Category: Politics

Cornyn seems to be trying to buy his way back into our good graces.
If he wants any consideration, he better be right in there pushing for the inclusion of the SHORT act.

Cornyn Statement on Inclusion of Deregulating Firearm Suppressors in House’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) released the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes a provision he is pushing for inclusion in the Senate’s version of the legislation to deregulate firearms suppressors by eliminating the unconstitutional suppressor tax and registration requirements under the National Firearms Act:

“Firearm silencers should not be subject to overregulation and unconstitutional taxes that hamstring Texans’ freedoms and pocketbooks,” said Sen. Cornyn. “I’m proud to see the House stand up for law-abiding gun owners, eliminate senseless red tape, and proudly defend our Second Amendment rights, and I will continue to fight for this as the Senate works to pass President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Background:

Suppressors are currently subject to additional regulatory burdens under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Sen. Cornyn cosponsored the Hearing Protection Act to remove suppressors from regulation under the NFA and replace the burdensome federal transfer process with an instantaneous National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.  This would make the purchasing and transfer process for suppressors similar to the process for rifles and shotguns.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a reconciliation package today that includes a provisions from the Hearing Protection Act to strike the registration requirement for firearm silencers and makes the manufacturer tax on silencers $0. Specifically, it amends Sec. 112029 to strike the registration requirement for firearm silencers by removing silencers from the list of firearms in the tax code.

 

The Good, Bad, and Ugly News on the Fight to De-Regulate Suppressors

The fight over removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act has primarily moved to the Senate for the moment, but there are legal and political battles still being fought over the devices in courthouses and committee chambers, and the Trump administration has given both sides some ammunition in its latest filing in a case called U.S. v. Peterson.

Louisiana resident George Peterson was charged with possession of an unregistered suppressor in 2022, and was found guilty in U.S. District Court. Earlier this year a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit upheld that conviction, ruling that suppressors aren’t protected by the Second Amendment because they’re not “arms”.

Peterson has hired a team of seasoned Second Amendment attorneys including David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and Cody J. Wisniewski to represent him as he seeks an en banc review of the panel’s decision, but in its latest filing the DOJ is still advocating against a broader review by the entire appellate court.

The good news is that the DOJ has, for the first time that I’m aware of, adopted the position that suppressors are, in fact, protected arms under the Second Amendment. In a filing last Friday, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana Michael M. Simpson noted that the federal government as “re-evaluated” its previous position.

In the view ofthe United States, the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components such as suppressors. As a result, restrictions on the possession of suppressors burden the right to bear arms, and a ban on the possession of suppressors or other similar accessories would be unconstitutional. The government’s earlier argument to the contrary was incorrect.

The bad news is that in that same filing the DOJ contends that the inclusion of suppressors in the National Firearms Act, and indeed the NFA itself, is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

But the National Firearms Act’s registration and taxation requirement is constitutional because it imposes a modest burden on a firearm accessory that is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition because suppressors are specially adaptable to criminal misuse. For this reason, the panel correctly affirmed Peterson’s conviction.

Gun control groups are going to have a field day with the Trump administration’s position that suppressors are “specially adaptable to criminal misuse” at the same time Republicans are trying to de-regulate them. And Second Amendment advocates should be up in arms (so to speak) over Simpson’s contention that the registration and taxing of a constitutionally-protected item are just “modest” burdens on the right to keep and bear arms.

Simpson’s argument that the NFA’s registration requirement is no big deal is extraordinarily bad. Current federal statute bars the government from establishing or maintaining a list of gun owners, but now the DOJ (or at least one U.S. Attorney) is essentially arguing that requiring gun owners to register their arms with the federal government wouldn’t violate the Second Amendment. Simpson takes pains to stress that taxing suppressors is okay because they’re supposedly “pose a special danger of misuse”, but he never really explains why or if registration would apply only to those arms that are especially dangerous (at least in the eyes of the goverment).

Simpson’s take on NFA taxes is also wildly inaccurate. The NFA’s tax requirement was meant to pose a substantial burden on buyers of restricted items, and while a $200 transfer tax and $200 making tax isn’t as cost-prohibitive as it was back in 1934, tacking an additional $400 on the price of a suppressor does mean that some folks will be unable to afford one. But Simpson maintains that those taxes (again, at least when it comes to arms that pose a “special danger of misuse”) “are no more burdensome than a variety of other constitutional regulations, such as the requirements that a firearm purchaser obtain a background check or that a person licensed to carry a firearm undergo safety training and pay a reasonable fee.”

Simpson argues that the $200 transfer tax is “modest”, but he fails to set a threshold for an immodest or unreasonable tax, which gets us to the ugly news surrounding suppressors.

On May 22, during an early morning floor debate over the legislation, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) registered her opposition to the bill. In reference to the suppressor tax reduction, she stated, “then, of course, as we mentioned about the silencers, it’s just beyond comprehension.”

According to the former speaker of the House, it is incomprehensible that lawmakers want to eliminate a prohibitory tax scheme on harmless devices that help their constituents lawfully exercise their Second Amendment rights with reduced risk of hearing damage.

Yet the longtime representative from San Francisco still didn’t manage to provide the worst take of the week. That dubious distinction belongs to Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) who argued the current tax on suppressors doesn’t go far enough, and law-abiding Americans already enjoy too much freedom.

In a meeting of the House Rules Committee, Dean claimed to be shocked by the level to which Americans are already exercising their right to keep and bear arms. The congresswoman stated,

You know what the dollars are? It’s $1.4 billion over 10 years. I did the math. That means something like 700,000 silencers are sold in this country a year. That baffles me. I don’t know if that’s accurate, but by the numbers and by the math, that’s what we’re talking about.

Dean took issue with the fact that the suppressor tax has not kept up with inflation and acknowledged its infringing nature: “the tax was used to try to discourage the purchasing of silencers.”

The congresswoman went on to elaborate her preferred scenarios. She said,

If we doubled it, if we just went to $400, you could sell only half as many and not lose a penny in revenue. If we tripled it, you might actually discourage some sales of silencers. Wouldn’t that be a good thing for us to be doing in this committee?

Dean seems to have a better grasp of history than Simpson does, unfortunately. The NFA taxes were absolutely meant to discourage the purchase and possession of restricted items, which is one of the reasons why 2A advocates argue that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional.

Dean and her fellow Democrats will jack up the transfer and making taxes at the first given opportunity, so it’s critical that the Trump administration not only recognize that suppressors (and I would argue, other NFA items) are protected by the Second Amendment, but that the National Firearms Act cannot be reconciled with our Second Amendment rights.

The DOJ has taken some historic steps to protect and preserve the the right to keep and bear arms under President Trump’s watch, but this is a huge misstep, and one that needs to be rectified going forward. Removing suppressors from the NFA through Trump’s big, beautiful bill would be a big help, but ultimately the administration needs to revise its position on the NFA itself. If not, some of the arguments the DOJ makes over the next four years could prove to be a huge gift to the gun control lobby.

There’s a Difference Between Being Pro-2A and Anti-Gun Control

This morning, as I awoke, the House Rules Committee was debating the budget reconciliation bill. The One Big, Beautiful Bill, as it’s being called. Part of that debate was the inclusion of the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove suppressors – they’re safety devices, by the way – from the list of items regulated by the National Firearms Act.

It should have already been included, but Rep. David Kustoff of Tennessee reportedly offered up something that was just table scraps for gun rights supporters. It reduced the fee for an NFA tax stamp from $200 to nothing.

It’s not nothing, but it’s pretty darn close.

See, the problem here is that we’ve been looking at Republicans and their position on guns wrong for quite some time.

For a while, the big thing was where they stood on gun control. The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups’ questionnaires typically revolved primarily around whether they’d oppose things like universal background checks, assault weapon bans, and things of that sort.

There were some questions about measures that would restore people’s Second Amendment rights from where they are now, but a lot of it was about opposing gun control, and not without reason. After all, we were largely playing defense in legislatures across this nation, with more success in some than in others.

In truly pro-gun states, we saw the advancement of gun rights, of course, but in most places, that was much harder. That included in Congress.

The problem with playing defense is that you find yourself with two different groups. Some are pro-gun while others are anti-gun control.

Anti-gun control lawmakers have their place. In a state like California, that can be a big difference, especially if enough of them get elected to office. They can stem the tide of anti-Second Amendment legislation.

These are the defensive players.

What we really need right now, though, are actual pro-gun legislators in Congress.

Those are the ones who would easily back the Hearing Protection Act without hesitation and would insist the SHORT Act – which removes short-barrelled rifles from the National Firearms Act list as well – be included, too. They’d not just oppose gun control, but support legislation like national constitutional carry or, at least, national reciprocity.

Pro-gun doesn’t mean opposing gun control. It means looking at our right to keep and bear arms as a sacred right gifted to all people by virtue of being free men and women. It’s a right that makes damn sure we remain free, too.

For generations, our gun rights have been under assault, but for the first time, we have a chance to correct at least some of those past wrongs.

What we need aren’t anti-gun control folks. Not right now. We need lawmakers to actually be pro-gun for a change. We need them to step up and do what they know is right. We need to get some of our rights back so that we can defend ourselves from tyranny, either a tyrannical government or from the tyranny of the thug.

I’m willing to accept that we can’t get everything back, but nothing but the removal of the cost of a tax stamp is a slap in our faces. That’s the act of Republicans who are anti-gun control more than pro-gun.

It’s time we start calling them what they are.

Make them defend it, if they can.

Analysis: Reconciliation is the Best Shot for Deregulating Silencers, But it’s No Sure Thing
Silencer deregulation is now the closest it’s ever been to becoming a reality.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed its budget bill with a provision that takes silencers out of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. It now heads to the Senate, where it is a very small part of a very big bill. And a must-pass bill that needs just 50 votes to pass at that.

It may not be smooth sailing once the Senate gets ahold of the bill, though.

Certainly, bundling the effort as part of a much larger budget bill is the best chance it has of getting through this Congress. That 50-vote Senate threshold will be a huge advantage for gun-rights activists backing the bill. There is next to no chance a bill delisting silencers from the NFA could get the 60 votes needed to clear a filibuster.

The Hearing Protection Act, a standalone bill that delists silencers, hasn’t garnered a single Democratic co-sponsor for several Congresses in a row, and Mike Crapo (R., Idaho), one of its co-sponsors, recently told me on the podcast it isn’t likely to get more than a few Democratic votes on its own.

The House version fares a bit better, with one Democratic co-sponsor and 85 Republicans.

But there are doubts over whether it could get through, given that chamber’s tight margins and likely opposition from Republicans like Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick.

So, budget reconciliation offers gun-rights activists more hope of achieving their goal. Certainly, that’s what drove them to savage a less ambitious plan to just cut the NFA’s silencer tax to zero that House Ways and Means Committee Republicans had initially passed. Gun Owners of America went so far as to call it a betrayal and accused the committee of trying to save the NFA’s registration rules.

Those Republicans have argued they aren’t opposed to delisting silencers, but the gun-rights groups are miscalculating on what can get through reconciliation. The sticking point is over what the Senate Parliamentarian will allow under the Byrd Rule. The half dozen sources I spoke with on either side of the fight came to starkly different conclusions about what’s allowed.

The Byrd Rule forbids provisions that deal with “extraneous matters.” There are six definitions for what that means. The most relevant one to silencer delisting is likely the ban on provisions that produce “a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision.”

The gun-rights advocates, as shown in this Gun Owners of America fact sheet, argue the NFA is a tax, and the registration requirements in it are merely mechanisms to enforce that tax. So, eliminating registration and the other regulatory requirements associated with the NFA is not “extraneous,” and delisting silencers should be allowed.

However, the Ways and Means Republicans disagree. They argue since the main goal of delisting is not to affect the NFA’s tax, but rather to eliminate the other requirements in the law, the Parliamentarian will rule against it. They say they looked into the idea of including delisting but were warned by a former Parliamentarian that it wouldn’t work, which is why they went with the tax cut instead.

Still, everyone seems to agree that the Parliamentarian will probably approve eliminating the silencer tax. In fact, some on the gun group side argue the tax provision works as a kind of fallback. That way, even if delisting gets canned, the tax cut can still serve as a consultation.

On the Ways and Means side, they fear delisting silencers from the NFA while also eliminating the tax on them could be ruled as redundant, or the whole section could be tossed out under the Byrd Rule instead of just one part of it. In other words, adding the delisting provision risks ending up with no reform at all.

But that could happen even if delisting or the tax survives the Byrd Rule. The fact that the fiscal impact of the tax repeal is just $1.4 billion over 10 years, a tiny percentage of the overall budget, may work in either direction. It’s unlikely to be enough money to work as a meaningful bargaining chip to settle disputes over things like Medicaid cuts or SALT write-off limits. But it could also easily be swept away if enough Republican Senators think it isn’t worth the squeeze of potentially negative publicity.

That’s one of the risks of the hard-nosed public push the gun-rights groups pursued against the Ways and Means Republicans, which those Republicans didn’t know was coming. If the public backlash doesn’t work, they’ll end up getting what the Republicans they torched were trying to deliver in the first place–or nothing at all. And they’ve likely alienated them, which makes them and perhaps other Republicans less inclined to stick their neck out in the future.

Although if it does work, it’ll have been worth it. Silencer deregulation has been a top priority of the gun-rights movement for a very long time. Plus, if the gun groups prove to be right, the public pushback could convince Republicans they need to take a more aggressive tack going forward to stay in those groups’ good graces–especially since they were savvy enough to suss out the right play.

The ultimate bet is over who is interpreting the Byrd Rule correctly. If the gun groups end up getting silencers delisted from the NFA, I doubt they’ll fret much over whether they alienated some House Republicans along the way. If not, though, their pull on Capitol Hill will be further diminished for no gain.

What’s Going on With HPA, SHORT Act As of Right Now

There’s a lot going on at the moment regarding the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act. We all know that the House Ways and Means Committee essentially gutted those two measures and gave us scraps. We’ve talked a lot about what happened, and there’s no need to rehash it.

But the current status is something else.

On Tuesday, I spoke with Ben Sanderson, the deputy federal director of Gun Owners of America, about where things stand as of this moment for my personal YouTube channel.

During our chat, Sanderson suggested that the Rules Committee hearing could be delayed, rather than kicking off at one this morning.

Well, that didn’t seem to happen, as they’re still meeting at the time of me writing this. As a result, some of the information in there is a tad outdated–calling Rules Committee members now and asking them to do something in committee is probably not going to be useful, for example–but there’s a lot to understand.

If you’re confused, there’s a reason. This is kind of a confusing process, but it’s one that’s necessary and has the added benefit of being something that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

However, both the SHORT Act and the Hearing Protection Act had to be worded carefully so they could be in the budgetary process. The Byrd Rule basically requires that anything tacked onto the budget have to involve revenue in some manner. That actually makes some sense, which is weird for Congress, so GOA worked to craft the language in both of these bills.

Sanderson told me that the $0 for tax stamps and nothing else came from Rep. David Kustoff of Tennessee, and there have been some rumblings of him facing a primary challenge because of it.

Honestly, that’s legit, and it’s something I’ve been advocating for a fair bit lately.

Now, with the Rules Committee meeting as I write this, it might not be useful to make phone calls to your congresscritters and make demands for actions in the rules committee–for those who are on it–but there’s still a lot of politics left no matter what happens today. Call your representatives and senators. Call them and make your voice heard, because even if nothing happens in the House, there’s still the Senate process, where both the HPA and SHORT Act can be included, then reconciled between the two chambers.

Sanderson noted that this isn’t remotely the most controversial element to the budget battle, which means there’s every opportunity to slide this in and get it to stay there.

All we need are some members of Congress, other than the small handful that have already signed onto these measures as they stood.

Call your representatives and pester them. Email them. Make yourself a burden. Make sure you expect them to vote for this and if not, you’ll back any primary challenger they have.

And then we need people to step up and challenge these lawmakers. Then we need to back them with time and treasure. If yours steps up and does the right thing, throw some money at challengers in other districts.

It’s not enough to be anti-gun control anymore. It’s time for them to be pro-gun.

Numerous Gun Rights Groups Unite in Open Letter Calling for NFA Reform

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee really screwed us.

The reduction of the $200 tax stamp for suppressors to nothing is, at best, a good start. However, it’s also not the biggest problem with suppressors, at least in my mind. A couple hundred bucks more for a product is a pain, sure, but the paperwork, the pleading with the crown for a scrap of your rights, and the permanent registration of the device are the bigger issues to me.

It’s why I’ve never gone down that particular road.

And we had a chance to address that.

Well, to be fair, we still do, but that’s not going to happen without a lot of pressure.

To that end, an open letter is circulating calling for NFA reform that we can all rally behind that has a butt-ton of state-level gun rights groups as signatories.

Open Letter to Reform the National Firearms Act

May 17, 2025

The Honorable Jodey C. Arrington
Chairman, House Committee on Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
1111 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4319

The Honorable Virginia Foxx
Chairman, House Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives
2462 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3305

Rep. Arrington, Rep. Foxx, members of the House committees on Budget and Rules:

As leaders of the undersigned organizations, we demand immediate inclusion of portions of the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act (H.R. 2395) in the forthcoming reconciliation bill. These critical pieces of legislation address longstanding, unjust restrictions imposed by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, which infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. The failure to incorporate these bills into the reconciliation package would represent a profound missed opportunity to restore individual liberty, protect public health, and uphold constitutional guarantees.

The Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404), introduced by Representative Ben Cline (R-VA-06), seeks to remove firearm suppressors from the NFA’s burdensome regulatory framework, replacing it with a streamlined purchase process for typical accessories. Suppressors, contrary to popular misconceptions, do not silence firearms but significantly reduce noise levels, mitigating the risk of permanent hearing loss for shooters and hunters. The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery has endorsed suppressors as effective tools for preventing hearing damage, a public health concern affecting millions of Americans. The current NFA requirements — including a $200 tax stamp for both manufacture and transfer of the devices, extensive paperwork, and excessive waiting times — serve no meaningful public safety purpose while imposing undue financial and administrative burdens on responsible citizens. With over 4.8 million suppressors in civilian circulation, their widespread use underscores the need for reform.

Similarly, the SHORT Act (H.R. 2395) addresses the arbitrary NFA classification of short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), which subjects them to the same onerous regulations as transferable machine guns and other highly restricted devices. This outdated framework, rooted in 1930s-era fears of organized crime, lacks relevance in the modern context, where SBRs and SBSs pose no greater threat than standard rifles or shotguns. The SHORT Act would delist these firearms from the NFA, eliminating unnecessary barriers to ownership and ensuring that law-abiding Americans are not penalized for exercising their constitutional rights.

Language compliant with the U.S. Senate “Byrd rule” (2 U.S.C. 644) is circulating the Second Amendment community and should be incorporated in the current budget reconciliation package. The urgency of including this language in the reconciliation package cannot be overstated. Recent reports indicate that the House Ways and Means Committee has delayed action on both H.R. 404 and H.R. 2395, potentially due to lobbying efforts that prioritize commercial interests over the public good. Such delays are unacceptable, particularly when public sentiment, as reflected in numerous grassroots calls to action, overwhelmingly supports NFA reform. The reconciliation process offers a unique opportunity to bypass Senate filibuster constraints, ensuring that these common-sense reforms reach the House floor and become law. Failure to seize this moment risks further entrenching an antiquated and unconstitutional regulatory regime.

Opponents of these reforms, such as Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety,” argue that suppressor deregulation poses public safety risks by making gunfire less detectable. This claim is false and ignores the reality that suppressors reduce, but do not eliminate, firearm noise. Moreover, homemade suppressors are readily accessible to those with criminal intent.

The public safety argument against SBR deregulation is equally baseless, as these firearms are functionally identical to their longer-barreled counterparts. These objections, often rooted in fearmongering rather than evidence, should not override the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

The Second Amendment unequivocally protects the right to keep and bear arms, and the NFA’s restrictive provisions—originally enacted to combat gang violence nearly a century ago—have long outlived their utility. The Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act represent measured, practical steps toward aligning federal law with contemporary realities and constitutional principles. Their inclusion in the reconciliation bill is not merely a policy preference but a moral and legal imperative.

We, the signatories, therefore, demand that the House Committee on Rules and the committee on Budgets act decisively to ensure that the publicly available, broadly supported, modified language of H.R. 404 and H.R. 2395 are incorporated into the reconciliation package in their entirety, without dilution or compromise. The American people deserve legislation that respects their rights, promotes public health, and dismantles unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles. We strongly urge you to heed the calls of millions of gun owners and Second Amendment advocates who have made their voices clear. The time for action is now.

Respectfully,

F. Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Exec. Director, Rights Watch International

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association

Philip Van Cleave, President
Virginia Citizens Defense League

Sean Caranna, Executive Director
Florida Carry, Inc.

Tom King, President
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

Rep. JR Hoell, President
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Inc.

Kevin Starrett, Director
Oregon Firearms Federation

Mike Duralia, President
South Carolina Carry

Kevin Patrick, Jr., Acting President
West Virginia Citizens Defense League

Matthew Andras, President
Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners

Mark W. Pennak, President
Maryland Shall Issue

Richard Pearson, Exec. Director
Illinois State RIFLE Association

Kimberly Morin, President
Women’s Defense League of NH

Klint Macro, President
Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League

Rich Kerlin, President
Beaver County Sportsmen’s Conservation League

Blaine Toy, President
Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania

Rob Pincus, Director
2nd Amendment Organization

Dianna Muller, President
Women for Gun Rights

J.R. Stoker Jr., President
Firearms Owners Against Crime Institute

Dr. Joe Hannon, VP
Gun Owners of New Hampshire

Dennis Fusaro, Member*
Legislative Policy Committee,
BOD National Rifle Association

Jon Richardson, Member*
BOD National Rifle Association

Bryan Strawser, Chair
Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

David Adams, Exec. Director
Virginia Shooting Sports Association

Laura Whitcomb, President
Gun Owners of Maine.

Holly Sullivan, President
Connecticut Citizens Defense League

John C. Poole II, Exec. Director,
Texas State Rifle Association

Charles Hiltunen, President
Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association

Rocky Marshall
Boerne, TX

Eric Davis, President
Gun Owners of Vermont

Linda Walker, President
Buckeye Firearms Association

Jeffrey Kaufman, MD, BoD
VT Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs

Chris Bradley, President
VT Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs

Huey Laugesen, Exec. Director
Colorado State Shooting Association

James D Jones, Secretary and Board Member BamaCarry
*(title for identification only)

Yes, this is long, but it’s worth every minute of it.

Normally, I wouldn’t include the signatories, but the plethora of gun rights groups represented here makes it imperative that I include them. For those whose organizations aren’t on this letter, who would like to be included, reach out to Rep. J. R. Hoell of New Hampshire at RepJRHoell@gmail.com  for inclusion.

Now, let’s understand what’s important here. These grassroots organizations represent a lot of voters. These aren’t people who joined the NRA when they were 16, got a life membership, and haven’t paid attention to gun rights since then. Or, to be sure, some other group that they joined, then promptly ignored. I’m not picking on the NRA here, but pointing out that some people join some national organization and figure that’s enough fighting for them. They’ve done their part.

These are the boots on the ground. These are the fighters in the various states.

And it’s pretty clear that these people want more than just a nullification of the tax stamp’s cost. The fact that we have to get a tax stamp at all is the major issue, and we want the Hearing Protection Act and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act, as they were written, as part of the budget process.

The anti-gunners have pulled this stunt repeatedly, putting various measures into the budget process because they know how difficult it is to vote against the budget for either side, and they get what they want through the back door. We can and should use this same process against them.

But we need lawmakers with a spine to step up and do what’s right for a change, and not just try to throw us scraps, and not even scraps from the king’s table, but the peasant’s.

That won’t happen unless we, the voters, pressure them. They need to be afraid that if they don’t put this language in the budget that they’ll be out of a job well before the general election.

Turn up the heat, and do it fast enough that they jump.

Gun Owners Kill Compromise Bill That Kept Suppressors on the NFA

The reconciliation bill that included lowering the tax stamp fee for suppressors but kept the device on the National Firearms Act of 1968 failed to pass the floor vote in the House of Representatives largely in part to Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act being missing.

Reconciliation is a process that deals with taxes. Unlike normal bills requiring a supermajority in the Senate, a reconciliation bill only requires a majority vote. Republicans control both chambers of Congress; they can pass it even if every Democrat votes against it. Since the United States Supreme Court has already stated that the NFA is primarily a tax, it can be modified through the reconciliation process. Pressure from gun owners and activists on members of the House helped to crush the reconciliation bill.

The HPA would have removed suppressors from the NFA while still subjecting them to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) regulations. This change would mean no tax stamp to buy a suppressor, and gun owners would not need to register their devices with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which many view as an infringement.

The SHORT Act would remove short-barreled rifles (SBR) and short-barreled shotguns (SBS) from the NFA. The NFA requires registration with the ATF if a rifle has a barrel less than 16 inches or a shotgun has a barrel less than 18 inches. This requirement was implemented during the debate over the NFA in 1934. The NFA looked to include pistols, so SBRs and SBSs were added to prevent people from using these “loopholes” to get around regulations. During the debate in 1934, the pistol regulation was removed, but the restrictions on rifles and shotguns remained. The SHORT Act would fix a nearly 100-year-old mistake.

During the House Ways and Means Committee markup of the bill, Republicans led by David Kustoff (R-TN) changed the language of the HPA to eliminate the $200 tax stamp fee but kept the suppressors on the NFA. Gun Owners were furious and felt betrayed by the Republican-led committee. Rep. Kustoff claimed he pushed what he did because of the Senate’s “Byrd Rule.”

The Byrd Rule states that only tax issues can be done through reconciliation. Speaking to people in the Senate, they do not believe that removing suppressors from the NFA would violate the Byrd Rule since SCOTUS has already determined the NFA to be tax law. They also point out that if the Senate decided it violated the Byrd Rule, it could be modified in the Senate. There was no need for the House to worry about the Byrd rule.

Because Friday’s vote failed to pass the bill through the House, the budget committee will reconvene on Sunday to hash out a bill that will most likely pass. Hopes are high due to the outpouring from the gun community that Section 2 of the HPA will be included. This change would mean that suppressors would be removed from the NFA. Those at AmmoLand News have spoken to in the House are confident that the HPA will be included in the new text. The SHORT Act also has a shot of being included, but that is far from certain.

If the bill is fixed on Sunday, a vote will happen early next week before it is headed to the Senate. This reconciliation package could be a significant step towards dismantling parts of the NFA.

Mrgunsngear

According to my contacts “on the hill” – Rep Andrew Clyde has been holding the line behind closed doors to ensure the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act are put back into the “big beautiful bill” which President Trump says he will sign.

This is a generational opportunity to get some of our 2nd Amendment rights restored. HOLD THE LINE 🇺🇸

“The House now has a historic opportunity to repeal the burdensome taxation, registration, & regulation of short-barreled firearms & suppressors under the National Firearms Act.

“The American People are watching. It is time to deliver.”

 

Bipartisan Bill Expanding Gun Carry for Cops Passes House

Current and former police officers may soon be able to carry firearms into more areas across the country.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed reform of the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) by a vote of 229 to 193. 14 Democrats crossed over to join 215 Republicans in passing HR 2243. It expands where officers who’ve kept up with training requirements can carry firearms to include private property open to the public, school zones, federal parks, and certain federal facilities open to the general public–such as the post office or Veterans Affairs facilities.

“I’m pleased today the House passed my bipartisan LEOSA Reform Act, which offers real solutions to address threats such as terrorism and mass shootings by ensuring that our retired and off-duty law enforcement officers can exercise their right to concealed carry – no matter where they live or visit,” Rep. Don Bacon (R., Texas), a co-sponser of the bill, said in a statement. “These measured changes will make existing law stronger and more workable for those who seek its benefits while maintaining the rigorous standards that currently apply.”

“Many of our retired law enforcement officers are ready to continue serving our community but are unable to due to current law,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D., Texas), another co-sponsor, said. “This bipartisan legislation will fix the issues that our nation’s off-duty officers and retired cops face while concealed carrying.”

HR 2243 represents one of the few gun-related bills that has a chance of making it through the Senate and into law. It shows how potent law-enforcement interests remain on Capitol Hill, with Congress willing to carve out numerous special exceptions to federal, state, and local gun laws for current and former cops.

Still, the Senate version introduced by Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana has only gained a handful of co-sponsors to date. All of them are Republicans. An identical bill from the last Congress never gained Democratic co-sponsors and didn’t make it out of the Judiciary Committee.

But the sizeable support House Democrats gave to the bill, even if the majority of the party still voted against it, suggests it could garner a similar level of support in the Senate if it makes it up for a vote this time around.

Continue reading “”

Of course, politicians (I’m pointing a finger at both the Texas House and Senate) can’t simply pass the same bill in both houses of their legislature.
It’s like they’ve never heard of email, text messages, or the telephone where they can coordinate things.

Texas House Lawmakers Pass Self-Defense, Pro-Second Amendment Measures

Texas House members have passed legislation that would strengthen Second Amendment rights and expand protections for individuals who lawfully exercise self-defense.

House Bill 170, filed by State Rep. Ryan Guillen (R–Rio Grande City), would prohibit civil actions against an individual who threatens or administers force or deadly force if a grand jury does not indict them, or if charges are dismissed or the person is acquitted.

In addition, if the person pursuing the civil action is found to be prohibited from seeking it, Guillen’s proposal would require them to pay court costs and the defendant’s attorney fees.

The measure is similar, but not identical, to Senate Bill 1730 by State Sen. Bob Hall (R–Edgewood), which senators passed 26-3-2 on Monday afternoon.

Like Guillen’s measure, Hall’s would extend civil immunity protections to those who exercised self-defense and never faced grand jury charges. However, unlike Hall’s measure, Guillen’s proposal would extend immunity to those who merely “threaten” the use of force.

“This strengthens the Texas castle doctrine by extending civil immunity to individuals who lawfully threaten to use force or deadly force in self-defense, without requiring the force to actually be used,” said Guillen.

HB 170 finally passed in a 118-20-3 vote by representatives on Tuesday.

Another proposal, HB 2458 by State Rep. Wes Virdell (R–Brady), would provide a defense to prosecution for aggravated assault when an individual threatens death or serious bodily injury by displaying a deadly weapon if they:

  1. Successfully demonstrate that their threat constituted legally justified self-defense.
  2. Reasonably believed that using the deadly weapon was immediately necessary to protect themselves from aggravated assault.

The legal term “defense to prosecution” is a type of total affirmative defense. These defenses, even if the prosecution proves the elements of the crime, present additional facts that could otherwise negate the defendant’s liability.

“This is just saying that if you have to unholster your weapon while you’re acting in self-defense, then it’s a defense to prosecution,” explained Virdell.

Lawmakers passed HB 2458 in a 119-18-2 vote.

Two proposals dealing with citizens’ gun rights were also approved by representatives on Tuesday, but they faced more pushback from Democrats than those related to self-defense, with both votes splitting largely along party lines.

HB 3053, filed by Virdell, would ban local municipalities from adopting or enforcing firearm buyback programs—government initiatives intended to remove guns from circulation by purchasing the firearms.

State Rep. Gene Wu (D–Houston) pushed back on the proposal, arguing that cities should be able to decide for themselves if they want a buyback program.

While Virdell contended that cities often ignore their citizens in passing the programs, Wu argued that the buyback program in Houston was widely supported by residents.

“I have been to multiple gun buyback programs in my districts that were overwhelmingly popular—that people lined up around the block for hours and hours and hours to trade in their weapons,” said Wu.

Virdell noted that most firearms bought through the programs are not destroyed entirely, with the government auctioning off parts of the weapons to private contractors who then resell them back to the public.

“At millions of dollars per city that’s doing this, and the estimate by The Trace over the time period this has been going on is over a billion dollars right now,” said Virdell.

The measure passed 85-56-2.

HB 1794, filed by State Rep. Carl Tepper (R–Lubbock), would permit those with a license to carry (LTC) to bear concealed handguns at certain polling locations, unless carrying at the location is otherwise prohibited by state law.

Primary or secondary schools are examples of polling locations at which Tepper’s proposal would not apply.

“I would also like to add here that private property owners get to keep their own policies,” said Tepper. “So, if the grocery store doesn’t allow handguns, the polling place will also not be allowed to have handguns.”

Tepper’s measure passed 83-50-2.

All four of the measures will now be sent to senators, who have increasingly limited time to read over and consider the hundreds of measures that representatives have stacked up for them.

I like to see the left get a dose of their own medicine

Reaping What You Sow: AOC Townhall Descends Into Chaos As Protester Shrieks, ‘You’re a Liar!’

The Democrats love chaos and unhinged protests—except when it’s directed against them. But sometimes, the chickens come home to roost, and NY Dem Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found that out the hard way as she was heckled and shouted down at her town hall Friday night.

Remember: no matter how woke you are, there’s always someone even woker:

Not surprisingly, it was a protester who had her knickers in a twist about the supposed Palestinian “genocide,” but didn’t have a word to say about the savage October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel where terrorists killed and raped over 1,200 innocents and took hundreds hostage. That seems to be OK in some of these people’s minds.

A hysterical protester yelling about the “genocide” in Gaza interrupted a district town hall event being held by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., shortly after it began on Friday night.

As Ocasio-Cortez first began speaking, she pulled up a PowerPoint presentation for the night’s event. She was then interrupted before even getting through her first slide discussing the Trump administration’s budget cuts, including alleged cuts to local healthcare systems.

“I am a healthcare worker and I want to know what you’re doing about the genocide in Gaza!” the protester started shouting at the congresswoman.

The female protester epitomized the unhinged leftists that we’re getting all too used to seeing:

“Shame on you, you’re a liar. You’re a liar!” the woman screamed as others began to boo at her.

“Shame on you, I used to support you,” the woman shouted as she exited. “You’re a war criminal! War criminal! War Criminal!”

The intellectually challenged congresswoman is many things, mainly an anti-American values provocateur, but even I, as a harsh critic, don’t think she fits the bill of “war criminal.”

This is the world that Democrats have created, though—they’ve celebrated far-left “defiance” and radical protests and unhinged diatribes… It’s actually kind of beautiful when it comes back to haunt them.

Enjoy it, AOC, this is your world.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t done, of course, she had more—and it may come back to haunt her. She taunted Border Czar Tom Homan, which in my view is not a particularly smart thing to do:

“Come for me,” she shouted out to the man my colleague Ward Clark likes to call “The Hammer.” She may well get her wish, but I don’t think it will go well for her.

While Left Wants Ban on ‘Assault Weapons,’ They’re the Reason They Won’t Get One

Earlier this week, Democratic Senators Adam Schiff and Chris Murphy unveiled their new assault weapon ban bill. This is just the latest iteration of something they’ve pushed for regularly since the last assault weapon ban sunset in 2004.

Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth, offering support on X, referred to these as being “designed for war.”

And I’m not going to debate her on it.

Nope.

But I am going to point out a few things that perhaps the left needs to keep in mind as we go forward.

They’re a big chunk of the reason that so many people have these so-called weapons of war. Popularity started back in the 1990s when the move to ban them first started. It continued as people bought ban-legal versions of these weapons and realized they were great. When the ban sunset, they were firmly entrenched as part of our American gun culture.

Continue reading “”

Tennessee Bill Would Strengthen Protection For Firearm Industry In The Volunteer State

A measure that is on the move in the Tennessee Legislature would significantly strengthen legal protections for those in the firearm industry in The Volunteer State.

SB1360 has passed both chambers with overwhelming majorities and is headed for Gov. Bill Lee’s desk for his signature.

Of course, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in 2005, was designed to protect gunmakers and sellers from frivolous lawsuits targeting their legally made, lawfully sold products. But many states have also passed state protections, also, to further bolster that protection.

Tennessee passed its version of the PLCAA back in 2023. The new bill further fortifies that law by expanding legal protections to include private sellers, suppressor manufacturers and magazine producers; prohibiting Tennessee courts from recognizing or enforcing out-of-state or foreign court judgments that conflict with Tennessee’s pro-Second Amendment public policy; and penalizing bad-faith litigation by imposing triple damages on out-of-state plaintiffs and their attorneys who attempt to enforce hostile judgments in Tennessee courts.

The measure states: “In a qualified civil liability action brought against a dealer, manufacturer, or seller of a qualified product, the complaint must allege that the dealer, manufacturer, or seller of the qualified product directly caused the damages alleged. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the civil liability action is not barred by this section. If a court determines a civil liability action is barred by this section, then the court shall dismiss the civil liability action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Continue reading “”

‘Gone Off The Rails’: Colorado Dems Stir Up Hornet’s Nest After Passing One Of America’s Most Extreme Anti-Gun Laws.

Colorado Republicans are pushing back against Democratic Gov. Jared Polis for signing one of the most extreme anti-gun laws in the country this month, accusing him of turning a constitutional right into a privilege bought with permits and fees.

The law, SB25-003, bans the sale, transfer and manufacture of most semiautomatic firearms unless prospective gun owners obey a range of new requirements, including training mandates, tests and sheriff-issued eligibility cards. Republicans, like state Rep. Ty Winter, say it’s a deliberate effort to choke off lawful gun ownership through bureaucracy and paperwork — a view increasingly shared by Second Amendment organizations now mobilizing to fight the law in court.

“This bill is putting a paywall in front of a God-given, unalienable right — and that’s the right to self-defense and the right to keep a free nation,” Winter, assistant minority leader in the Colorado House, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Gun rights aren’t a red or blue issue. Gun rights are an American issue. We forget what the Constitution is for — it’s not to go hunting. It’s not to go target shooting. It’s to keep a nation free. It’s to keep a government in check. And I think that’s the first thing our colleagues across the aisle don’t realize.”

Continue reading “”

Fight with Soldiers, Not Lawyers.

When a group of German saboteurs were caught in New York and Florida in June 1942, planning to blow up hydroelectric plants and other loci of American industrial power but ratted out by two of their fellows in Operation Pastorius, President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was not going to do. “I want one thing clearly understood, Francis,” he told his Attorney General, Francis Biddle. “I won’t hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus. Understand?” Biddle understood: this was war. There would be no civilian “due process.” They would get what was coming to them.

The men had buried their German uniforms on the beaches, and were wearing civilian clothes and carrying a lot of greenbacks when apprehended. Since they had not actually done anything, under civilian law, smart lawyers could get them off with just a couple of years in prison for violating immigration laws, spitting on the sidewalk, and picking their feet in Poughkeepsie. Further, there was a Supreme Court precedent from the Civil War era to deal with, Ex Parte Milligan (1866), in which a Confederate sympathizer and propagandist in Indiana had had his conspiracy conviction by a military tribunal overturned on the grounds that federal courts were still operating at the time of his arrest, and that’s where he should have been tried.

From Roosevelt’s point of view, however, habeas was a luxury the country couldn’t afford; Lincoln had felt the same way during his time as commander-in-chief. Pearl Harbor was, after all, only six months in the rear-view mirror and while the Battle of Midway had just sent the Japanese carrier fleet to the bottom, the Brits had gone tits up at Dunkirk in May 1940 and the Soviets were continuing to reel from Operation Barbarossa, which launched in June 1941. Shortly after the capture of the Germans, FDR issued Executive Proclamation 2561, which created a military tribunal to try their cases. They were thus charged not under civil law but American laws of war dating back to 1775 — the ones that allowed combatants to summarily execute spies and saboteurs. (During the Revolution, both the American  Nathan Hale and the British Major John André were hanged as spies.)

Instead, the operatives were given a military tribunal, convicted, and six of the eight (all had lived in the U.S. and two were American citizens) were sent to the electric chair in August; the two informers were given life or extended sentences in exchange for divulging the plot. Because in those days the Supreme Court actually did read the election returns, Roosevelt’s solution had been pre-emptively sanctioned by the Court in Ex Parte Quirin (July 1942):

In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Harlan Fisk Stone, the Court concluded that the conspirators, as spies without uniform whose purpose was sabotage, violated the law of war and were therefore unlawful enemy combatants. Noting that Congress had, under the Articles of War, authorized trial by military commission for unlawful enemy combatants, the Court therefore determined that the President had not exceeded his power. Furthermore, the Court asserted that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments “did not enlarge the right to jury trial” beyond those cases where it was understood by the framers to have been appropriate.

What a difference fourscore and three years make. Although the Islamic ummah declared war on the United States of America in 1998, and although President Trump has designated Mexican and South American narco gangs such as Tren de Aragua as terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an appalling number of American lawyers — including some ostensibly on the right — appear not to have gotten the message, and have dragged him into federal court over and over again over the phantom issue of alien “rights.” Most recently, the Supreme Court under the wretched John Roberts, ignored its own precious precedents and issued a midnight order temporarily blocking Trump from deporting criminal aliens slated for deportation until further notice while “due process” continues duly.

Continue reading “”