CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: ASA, NRA, SAF, FPC File Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.

You have to love the strategy. If you’ll remember, back in June when the Big Beautiful Bill was being haggled over, there was much sturm und drang over the existential nature of the National Firearms Act, and how the Senate Parliamentarian would treat efforts to pull items like suppressors and SBRs out as part of the reconciliation process. Again, reconciliation measures can sidestep the Senate’s 60-vote requirement and pass with a simple majority.

As many pointed out, the courts and the DOJ had for decades made the case that the NFA is tax measure. That’s how its primary champion justified it as not infringing on Americans’ gun rights when the NFA was being considered back in 1934. That being the case, inclusion of both the SHORT Act and the Hearing Protection Act in the B³ should have been a no-brainer.

The Senate Parliamentarian, however, saw things differently and ruled them out. That’s why, instead of pulling suppressors, SBRs and SBSs out of the NFA and regulating them like any other firearm you can buy today, the only step forward included in the final version of the B³ was the elimination of the $200 tax stamp (which will take effect on January 1).

But wait. Zeroing out the tax stamp isn’t nothing. As we and others have pointed out, eliminating the tax stamp undercuts any remaining argument that the NFA is a tax…because there is no longer a tax involved. On top of that, cans and SBRs are in common use. That means they pass the Heller test. There’s also no text, history or tradition of regulating them which means doing so doesn’t pass the Bruen test.

More at the link.