How Repealing the NFA Tax Could Supercharge Court Challenges Already Underway

While the Senate Parliamentarian’s ruling was a setback for the broad repeal of the National Firearms Act (NFA), it also clarified the smartest strategy moving forward: focus first on repealing the $200 tax.

Why? Because removing the tax alone doesn’t just help gun owners save money—it weakens the entire constitutional foundation of the NFA in court. Here’s how.

---

The Strategy in Plain English

For nearly a century, the NFA has hidden behind the argument that it’s a revenue measure. In the 1937 Sonzinsky case, the Supreme Court said:

“Every tax is in some measure regulatory. The provisions of the NFA… are obviously supportable as a revenue measure.”

This is the line the government has repeated ever since.

But if the tax goes away—and all that remains is registration, regulation, and transfer restrictions—the law stops looking like a tax and starts looking like an outright prohibition. And that is much harder to justify under Bruen.

This is why simply lowering the tax is not enough. It must be repealed outright.

Below are some of the most important lawsuits already moving through the courts. If Congress removes the tax now, these cases gain enormous strength.

---

Key Lawsuits and How Tax Repeal Changes the Game

🔹 1. Mock v. Garland (Pistol Brace Rule)

Status: The 5th Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal, which stopped enforcement against the plaintiffs and their members (Firearms Policy Coalition).

Why It Matters: This case directly attacks the ATF’s arbitrary reclassification of pistols with braces under NFA regulation. If the court ultimately rules that SBR restrictions violate Bruen, it could undermine the entire SBR portion of the NFA.

How Tax Repeal Helps: If the tax is gone, the government’s justification for regulating braced pistols as SBRs becomes purely regulatory. Courts applying Bruen will have to ask: where is the historical precedent? There isn’t any.

---

🔹 2. VanDerStok v. Garland (Frame or Receiver Rule)

Status: The District Court vacated the rule, the 5th Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court stayed the ruling temporarily (so the rule remains in effect for now).

Why It Matters: While technically about receivers and unfinished frames, this case challenges ATF authority to redefine statutory terms. That same overreach is relevant to NFA enforcement.

How Tax Repeal Helps: This case focuses on ATF overreach, but if the NFA’s tax basis evaporates, all agency reinterpretations of statutory terms lose their revenue justification.

---

🔹 3. Garland v. Cargill (Bump Stock Ban)

Status: Argued before SCOTUS in 2024, decision expected this summer.

Why It Matters: A ruling striking down the bump stock ban would further limit the ATF’s power to unilaterally redefine firearms and accessories—weakening NFA enforcement by precedent.

How Tax Repeal Helps: If ATF authority is already reined in by this case, the removal of the tax will further weaken the agency’s ability to claim it is simply collecting revenue.

---

🔹 4. Texas v. ATF (SBR Classification)

Status: Active litigation

Why It Matters: This is directly about whether SBR restrictions are consistent with historical tradition of firearm regulation.

How Tax Repeal Helps: This case is directly about whether SBR regulation can survive constitutional scrutiny. Without the tax, the government is left arguing it can impose massive federal registration with no tax basis. A much weaker defense.

---

🔹 5. National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland (SBR and SBS Restrictions)

Status: Recently filed, arguing that Bruen invalidates NFA SBR/SBS provisions

Why It Matters: This is one of the most explicit attacks on the NFA’s SBR and SBS restrictions in federal court.

How Tax Repeal Helps: Same as above—purely regulatory restrictions become harder to justify.

---

🔹 6. Miller v. Bonta (California Assault Weapons Ban)

Status: After Bruen, sent back to district court. Judge Benitez struck down the ban again. California appealed; the 9th Circuit granted rehearing.

Why It Matters: If the Supreme Court takes this case, it could rule broadly on semiauto bans, which could be a roadmap for challenging expansions of NFA regulation to AR-15s and other common rifles.

How Tax Repeal Helps: If this case ends up at the Supreme Court, it could create precedent for how semiauto bans are evaluated under Bruen. The removal of the tax will further isolate the NFA as a purely regulatory regime.

---

🔹 Britto v. ATF (Pistol Brace Rule – Parallel Case)

Status: Preliminary injunction granted by the Northern District of Texas.

Why It Matters: This case runs parallel to Mock v. Garland, also targeting the ATF’s reclassification of braced pistols as NFA-regulated SBRs.

How Tax Repeal Helps: If the tax is repealed, the government must defend the classification of millions of braced pistols under purely regulatory authority, which is far weaker under Bruen and harder to justify historically.

---

The Bottom Line

Repealing the NFA tax isn’t just about saving money.

It’s about pulling the legal thread that unravels the entire National Firearms Act.

If Congress acts now to remove the tax—and leaves the rest of the regulations standing—they will inadvertently help prove that the NFA is not a tax law at all.

And that’s exactly what courts need to see.

Stay tuned. This fight is just beginning—and the smartest strategy is to pick apart the NFA one piece at a time.

If you want to help, contact your Senators and Representatives. Demand that they refile a clean repeal of the $200 tax—without watering it down.