Category: Politics

The Hearing Protection Fearmongering Continues

The Hearing Protection Act should survive the Byrd Rule challenge it’s currently dealing with, in part because, as Cam noted on Wednesday, it deals with the tax portion specifically. Remove the tax, and there’s no reason to have a registry, which was just about knowing who paid the tax.

The National Firearms Act really revolves around taxes, not availability. The way those who passed the law saw it, it didn’t violate the Second Amendment because it didn’t tell anyone what they could and couldn’t have.

Yet now that suppressors are potentially being removed from the NFA, the usual suspects are losing their minds.

And they’re fearmongering like crazy about it, such as in this op-ed.

The budget bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and now before the Senate has rightly drawn a lot of criticism for its sharp cuts to Medicaid. But what has largely escaped the public’s attention is the part of the bill that would aid mass shooters, terrorists, and assassins by deregulating gun silencers.

Silencers on guns make it harder for ordinary civilians and police to hear the sound, see the flash, and quickly detect the location of the shooter. Thus they can serve to facilitate mass shootings.

In Virginia Beach, Virginia, in 2019, a gunman who shot and killed twelve people used a silencer. At first, those present didn’t even know that a shooting was underway. Some of them began running but didn’t know which way to go because they hadn’t heard the gunfire.

I find it amusing that the author had to go back to 2019 to find a high-profile case involving a legally purchased suppressor.

First, Virginia Beach kind of proves that their inclusion on the NFA doesn’t stop bad actors from doing bad things with legally purchased suppressors if they decide to do so.

Second, this whole thing was written by someone who learned everything they know about suppressors from television or movies. A number of suppressors don’t even lower the sound of a shot enough to justify shooting without hearing protection in some cases, and none make those shots whisper quiet. Sure, people didn’t recognize the sounds at first in Virginia Beach, but part of that was simply because they didn’t realize what they were hearing in the first place.

I also notice that the author didn’t mention the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. His alleged assassin, Luigi Mangione, allegedly used a 3D-printed suppressor that he didn’t purchase legally.

Unfortunately, legalizing silencers fits the pattern of Trump’s second term gun policy. He weakened the Brady background check system by revoking President Joe Biden’s Zero Tolerance Policy. Under it, the licenses of gun dealers could be cancelled if they failed to run background checks as required or sold guns to prohibited people. And Trump’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) would even allow “irresponsible and dangerous gun sellers who lost their licenses because of willful violations of the law to get back into business,” as the group Brady United put it. They can simply reapply.

And this is how you know this writer either doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about or is actively lying to his readers.

The policy didn’t somehow make it possible for licenses to be revoked for breaking the law. That’s always been on the table, as well as prosecution, should a licensed dealer fail to conduct a NICS check or knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person. That’s still something dealers face should they do such a thing.

That wasn’t Biden’s “Zero Tolerance” policy.

What his policy did was lead to licenses being revoked for things like abbreviating a county instead of spelling it out, or misunderstanding when the 72-hour waiting period for a NICS check properly starts.

So, with either such a poor understanding of what that policy did or a propensity to outright lie to his readers, why should anyone take his expertise on suppressors seriously?

There is no reason.

Suppressors aren’t commonly used in crimes, even with them being available for 3D printing these days. They add bulk to a gun and make it harder to conceal, which most bad guys prize for various reasons. They also have a finite lifespan, which means you can only get the sound suppressed so many times before it stops.

But hey, when you’re focused on fearmongering to delusional nutjobs who are predisposed to being lied to on guns, what else can you expect?

Constitutional carry bill clears NC legislature, sent to governor

The North Carolina House passed the Freedom to Carry NC Act on Wednesday afternoon along party lines, sending the permitless carry legislation to the governor’s desk.

In a 59-48 vote, the General Assembly moved one step closer to making North Carolina the 30th state to adopt constitutional carry. The bill allows individuals 18 and older to carry concealed handguns without a permit.

“This bill further ensures that Carolinians can exercise their Second Amendment rights, which include both owning and carrying firearms,” said Rep. Brian Echevarria, R-Cabarrus. “The absolute language of ‘shall not be infringed’ in our Constitution is the strongest prohibition on earth against any government action that would limit this right.”

All Democrats, as well as two Republicans, Reps. William Brisson, R-Bladen, and Ted Davis, R-New Hanover, voted against the bill.

 

Rep. Keith Kidwell, R-Beaufort, praised the bill, noting it mirrors his own bill proposal that was introduced in the House earlier this year. The Senate passed its own version and sent it to the House for approval.

“This is a very good bill,” said Kidwell. “Most of you run a bill and it goes over to the Senate and they make changes and send it back,” Kidwell said. “In this particular case, the Senate just took the bill right after I wrote it, took it over there, put their name on it, and sent it back. So I do appreciate that they enjoyed that bill that much.”

Kidwell explained that the bill would allow North Carolinians to constitutionally carry a firearm without obtaining a permit from the government to exercise their God-given right to defend themselves.

Representatives debated the bill for roughly an hour, with Democrats speaking out against the bill. Democrats pointed to various statistics, such as a Stanford study that shows permitless concealed carry states face a 13-15% violent crime increase over the next decade.

Rep. Phil Rubin, D-Wake, pointed to West Virginia as the worst example, where firearm deaths surged 26% and gun homicides rose about 48% in five years, compared to 17 prior years, after repealing permit requirements.

“I know that there are profound, strong feelings on both sides of the aisle about the best approach for guns, but we don’t have to go this far,” he said. “I think this bill does not help the people that we represent because it is dangerous. It is unnecessary and it is deeply unpopular.”

Rep. Clark shared her own story of a childhood friend dying by suicide with a legal gun and another friend who was murdered. She urged lawmakers vote down the bill, arguing that the “bill goes too far.”

Countering what he called “cherry-picked” statistics, Kidwell said 83% of states with permitless carry have homicide rates below the national average, while 84% of states have lower violent crime rates than they did prior to permitless carry.

“It’s interesting information,” Kidwell said. “Where does that come from? Not some cherry-picked group. Not some organization that was already against firearms. That comes from the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. To me, that’s pretty amazing. 84% of states have lower violent crime rates in 2022 than they did before they had permitless carry.”

While Senate Bill 50 now awaits Democratic Gov. Josh Stein’s signature, he has suggested a veto. With Stein’s expected veto, Republican leadership would need to secure a three-fifths majority in both chambers to override—a task that was easier during the last session when both chambers held supermajorities.

Senate Republicans hold a supermajority, but House Republicans are one seat short, meaning any override effort will require unified attendance and careful vote counting, as any veto override may hinge on attendance numbers.

Demoncraps and Men

Democrats are spending $20 million to win back men—but until they understand what men actually want, they’ll keep buying maps without learning the terrain.

Since last November, Democrats and their friends in the media have spent a great deal of time wondering what they can do to win back male voters. Now they’re prepared to spend a great deal of money to help them figure it out. The “gender gap” in American politics was traditionally about Republicans’ inability to win over a majority of women voters, but this imbalance has more than evened out over the last few election cycles. Today, the Democrats’ struggle to win male voters—and young male voters, in particular—is as pronounced—if not more so—than their opponents’ struggle with women. Some of them, at least, would like to know why and would like to spend $20 million of their donors’ money in the process.

The explanations and consequent solutions offered so far range from the seemingly practical to the hopeless to the head-scratching. One might think that $20 million would buy something more insightful than this, but then, this is the same party that triumphantly chose Tim Walz as its vice-presidential nominee, fully expecting him to be the answer to their gender gap problem. Or in other words, don’t hold your breath.

In reality, the odds that the contemporary Democratic party will be able to win back men, now or in the foreseeable future, are vanishingly small. The party, as it is currently constituted, lacks both the will and the ability to make the changes that would be necessary to do so. What I mean by this is that the contemporary Democratic party is built on a handful of foundational notions that are, by and large, incompatible with the goal of appealing to men.

Continue reading “”

Backer of Hawaii’s Failed ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Won’t Bring It Back Next Year

Given the large Democratic majority in the Hawaii legislature and the state’s longstanding hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms, the demise of a proposed ban on the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles on May 1 was a welcome surprise for Second Amendment advocates.

Hawaii gun owners got even more good news this week when Senate Judiciary Chair Karl Rhoads, who was one of the leading proponents of SB 401, told Honolulu Civil Beat that he has no plans to revive the bill next session, calling it “a waste of time,” to bring it up during an election year.

That in itself is an unexpected twist, since Democrats have adopted expansive “gun-free zones” and other restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms in recent years. But according to Civil Beat reporter Kevin Dayton, further gun control efforts could be stymied by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats representing more rural parts of the state.

The ban on those guns was effectively blocked at the last minute by Democratic Sen. Lynn DeCoite, who said she wanted to exclude rural residents, subsistence hunters and conservation workers who use those weapons to combat invasive species such as axis deer and feral pigs.

Experts in firearms laws say the language DeCoite offered in her proposed amendment would have diluted the proposed restrictions in Senate Bill 401 so completely that the new law would have been largely unenforceable.

Senate Judiciary Chair Karl Rhoads, a leading advocate for the bill, said as much during the debate before the pivotal vote on the Senate floor. “This amendment creates a huge carve-out for the sale of assault weapons,” he told his colleagues. “If we pass it, it basically eviscerates the underlying bill.”

According to Republican Sen. Brenton Awa that was the whole point. “Essentially what this amendment does, if you don’t get caught up in everything that’s in it, is allows us to kill the bill,” he said.

None of the other senators bothered to argue with Awa, and minutes later he proved to be correct. The amendment passed 13-12, with Senate President Ron Kouchi from Kauaʻi casting the tie-breaking vote. He then announced the bill was shelved for the year.

That vote was a strikingly rare example of Senate Democrats joining with their Republican colleagues to muster a majority. It also suggests Hawaiʻi’s longstanding political consensus on firearms may be fracturing as senators from mostly rural districts join forces with a handful of Republicans to push back on the issue.

Dayton’s full piece details the “convoluted” politics that led to the defeat of SB 401 and is well worth a read. The big takeaway is that while Hawaii isn’t going to adopt Constitutional Carry or other pro-2A measures anytime soon, there does appear to be a growing reluctance to pass the kind of sweeping gun controls that groups like Everytown have been lobbying for.

SB 401 had the support of anti-gun groups, as well as the backing of Gov. Josh Green. And DeCoite’s amendment would likely have been defeated were it not for the “yes” vote by Senate President Ron Kouchi. The Democrat told the Civil Beat that he supported the carveouts because he represents a “large hunter and fisher group on Kauaʻi, and they are putting food on their table as part of the subsistence in meeting some of the challenging economic times.”

Kouchi also expressed concerns that the magazine ban portion of SB 401, which contained no grandfather clause, would have turned constituents into felons for keeping ahold of the magazines that they had lawfully purchased.

While I’d much rather Kouchi and DeCoite oppose a gun ban on principle instead of citing concerns about invasive species and the impact on subsistence hunting, at the end of the day they were still responsible for defanging and defeating a top priority for the gun control lobby this year; not only in Hawaii but across the country. I certainly hope this is the start of a new coalition that will defend the right to keep and bear arms in what’s traditionally been hostile territory, and that this is just the first of many gun control bills to get swatted down by a bipartisan group of Hawaiian legislators.

New Poll Has Bad News for Anti-Gun Democrats

As recently as 2010, a quarter of Democrats in Congress were “A” rated by the National Rifle Association. But over the past fifteen years the gun control lobby and Democratic leadership have purged the party of Second Amendment-supporting politicians. Oh sure, Kamala Harris claimed to own a Glock, even though she backed San Francisco’s ban on handguns when was the city’s District Attorney.

Despite his support for “red flag” laws, bans on modern sporting rifles, and support for depriving young adults of their right to keep and bear arms, Tim Walz was billed as a Democrat that gun owners could get behind because he owned a shotgun and like to shoot clays. Those pathetic attempts to portray the 2024 Democratic ticket as friendly to Second Amendment supporters were abject failures, but the party hasn’t learned any lessons from their disastrous performance last year. Instead, they voted to put gun control activist David Hogg in a leadership position at the DNC, introduced bills banning almost every semi-automatic rifle and shotgun on the market, and are now trying to ban the sale of Glock handguns in states like New York and Illinois.

So how’s that working out for them? According to a new YouGov survey, not well at all.

A new YouGov survey asked Americans whether they think the Democratic Party or the Republican Party does a better job handling each of 20 issues. Both Democrats and Republicans have changed their views since last year on several key issues. For example, Democrats are less likely now than they were in August 2024 to say the Democratic Party does a better job at handling guns (69%, down from 80%). Meanwhile, Republicans are less likely now than they were last summer to say the Republican Party does a better job handling inflation (80%, down from 87%).

On the question of who does a better job of handling “guns” as an issue, 36% of all survey respondents picked Republicans, 31% picked Democrats, 16% said they were about the same (which is flabbergasting to me), and 16% said they were unsure. YouGov says that’s the one issue where there’s been “notable” movement among the American electorate, which should be ringing alarm bells for Democrats across the country.

I doubt it will, though. The YouGov survey shows more than 2/3rds of Democrats still believe their party is better on the gun issue than Republicans, and even though that number has plunged from 80% to 69% in the past year, the gun control lobby is so entrenched within the party itself that it will take a lot more than one survey and one terrible election cycle before we could start to see any genuinely pro-Second Amendment Democrats running for Congress or statewide office.

I’d love to see both major political parties embrace and support our Second Amendment rights, but I just don’t see that happening in the near future. Some Democrats might try to disguise their animosity towards the right to keep and bear arms by dropping their attempts to ban gas-operated semi-automatic rifles and shotguns until the 2026 election cycle is over, but there’ll be plenty of others in the party who will continue their crusade to turn a fundamental civil right into a privilege subject to the whims of anti-gun politicians. 

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.