The House passed the budget with the HPA!

bkbrno said:
All it takes is a prosecutor to say you didn't go through the correct hoop and you are screwed for life. I'm with Racer88. I'm not opening that door to getting F-ed by someone with a novel interpretation of the law.
If I had Trump money and nothing better to do with my time than fight a law suit, I would do it. I don't and I'm not going to give "them" a chance.

Eliminate all the hoops and I'm in.
Click to expand...

I never even got that far in thinking about legal risks. For me it's a principled stand. I just don't want to jump through the hoops and all they entail. The fact that it's registered to me, and that I'm extremely limited as to what I can do with it should I decide to pass it on to someone else via gift, sale, trade, etc.... Nope. It's just not for me.

Sure it would be nice to lower the decibel level... though it doesn't help that much when the range is full of other people shooting unsuppressed. But, yeah... it would be cool, if I could just go to the gun store (brick and mortar or online) and buy one just like I buy other gun accessories. If that day comes... then yeah. But I'm not holding my breath.
 
ACCORDING TO THE PRESS I JUST RECEIVED, THE $205 tax stamp HAS been reduced to ZERO, in the BBB that is on the way to POTUS' desk right now.
 
One Ping Only said:
ACCORDING TO THE PRESS I JUST RECEIVED, THE $205 tax stamp HAS been reduced to ZERO, in the BBB that is on the way to POTUS' desk right now.
Click to expand...

So, then... the only thing that has changed is the fee, right? Suppressors and SBRs are still on the list and require a Form 4, right?
 
Racer88 said:
Again... my concern isn't that they'll get information about me that they already have.... or even more information. My objection is that the device is REGISTERED.... TO... ME. And ONLY me. And only I can possess it. And I have have "proper documentation" WITH ME at all times while in possession of the device. I can't sell it. I can't gift it. I have to be able to prove its whereabouts. In some cases, I can't transport across state lines.

I don't have to do any of that with my current firearms. They might know I originally bought them - those that came from an FFL. It ends there. They don't know their disposition, nor do I have to provide proof of their disposition. Nor do I need permission to transfer them - or even document that I transferred them. Nor do I have to have "proper documentation" to be in possession of them.

How is objection this not clear? The only way to dispute the objection is to CHANGE it into something else. That's known as a "Red Herring." It's misdirection.

How is this even a "debate?" There's a HUGE difference between NFA items and non-NFA firearms.
Click to expand...
You can put it in a trust. Suppressors... strongly advised.

I later put ALL my firearms in a trust. There are a couple of exceptions. Things I have been too lazy to add.

I personally own those I haven't put in the trust. The rest are owned by what is essentially a corporation.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
You can put it in a trust. Suppressors... strongly advised.

I later put ALL my firearms in a trust. There are a couple of exceptions. Things I have been too lazy to add.

I personally own those I haven't put in the trust. The rest are owned by what is essentially a corporation.
Click to expand...
Yes... I know. Not interested in that, either.
 
Racer88 said:
Sure it would be nice to lower the decibel level... though it doesn't help that much when the range is full of other people shooting unsuppressed.
Click to expand...

I've been seeing more and more cans on the range. Even at competitions. I wouldn't mind suppressing my .22s--I've been thinking Form 1 lately... :unsure:

Bongo Lewi said:
I later put ALL my firearms in a trust.
Click to expand...

I've been considering this lately. Sort of a "mini-will" for guns, ammo and accessories. When a can or SBR comes along it would be easy to add. Or maybe create two trusts?
 
Bobster said:
I've been considering this lately. Sort of a "mini-will" for guns, ammo and accessories.
Click to expand...
Me too. Better than a will as it avoids probate so no public filing of the goods.
 
Racer88 said:
Sure it would be nice to lower the decibel level... though it doesn't help that much when the range is full of other people shooting unsuppressed. But, yeah... it would be cool, if I could just go to the gun store (brick and mortar or online) and buy one just like I buy other gun accessories. If that day comes... then yeah. But I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
Last time I was at the range my buddy had his 9mm CMMG with a suppressor - his friend was shooting it while he was shooting his 6.5 PRC and I was shooting my 6.5 CM - I admit it was quiet, but it COULD be on account of the 6.5's :ROFLMAO:

I did notice that I absolutely HATE the 6.5 when it's next to me. His PRC was especially obnoxious with the blast to the side, whereas mine was much more civilized to me :ROFLMAO:
Being me, I did not ask him how it was to him....

So yeah, a suppressor would be nice for shooting an armadillo in the backyard but pretty useless at a range.
 
Spoze everyone is happy bout this
IMG_1610.jpeg
 
Michele said:
Spoze everyone is happy bout thisView attachment 33268
Click to expand...

Ambivalent. I don't care about the $200. I care that it's still an NFA item that is treated quite differently than a firearm.

Whether this is a "first step" towards eliminating suppressors and SBRs from the NFA is the question. Personally, I do not believe it will lead to that. I am not optimistic.

I see this reduction in the tax as a "bone" designed to "pacify" self-proclaimed 2A advocates.
 
IMO, and it's just that, I believe there is going to be a replacement or entire restructuring of the A tee EFF.
 
One Ping Only said:
IMO, and it's just that, I believe there is going to be a replacement or entire restructuring of the A tee EFF.
Click to expand...
One can hope. But I haven't seen enough happening beyond a few executive orders issued to say that there are changes on the way.

I'm with 88 on this whole NFA thing. I like making things because I can AND there is no.gov record of what I make. No I don't want to be on the wrong side of the law so I have not made any suppressors or SB anything. Yet. Remove them from the NFA and it's a whole new ball game.

Yes I know that .gov has MY personal information. I served in the military. Even did the damn DNA swab when that crap started. But asking permission to own something is beyond what I am willing to give them.
 
I shot my 15-22 suppressed at one of the rimfire matches. It was pointless as the steel targets ringing was painful enough to need ear protection. Plus our shot timer is less reliable with suppressed 22s.
 
Alex said:
I shot my 15-22 suppressed at one of the rimfire matches. It was pointless as the steel targets ringing was painful enough to need ear protection. Plus our shot timer is less reliable with suppressed 22s.
Click to expand...
Those shot timers can be be touchy. I run the timer once in a while and have to remember to put it behind my back when a pistol lowers the slide while "making safe" as that can be picked up as a "shot". :eek:
And I agree with shooting steel--if only we could make the impacts quieter... :unsure: :p
 
Chuck Noris said:
Racer, this will make you happy - GOA has filed to remove suppressors and SBRs from the NFA (so you just do a regular firearm form when you buy)!
Click to expand...

Yawn.... nothing new, right? I believe similar lawsuits have been filed before. And those suits can take years to resolve. So far, none have resolved in our favor. I won't be holding my breath.
 
I asked Grok:

Have the NRA, GOA, SAF filed lawsuits in the past to remove suppressors from the NFA list?

Yes, the National Rifle Association (NRA), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have been involved in efforts to challenge or remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations, though direct lawsuits specifically targeting suppressor deregulation are less explicitly documented in the provided sources. Here's a breakdown based on available information:
  • NRA: The NRA, through its Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), has primarily focused on legislative advocacy rather than direct lawsuits to remove suppressors from the NFA. The NRA has supported bills like the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and the Silencers Help Us Save Hearing (SHUSH) Act, which aim to deregulate suppressors by removing them from NFA requirements. For example, the NRA backed H.R. 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which included provisions to remove suppressors from the NFA, as passed by the House in May 2025. While the NRA has engaged in legal battles to protect Second Amendment rights broadly, such as challenging state-level restrictions or supporting cases like United States v. Peterson (where the Fifth Circuit reconsidered a suppressor ruling), there is no specific mention in the sources of the NRA filing a lawsuit solely to remove suppressors from the NFA. Their efforts have been more legislative, urging Congress to eliminate NFA taxes and registration requirements.


  • GOA: Gun Owners of America has been more explicit about pursuing legal action. On July 3, 2025, GOA, alongside other groups like FRACAction, SilencerCo, Palmetto Armory, and B&T USA, announced plans to file a lawsuit to remove suppressors and short-barreled firearms from the NFA. This followed the House's passage of a Senate bill reducing the NFA tax stamp to $0, which GOA deemed insufficient as it retained unconstitutional registration requirements. GOA argued that the NFA's framework, even with a $0 tax, remains a violation of Second Amendment rights and vowed to challenge it in court. While the sources confirm this planned lawsuit, there is no mention of prior GOA lawsuits specifically targeting suppressor deregulation before 2025, though they have consistently pushed for full NFA repeal through advocacy and legislative support.


  • SAF: The Second Amendment Foundation has a history of filing lawsuits to protect Second Amendment rights, often in collaboration with other groups. On June 27, 2025, SAF joined the NRA, GOA, and other organizations in opposing procedural blocks to NFA tax reforms, indicating their support for removing suppressors and short-barreled firearms from NFA regulations. While SAF is known for legal challenges against restrictive gun laws (e.g., challenging Illinois’ "assault weapons" ban), the sources do not explicitly detail a prior SAF lawsuit focused solely on removing suppressors from the NFA. Their involvement appears more aligned with supporting legislative efforts like the HPA and collaborating with other groups on potential litigation.
Summary:
  • The NRA has not been explicitly linked to lawsuits directly targeting suppressor removal from the NFA, focusing instead on legislative advocacy.

  • GOA announced a lawsuit in July 2025 to challenge the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled firearms, marking a clear legal effort, but no prior lawsuits are noted in the sources.

  • SAF has supported efforts to deregulate suppressors and joined calls for action in 2025, but specific lawsuits targeting suppressor NFA removal are not detailed in the provided data.
While these organizations have been active in legislative and public advocacy to deregulate suppressors, only GOA has explicitly announced a planned lawsuit in 2025. No earlier lawsuits by these groups specifically targeting suppressor removal from the NFA are confirmed in the sources, though their broader legal and advocacy efforts suggest ongoing challenges to NFA restrictions. For the most current status, checking court filings or official statements from these organizations would provide further clarity.
 
What I read was as it stands now- Jan 01,2026 Suppressors, AOW & SBR will be just like regular Firearm purchase. Possibly same paperwork/fingerprints etc for Suppressor.
All subject to change pending lawsuits and whatever.
 
Stephen G said:
What I read was as it stands now- Jan 01,2026 Suppressors, AOW & SBR will be just like regular Firearm purchase. Possibly same paperwork/fingerprints etc for Suppressor.
All subject to change pending lawsuits and whatever.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think the ONLY thing that has changed is the cost from $200 to $0.

Still a Form 4.
 
Back
Top