×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
16

So, APPARENTLY, Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" includes deregulation of suppressors, removing them entirely from the NFA.

submitted by Nosferatjew to whatever 1 dayMay 29, 2025 14:55:21 ago (+16/-0)     (whatever)

Perhaps my info is wrong, but I've seen this from multiple sources, some progun, and some antigun, so I think this might be accurate. The bill has also passed the House, 215 to 214. I don't really know much about the rest of the bill, but I like this part.


35 comments block


[ - ] Tallest_Skil 5 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 15:08:34 ago (+5/-0)

All I’ve seen is that the tax stamp is free. Still registered, still serialized, still tied to you.

[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 2 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 16:32:18 ago (+2/-0)

I've seen both takes, the no more tax stamp claim, and the off the NFA completely claim. Thus my uncertainty. You are probably more right than me on this one though. It does seem far too good to be true.

[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 19:06:21 ago (+0/-0)*

I heard some gun guys analyze it on a podcast (Talon Outdoors Show, find it one iHeart Radio). Basically yea, they removed the tax stamp fee. But they're worried that if they completely declassify them as a firearm (take them off the NFA), then that removes any 2A protection they are currently afforded. Like they killed bump stocks in Florida cause they could (no 2A protection).

So there's a few ways to look at it.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 20:39:01 ago (+2/-0)

If we want to be genuinely Talmudic about all this, a suppressor isn’t an “arm” in the first place, and therefore they can be made illegal right now. The same goes for any firearm accessory whatsoever, including detachable magazines AND bullets themselves. “You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you don’t have any right to ammunition for those arms. We’re making bullets illegal now.”

If the NFA itself is ever actually repealed (yes yes, it’s not de facto legal, but it’s de jure legal), expect a 2000% tax on ammunition to be passed immediately.

[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 0 points 16 hoursMay 30, 2025 08:26:40 ago (+0/-0)

If we want to be genuinely Talmudic about all this, a suppressor isn’t an “arm” in the first place

Yes you, I, and the Talon guys all agree about that. But the government's definition (26 USC Ch. 53) considers it a firearm:

For the purpose of this chapter—

(a) Firearm
The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code)...

That's the case for now, anyway. Which is the point I was trying to get across. They want to remove that protection, and the 5th circus has ruled to that end. Hopefully SCOTUS sees it your way.

Your point about bullets is sort of true. Ammo could be considered an arm do to the explosiveness, but you'd have to lump it in with firecrackers I suppose. But if you meant bullets like just the lumps of lead/copper/etc. then I have to agree with you - it could get out of hand quickly

If we want to be genuinely Talmudic about all this

which you know they jew. But in that regard a gun w/out ammo is pretty useless as an armament unless it's got a bayonet.

[ - ] BMN003 1 point 1 dayMay 29, 2025 19:43:50 ago (+1/-0)

I can confirm that the suppressor-related text of the appropriations bill is an exact copy of the 2025 Hearing Protection Act, which strikes "firearm suppressor or silencer" from the NFA and adds it to the '68 GCA. This would make suppressors purchasable with a form 4473 and background check or license to carry.

The legislative concern is that if the chair of the senate budget committee (currently Lindsey Graham) rules against the inevitable democrat objection that the HPA provision violates the "Byrd rule" of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 on the grounds that it doesn't significantly alter revenue, that leaves a backdoor for a Democrat majority congress to add any and all firearms to the NFA under the guise of generating revenue. If Graham does allow the objection to go to the floor it would take 60 votes to not have it stricken from the appropriations bill.

Conversely the committee could send it back with a sunset provision like the '94 AWB, but that would just result in any non-registered suppressors becoming instant felonies when it expired.

I'm still for the senate passing it as-is, because the communists won't stop trying to take your weapons until the deadliest thing you're allowed a loicense for is a steel pipe, and at least if they're trying to overtly and immediately tax-ban your guns you know whose house to go burn down.

[ - ] TheYiddler 0 points 20 hoursMay 30, 2025 04:18:13 ago (+0/-0)

2A is a constitutional right. Regulating them can't possibly protect them.

[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 0 points 16 hoursMay 30, 2025 08:11:57 ago (+0/-0)

"deregulate" was the wrong word - "declassify" or "remove the firearm classification" is what I should've said. They're protected by 2A because the gov. considers them a firearm (though clearly they aren't). If that classification is removed, they lose 2A protection and are subject to the regulation that loss of protection would bring (like bump stocks, except bump stocks suck).

[ - ] TheYiddler 0 points 10 hoursMay 30, 2025 14:44:29 ago (+0/-0)

Armaments does not mean firearms. It's a broad term that applies to many tools. I know the government doesn't agree on what an armament means, but the second amendment was carefully worded.

[ - ] FacelessOne 2 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 16:39:55 ago (+2/-0)

You dont need a Bill or Law to fix the 2A issue.

Shall Not Infringe. Aka the entire Judicial Branch has failed for letting infringements occur at all. So we have 3 branches of Government Infringing on 2A. This isn't a win. Its regulation of 2A dressed as a concession to FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Status Quo Maintained. Fucking retards.

The nwo is giving fake wins(pressure release valve) in preparation for ww3.

I have a Final Solution.

[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 1 point 1 dayMay 29, 2025 17:12:59 ago (+1/-0)

Preaching to the choir.

[ - ] FacelessOne 1 point 1 dayMay 29, 2025 17:52:00 ago (+1/-0)

Yeah just stating the obvious for anyone not aware. ;)

Didn't even give me a updoot

[ - ] Peleg 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 18:35:31 ago (+1/-1)

"Fucking retards."

"Didn't give me an updoot."

Fucking retard. Choke on your updoot. LOL

[ - ] FacelessOne 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 18:37:52 ago (+0/-0)

Peanut gallery pleading for updoots.

Did you take the fucking retards part personally? Lol

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 17:59:00 ago (+1/-1)

If the provision gets signed into law with the bill, it absolutely is a win, as it removes a regulation. Is every repeal of a regulation "not a win" because other gun laws or other regulations exist? No actual wins until all gun laws are gone?

[ - ] FacelessOne 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 18:29:27 ago (+1/-1)*

Typical NPC response. Doesn't understand that the Government is the PROBLEM.

"Shall Not Infringe. Aka the entire Judicial Branch has failed for letting infringements occur at all."

Not the solution.

We will never get a win from Government.

Kill yourself, worthless genx grifter. Incapable of understanding his Savior is his Executioner.

[ - ] uvulectomy 2 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 16:33:42 ago (+2/-0)

Sounds like a carrot to get support for the stick. And the stick is another $20 TRILLION in debt.

[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 1 point 1 dayMay 29, 2025 16:34:36 ago (+1/-0)

But muh whisper picklez!

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 1 dayMay 29, 2025 18:00:52 ago (+1/-0)

Funny thing about that. They'll give it press to make people more okay with the big beautiful bill, then quoetly strip the provision in reconciliation and when people ask about it months or years later, they'll blame democrats.

[ - ] SilentByAssociation 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 19:28:23 ago (+0/-0)

Accelerate

[ - ] Spaceman84 2 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 16:01:20 ago (+2/-0)

The bill is being modified by the Senate and will get sent back to the House.

[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 1 point 1 dayMay 29, 2025 16:30:40 ago (+1/-0)

Well, that sure would be gay and unnecessary, considering it already passed the house. But, whatever. We'll see what actually ends up happening (more billions for israel).

[ - ] Thedancingsousa -1 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 19:26:45 ago (+0/-1)*

This happens often. Bills get modified, they get sent back and forth, and on one of the volleys it will just die.

Then after years of that happening not even passing the things they want to pass, they wait until there is a CR (continuing resolution) with a deadline to put all the dead legislation they've seen over the years, whether good or bad, and they actually pass it because a deadline prevents the volley.

Which is why you want to put the most based shit possible in these bills. It's not going to pass anyway. We might as well get them working up the muscle memory of voting yes, abolish the fed, or yes, make it illegal for a state to offer any kind of welfare to an illegal immigrant, or yes we should eliminate capital gains tax on individuals making less than $50k from realized gains (everyone but hedge funds).

[ - ] BMN003 0 points 15 hoursMay 30, 2025 10:08:17 ago (+0/-0)

You know the current stopgap spending bill expires in September, right? In congressional terms, three months is like two days. There is very much a looming deadline already.

[ - ] glooper 1 point 1 dayMay 29, 2025 17:53:42 ago (+1/-0)

So I kinda forget, but Idaho, Mississippi maybe Louisiana????. like I said I forget, but you can build a silencer and its legal as long as it never leaves the state and doesn't use pre manufactured parts from out of state, since the ATF dirrives is authority by claiming "interstate commerce clause"


a fun little loophole that never gets talked about much.

Edit: just looked it up: Montana and kansas...

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 17:56:15 ago (+0/-0)

It doesn't get talked about much because if the Feds choose to go after you under the federal law, you'll have to get a really expensive attorney to convince a judge that the federal law doesn't apply. And, it's risky even then.

[ - ] Thedancingsousa 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 19:41:49 ago (+0/-0)

Really scary thing is that would end up being appealed after a trial and conviction and right to an appeal is practically a lottery anyway.

[ - ] texasblood 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 18:48:28 ago (+0/-0)

You can run junk shit or you can buy good shit worthy the coin.
Words out on who is who when it comes to suppression,both internal and external.
Pay to play!

[ - ] Thedancingsousa 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 19:37:31 ago (+0/-0)

Here is a fun question. If that is legal in those states because the fed doesn't have authority over non-interstate commerce. But it is illegal in other states even if there is no interstate commerce. That would imply those states are acting under their authority since the ATF has none. How do states have authority to make federal law apply where it doesn't?

[ - ] BMN003 0 points 14 hoursMay 30, 2025 10:11:51 ago (+0/-0)

Texas passed a law stating the same thing, and the AG sued the feds when a citizen declared his intention to manufacture a "Made-in-Texas-not-for-use-outside-of-Texas" suppressor. The district court judge dismissed it for lack of standing and the circuit court panel upheld it. The feds will accept no challenge to the infinite power the Supreme Court gave the FDR administration with Wickard v Filburn.

[ - ] hylo 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 21:47:00 ago (+0/-0)

My state would come out with an emergency bill to ban them right away if this passed. A bunch of faggots over here.

[ - ] Nosferatjew [op] 0 points 1 dayMay 30, 2025 00:48:16 ago (+0/-0)

The faggots are everywhere.

[ - ] SilentByAssociation 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 19:27:56 ago (+0/-0)

Suppressors are deregulated.

The push is to now have the Senate include deregulation of SBRs,SBSs, and AOWs.

Aren't these all legal under the 2A anyway? 18 U.S.C. § 242 makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law to willfully deprive someone of their rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws.

[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 19:14:58 ago (+0/-0)

Why would you have to ask the gov to use silencers? lmao

[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 1 dayMay 29, 2025 17:54:15 ago (+0/-0)

It does, but it will likely get stripped from the bill in reconciliation. It's semantics but will likely happen.

Here is a nigger to explain it to you.

https://youtu.be/s12LYRIdtZc