Alex Ooley (00:02)
Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of the Forge of Freedom podcast. I'm your host, Alex Uli, and this is episode 190 of the Forge of Freedom. Today I've got a quick episode for you. I'm going to talk a little bit about the so-called one big, beautiful bill, ⁓ HR1, which was recently passed and its impact on the National Firearms Act, ⁓ which most of you would be familiar with. you're not, I did an episode with

with my father, Mike Luley, back in episode 96, where we talked about, the episode was called, What You Need to Know About Suppressors Slash Silencers. And we talked in a little bit of detail about the National Firearms Act, but part of the proposed bill, this one big, beautiful bill, and in my opinion, I don't want to get into the bill itself too much other than its impact on the National Firearms Act.

Uh, but it's, certainly a big bill and nobody can dispute that whether or not it's beautiful is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. um, nevertheless, there's some news with respect to the national firearms act. Uh, it removed the $200 tax that was imposed on devices that were subject to the national firearms act. So that being suppressors, uh, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns.

items called any other weapons and so on. these items have been subject to the tax imposed by the National Firearms Act of 1934 for nearly a hundred years. And the tax has remained the same since 1934. would be something like, I don't know, three to $4,000 in today's dollars if the

tax were adjusted according to inflation, which is an indictment, I suppose, of the Federal Reserve and the central banking system that we have here in the United States. But nevertheless, it's still a hefty tax and a burden on the right to keep and bear arms. can only imagine what $200 would have been like. would have been very prohibitive. mean, it would have been basically a prohibition on these items back in 1934.

Congress at the time was sensitive to the second amendment and they didn't want to outright ban these items, but they thought they could get around the constitution by taxing them. And we have to remember the National Firearms Act was adopted at a time when there was significant gang violence surrounding prohibition at the time, prohibition of alcohol. And of course there's still...

We haven't learned that lesson either. There's still a ⁓ significant degree of violence that is an outcrop or an outgrowth of prohibition today, although with respect to different items or substances. But nevertheless, there was gangland violence at the time and folk people like Al Capone, Bugs Moran, there was ⁓ the famous St. Valentine's Day massacre. And in these...

In the gang members often used automatic firearms. And so there was a call to limit these sorts of devices. so Congress settled on a tax, again, hoping to skirt the protections of the Second Amendment by calling it a tax, by taxing the items rather than an ⁓ explicit ⁓ prohibition on these particular devices.

And so recently with the one big, beautiful bill, there was a lot of discussion about removing in particular suppressors and short barreled rifles from the NFA so that not only would you not have to pay the tax, but you wouldn't have to register these items pursuant to the NFA because that's, let's face it, that was the tax today, the $200 tax.

is still significant and still a problem. But the primary concern was that we had to, if we wanted one of these devices, we had to register them with the federal government. And of course, the registration component is the primary objection that most people have to the NFA because we don't want to, not only do we not want to, we have the right not to register these

items with the federal government. ⁓ This is an infringement, I think clearly a violation not only of the second amendment, but the individual, the inherent individual right to keep and bear arms, the natural right. And so there was some optimism, even people who may have been opposed to the one big beautiful bill as a whole, were still at least optimistic that this

this bill might at least remove the registration and the tax requirement for suppressors and short barreled rifles or short barreled shotguns.

So the bill passed Congress and when it got to the Senate, the Senate monkeyed around with the bill and ultimately decided to pass a form of the bill or a version of the bill that did not remove any items from the National Firearms Act or the registration requirement, but simply removed the tax on

short-billed rifles, short-billed shotguns and suppressors. And I'm going to put up here on the screen, the text of the bill.

It's several hundred pages.

but hopefully you can see it here okay. And I believe, let's see, it's on once. See if I can find it here. It's page. Actually we'll do a search real quickly.

page 176 of HR 1 which is the one big beautiful bill and it says here that there shall be levied collected and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm transferred in the case of machine gun a machine gun or a destructive device

and zero dollars for any firearm transfer, which is not described in paragraph one. So that would include suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapon, the AOWs. So that zero dollar tax was left in the one big beautiful bill. So it removed the tax on anything in the NFA that's not a machine gun or a destructive

device, but it leaves the registration requirement. So even though we don't have to pay a tax, you still have to register anything in the NFA that is not a machine gun or a destructive device. nevertheless, even though these items were not removed from the NFA, that is they still have to be registered, there are many in the gun community who are nevertheless optimistic.

that this improves our odds of

litigating the constitutionality of the NFA in the federal courts. And why do they say that? Well, because remember the NFA was originally adopted as a tax and now that there is a, to skirt the second amendment, and now that there is a zero dollar tax, effectively no tax, on these items that are not machine guns or destructive devices,

That undermines the original purpose of the NFA, at least as it relates to these items, not machine guns or destructive devices. So here's the other thing that's important to know.

The NFA was challenged after its adoption in 1934 and it was upheld as a tax in the 1937 Sonsinski case. And that case upheld it because a tax, even though it has regulatory effects, ⁓ the court said that the tax was within Congress's taxing power.

under Article 1. So now, because there's no tax, that original, and I believe that to be a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution as well, but nevertheless, now that there's no tax, that case, the Zanzinsky case, which I'll link to in the show notes, ⁓ is no longer ⁓ relevant because there is no tax. And so how can it be... ⁓

when it's only imposing a registration requirement and there is no tax ⁓ that is outside of the scope of the Congress's legislative powers. So on the one hand, this is bad news because the original proposal to remove these items from the NFA suppressors, short-billed rifles, short-billed shotguns, et cetera, was, I think,

People were optimistic about that and disappointed when that registration requirement remained. But nevertheless, are, I think maybe looking at this a little bit with rose colored glasses, but have some optimism anyway, that there will be some success against the NFA in the courts. Now I'm always reluctant to have too much optimism when it comes to the course.

The Supreme Court as it's currently composed has been lukewarm at best toward the second amendment. Of course, there has been some progress. It is much better than the Supreme Court has been in prior years, but still, I think, unreliable when it comes to the second amendment as evidenced by, I think in particular, the Rahimi decision, I think was a terrible decision. And also it's the Supreme Court's

⁓ refusal to accept the snope case, for instance, the ocean tactical case, these cases that challenge ⁓ state prohibitions on the possession of so-called assault weapons or ⁓ semi-automatic rifles, ⁓ generally the AR-15 and also cases that involve high capacity magazine bands, so-called, of course, they're just standard capacity magazines.

But these anti-gun states, anti-liberty states cast them as high capacity, cast them as assault rifles, et cetera. ⁓ But the Supreme Court has been very unreliable and at the very least, I think is prolonging their

think the inevitable, which is that they'll have to consider some of these cases at some point in the future. But in the meantime, people living in these states are subject to these unconstitutional violations of their individual liberty. And people who are purchasing suppressors or short-barreled rifles or short-barreled shotguns are having to register these items despite the removal of the tax. And the removal of the tax, by the way,

won't begin or won't take effect until January 1st, 2026. So the good thing is this, think does set up a better attack given ⁓ court precedent, given the history of the NFA. I think it was, I think ripe for attack the NFA. ⁓ Despite the one big, beautiful bill, the one big, beautiful bill may improve the attack.

to some degree, but I think the NFA has, is still and has always been unconstitutional. So hopefully this does help advance the elimination of the National Firearms Act, but I think it's improved, while it's improved the argument, I think it's...

difficult to get to have too much optimism because we are relying on a Supreme Court that's

not particularly concerned with the right to keep and bear arms.

So anyway, I just wanted to give you my thoughts on this subject. Like I said, I'll link to this 1937 case, Sonsinski. I'll also link to episode 96 where Mike Uli, my father and I discussed suppressors in the 1934 National Firearms Act in more detail. And of course I put that up on the screen if you're watching by video.

And then I'll also link to an article that I wrote recently for Gun Digest, I think people, our listeners might find of interest. It's called the Second Amendment from Founding Principle to Modern Battleground. And I think it's not a treatise on the Second Amendment by any stretch. I'm limited to a thousand words, but I think it's a great synopsis of

where we are with respect to the second amendment. And of course, there's always 2A news outlets that are talking about breaking news here and there. But this, I think, cuts through a lot of the hyperbole and a lot of the noise to tell you where we are at a high level. So I'd encourage you to go and read that article at Gun Digest. And then finally, I'd like to say in closing, there's a lawsuit that's already been filed.

by gun owners of America and other rights groups against the NFA. And Palmetto State Armory is supporting that fight. And one of the things that they're doing is they are helping to raise money because these lawsuits are incredibly expensive. Just to bring a lawsuit in federal court is not cheap. And to take one all the way to the Supreme Court potentially is an even greater expense.

And so they're helping to raise money for the lawsuit and they posted a video on YouTube, ⁓ says about two weeks ago now, and it's called it's time to end the NFA lawsuit filed. And they're selling these AR lowers that have gun owners of America inscribed or etched on the side. And the serial number looks like it's going to include end NFA, ⁓ which is kind of cool too. So.

If you're looking to help fight the fight against the NFA, support your local gun groups, ⁓ support organizations like Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and the NRA. ⁓ Gun Owners of America, think, is the primary organization behind this particular lawsuit. know FPC is out there doing great work as well as the Second Amendment Foundation.

But one of the things Palmetto State Armory is doing is selling these lowers and a portion, I think $25, I have to go back and watch the video, but a portion of the money from the sale of these lowers is going toward gun owners of America and the lawsuit against the NFA. So go check out that video if you're interested in a new AR lower, that's a way you can get yourself a new lower and fight the NFA.

Alright everybody, I hope you learned a little something from this episode. Let me know what you think about the One Big Beautiful Bill and its impact on the NFA in the comments. If there's something I missed, let me know. until next time, remember, you are the Forge of Freedom.

As always, you can find us on YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, and X at Forge of Freedom. You can also find us on all the most popular podcast streaming platforms and at forgefreedom.com. Until next time, remember you are the Forge of Freedom.