The Constitutional Case for Repealing the NFA

Zion Patriot,

With the recent passage of HR1—which strips the $200 NFA tax for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and Any Other Weapons—and the lawsuit filed by Gun Owners of America and others to remove the registration requirement for these same items, gun owners should have reason to celebrate what feels like long-overdue progress. But while these developments mark important milestones, they also highlight a deeper truth: partial reforms and temporary court victories are no substitute for lasting constitutional protection.

In fact, by removing the tax without dismantling the underlying framework, we may have opened Pandora’s Box. As long as the National Firearms Act remains on the books, Congress retains the power to reimpose taxes, expand definitions, and rebuild the same regulatory machinery that has infringed on Americans’ rights for nearly a century. Even more important, the very idea that the federal government can tax, register, and criminally penalize the exercise of a constitutional right stands in direct conflict with the principles laid out by the Supreme Court in landmark cases protecting speech, religion, voting, and—more recently—the Second Amendment itself.

In light of modern decisions like Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, it is time to confront the uncomfortable truth: the National Firearms Act cannot be reconciled with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment. And unless it is overturned or repealed in its entirety, gun owners will always be one Congress or one administration away from seeing their rights taxed, rationed, and criminalized again.

Foundational Cases: No Tax on Rights

For nearly a century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed a simple principle: government cannot tax or license the exercise of a fundamental right. While most Americans understand this principle in the context of voting or speech, it applies just as forcefully to the Second Amendment.

✅ Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936)
Louisiana imposed a special tax on newspapers with large circulations—an obvious attempt to punish and control critical press coverage. The Supreme Court struck it down, calling it a “deliberate and calculated device” to limit First Amendment freedom.

✅ Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
In Murdock, the Court struck down a license tax imposed on Jehovah’s Witnesses who distributed religious literature door-to-door. The justices declared:

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.”
This case has become a pillar of constitutional law: if an activity is protected, the government cannot burden it through fees or taxes designed to chill or control it.

✅ Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966)
In Harper, the Court invalidated Virginia’s poll tax, holding that even a small financial burden placed on the right to vote is unconstitutional.
The ruling recognized that no government can require payment to access a core civil right.

✅ Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. (1983)
The Court again rejected a tax targeting the press, explaining that no protected right can be singled out for special financial burdens without violating constitutional guarantees.

Again and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot tax the exercise of a constitutional right. Yet for almost a century, the NFA has done exactly that.

The Second Amendment as a Core Individual Right

Until recently, the NFA’s defenders could claim the Second Amendment was a “collective” right tied to state militias. But the Supreme Court has ended that fiction.

✅ District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
The Court recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right to possess firearms in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense. It flatly rejected any “interest-balancing” tests or deferential scrutiny.

✅ McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Two years later, McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments, placing it on equal footing with other fundamental rights.

✅ New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)
In Bruen, the Court adopted a “text, history, and tradition” test, declaring that any modern firearm regulation must be consistent with the historical understanding of the right at the time of the Founding.

These decisions mean the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. It must be treated with the same respect as speech, religion, or voting.

The NFA as Prior Restraint

While the NFA is often justified as a “tax scheme,” in practice it functions as a system of prior restraint on the right to keep and bear arms.

  • Requires pre-approval by the government. No other right demands fingerprints, background checks, and months of bureaucratic waiting.
  • Criminal penalties attach automatically for mere possession of an unregistered item—even if the owner has committed no violent crime.
  • Chills the exercise of the right as law-abiding citizens fear prison time over paperwork errors.
  • Lacks historical precedent. At the time of the Founding, no law imposed a tax or registration requirement on ordinary firearms or common accessories.

No other fundamental right requires Americans to submit fingerprints, pay fees, and wait months for federal bureaucrats to decide whether they may exercise it.

Why Sonzinsky is Obsolete

The main precedent used to defend the NFA is Sonzinsky v. United States (1937). But this case is a relic from an era before the Supreme Court recognized the Second Amendment as an enforceable individual right.

  • Sonzinsky was decided more than 70 years before Heller.
  • It treated the NFA purely as a revenue measure, applying no Second Amendment scrutiny whatsoever.
  • Under Bruen, every firearms regulation must be consistent with the historical understanding of 1791—something the NFA plainly fails to meet.

A decision written when the Second Amendment was treated as a collective privilege cannot stand when the Supreme Court has recognized it as an individual, enumerated right.

The Most Durable Solutions: Supreme Court Precedent and Repeal

While repeal is critical to end enforcement now, only a Supreme Court ruling striking down the NFA as unconstitutional can create binding precedent that prevents Congress from rebuilding it in the future.

  • Repeal ends enforcement and removes the statute.
  • Supreme Court precedent creates a constitutional barrier to reenactment.
  • Together, they form the most certain protection for the Second Amendment.

No tax. No registry. No criminal trap. It’s time to end this 1930s relic once and for all.

✊ Conclusion

For generations, Americans have accepted the fiction that the National Firearms Act is a reasonable compromise. But the Supreme Court has told us that the Constitution protects individual rights—not privileges licensed by bureaucrats. No other right is taxed, registered, and rationed this way—and the time has come to repeal the NFA and restore the Second Amendment to its proper place.

If we don’t repeal the NFA there is nothing to stop a future congress from not only bringing the $200 tax back on Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs, they could “inflation adjust” the $200 to $4,700 (the 2025 equivalent to 1934) and even expand it to include AR-15s, Semi Auto Pistols and Rifles as well as Magazines. Even worse, they could also make it an annual tax much like property taxes. Hopefully this will never happen, but repealing the NFA ensures it can’t happen through reconciliation.

2A News Gun Control HPA & Short Act in HR1 Politics