Tax removal of National Firearms Act items via the Big Beautiful Bill chronicled progress. A coalition has filed a suit to finish the deregulation that Congress was unable to complete.
Hopeful Second Amendment supporters wanted to see the complete deregulation of certain NFA items through the Big Beautiful Bill. After going through the reconciliation process and “Byrd bath,” the tax burden for silencers and short-barreled rifles was lowered to $0.00. To help finish off what they started via robust lobbying efforts, multiple organizations came together and filed a suit challenging the remaining requirements regulating the items.
On Friday August 1, 2025, the lawsuit was announced and Brown et.al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et.al. was filed. Joining Chris Brown as an individual co-plaintiff is Allen Mayville.
Also joining Brown and Mayville are the following companies and organizations: Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., American Suppressor Association, Prime Protection, and STL Tactical Boutique.
The fact that If there’s a zero dollar tax, there’s no reason to register that a tax was paid is mentioned in the filing: “Nearly all of the firearms covered by the NFA—except for machineguns and ‘destructive devices’—are now untaxed, yet the comprehensive registration scheme to make, transfer, receive, or possess those firearms remains in effect.”
The challenge won’t deregulate silencers or short-barreled rifles as arms. Contrary to what opponents of the de-taxing via the budget bill have said, background checks would still occur when the items are purchased.
The 1934 National Firearm Act states for the purpose of the Act that:
The term firearm means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.
Thus, the items would still require a background check.
“The National Firearms Act’s registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” said Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We look forward to relegating this unconstitutional law to the history books.”
“The National Firearms Act has infringed on law-abiding Americans’ right to keep and bear arms for nearly a century,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “Congress took a major step by eliminating the NFA tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms through the OBBB, and we’re proud to work alongside other leading Second Amendment organizations to finish the job.”
“The National Firearms Act has been a weight around the neck of law-abiding gun owners for nearly a century,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director American Suppressor Association. “With the elimination of the excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs through the One Big Beautiful Bill, our lawsuit challenges the NFA as an unconstitutional registry of now untaxed firearms. Common sense and the law are on our side, and we look forward to fighting on behalf of all Americans in Federal Court.”
“The National Firearms Act isn’t just unconstitutional, it’s a tyrannical abomination,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “Not only does the NFA violate your Second Amendment rights, but Congress never had the lawful authority to pass it in the first place. That makes it a double abuse of power, violating both the right to keep and bear arms and the hard limits the Constitution places on the federal government. We’re proud to fight alongside our allies to end this corrupt, immoral law so peaceable Americans can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose.”
When there were signs that the full deregulation including the stripping of the registration requirement of these NFA items would not make it into the final cut of the Big Beautiful Bill, there were calls to fire the Senate parliamentarian by some groups at that time.
Erich Pratt, the senior vice president of Gun Owners of America said in a video message that, “Senate Majority Leader John Thune could fire the parliamentarian so we could get a new one who is not a Democrat partisan hack.”
Ryan Flugaur, the vice president of National Association for Gun Rights, also weighed in on the topic. “Normally I would say it’s a shame that Senate Republicans didn’t can her months ago, in preparation for this fight,” Flugaur said in a video about the parliamentarian, “but the fact that they didn’t fire her months ago means that many of them quietly wanted her to gut key issues.”
Journalist and founder of TheReload.com, Stephen Gutowski, over the last few months has discussed the limitations of what would and would not make it through the Byrd bath. In his coverage of the Big Beautiful Bill, he accurately pointed out that the full deregulation and removal of the registration requirements would not likely make it through the process.
In a June 27 video, Gutowski observed that it was “something that we said was honestly a very likely possibility” that parliamentarian would strip the provisions. Gutowski said that the Byrd rule limited the ability to get all the provisions that were desired by Second Amendment advocates though.
Post-enactment of the Big Beautiful Bill, the Second Amendment Foundation made a joint statement about the status of the affected provisions. In the statement, the Second Amendment Foundation alongside the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, and Firearms Policy Coalition committed to finding legislative solutions to the issues, but were prepared to litigate — as Friday’s filing proved to be true.
“SAF has been fighting for more than 50 years to remove unnecessary burdens to our constitutional freedoms, and we welcome the opportunity to fight for the further dismantling of the NFA in court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The reforms in the One Big, Beautiful Bill represent the biggest blow to the NFA since its inception, and we fully support its complete repeal. Just like we’ve done for more than five decades, SAF will continue to fight so all Americans can have the freedom to exercise their Second Amendment rights for generations to come.”
Brown et.al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et.al. was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Missouri. Missouri is located within the jurisdiction of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that circuit court, 10 of the 11 judges were appointed by Republican presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald J. Trump. Judge Jane Kelly was appointed by President Barack Obama.
The filing of this lawsuit is timely and it’s likely going to be interesting how the government responds to the suit.
Editor’s Note: Second Amendment groups across the country are doing everything they can to protect our right to keep and bear arms.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
