary for a skilled machinist? That’s how much profit you have to make each day. Now figure out how many cans you can make each day, and then work out how many you have to sell every day to make that much profit, minus material and operational costs. Unless you already have a good inventory of automated production machinery you probably need to tack on a huge amount just to pay your salary.
That business model is basically over once they become generally legal. That kind of shop won't be able to compete. The other thing to understand is that currently, people want their cans to be indestructible because of the headache and cost involved in aquiring one. Once that goes away, cheap semi-disposable aluminum or even plastic units will dominate the market. They are simple devices that do not require fine craftsmanship or crazy high tech engineering to function well.
I think that will be true for rimfire cams but full auto capable centerfire will still need to be made well just for safety.
Yeah, I ain't shooting 7.62x54 out of a screw together can.
I do have 2 cans that come apart, they are Form 1 kits from a company called quiet bore. One is used for 45ACP and one is used for 147gr 9mm. They have both performed and held up well but I would not go shooting full load cartridges through them.
Last edited:
I realize what the law says, but I'm referring to common sense. Why suppressors got lumped in and called a "firearm" along with actual firearms, makes no sense.
Here's a local gun shop discussing the removal of the $200 tax:
If that doesn't show up, go here, https://www.facebook.com/groups/2008365899320255/, and play the video they posted today (July 8).
Notice how he plays both sides (they sell suppressors), suggesting the lead time will go up, will the price go up (at least he only says "maybe" on that).
If that doesn't show up, go here, https://www.facebook.com/groups/2008365899320255/, and play the video they posted today (July 8).
Notice how he plays both sides (they sell suppressors), suggesting the lead time will go up, will the price go up (at least he only says "maybe" on that).
This is the only can that I have held off on. Its hard to pay 3-450 for a 22 can and then pop another 200 on top of it.
At least with my rifle cans they come out to under half the cost of the actual firearm they are going on.
But absolutely 22 is the most fun you can have with a can.
