A New Congress: What Gun Owners Should Watch

With Democrats taking control of Congress, the National Firearms Act in legal limbo, and a major Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court, the next two years deserve close attention.

The votes have been cast, and the political landscape in Washington is changing.

Following the 2026 midterm elections, Democrats have won control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. When the new Congress convenes in January, Republicans will no longer control the legislative branch, and President Donald Trump will face a divided government during the final two years of his presidency.

For Americans concerned about the Second Amendment, the change raises an important question: What should gun owners be watching?

There are significant developments already underway involving federal firearms taxation, regulatory authority, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of constitutional protections.

Some of those developments could strengthen the rights of gun owners. Others expose uncertainties that Congress may eventually be asked to resolve.

And one recent development involving the National Firearms Act deserves particular attention because it illustrates just how quickly the legal status of a previously lawful firearm can become complicated.

The $0 Tax That Changed the National Firearms Act

For decades, the National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed a $200 making or transfer tax on certain firearms and devices, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns.

When Congress enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025, it reduced the making and transfer taxes on those items, along with firearms classified as “any other weapons,” to $0, effective January 1, 2026.

Machine guns and destructive devices remained subject to the $200 tax.

In August 2026, a federal district court in Texas ruled that certain NFA requirements could no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power when applied to the newly untaxed categories of firearms.

The court’s injunction was limited to the parties covered by the lawsuit. However, on October 9, the Department of Justice announced a broader policy of nonenforcement.

Under the resulting ATF guidance, the agency will not enforce specified NFA registration, making, and transfer requirements nationwide for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” covered by the $0 tax.

What Happens When Congress Changes the Tax Again?

The tax is now zero for certain NFA firearms. But Congress has not surrendered its authority to legislate on federal taxation.

A future Congress could propose restoring the $200 tax or even adjusting it for inflation to over $4,700. It could even attempt to expand the categories of firearms subject to NFA regulation to include Semiautomatic firearms such as AR-15s and AK-47s.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has already demonstrated that this is more than a hypothetical possibility. In July 2025, he introduced Senate Amendment 2973, proposing to raise the NFA transfer tax to $4,709 per firearm. He advanced another amendment containing the same proposed transfer-tax amount in January 2026. Neither proposal became law, but they establish that restoring the tax at an inflation-adjusted level is on the radar.

In its October 2026 guidance, the ATF explicitly acknowledged that changes in legal circumstances could cause enforcement of NFA requirements to resume. The agency identified the imposition of a new congressional tax as one possible example.

A person can lawfully acquire a covered firearm today under the federal government’s current nonenforcement policy, without registering it under the NFA.

Then, at some future date, the government could change the legal framework governing that same firearm.

What happens to the person who already owns it?

The ATF’s guidance raises a troubling concern: Federal law provides no automatic grandfathering protection for unregistered NFA firearms, and subsequent registration is generally unavailable without some form of statutory or discretionary relief.

An Attorney General may have authority to establish a limited amnesty period, but there is no guarantee one will be offered.

Nevertheless, a system in which today’s lawful conduct may create tomorrow’s legal jeopardy deserves careful examination.

The government should not leave citizens guessing whether compliance with the rules in effect today will expose them to criminal liability after those rules change.

We saw something similar with the ATF’s pistol brace rule. For years, the agency had issued determinations allowing certain pistol brace configurations without classifying the firearms as short-barreled rifles. In 2023, the ATF changed its interpretation, leaving affected owners with a choice: register their firearms under the National Firearms Act, modify them to comply with the new requirements, or surrender or dispose of the affected firearms or components. Failure to comply could expose owners to federal criminal penalties. The rule was eventually vacated by a federal court, but that decision could not undo the expenses, modifications, or destruction of property that had already occurred.

There is another constitutional question that deserves attention whenever the government demands that Americans surrender or destroy previously lawful property. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures, while the Fifth Amendment protects against deprivation of property without due process and certain takings without compensation. Yet when a regulatory agency reclassifies a legally purchased firearm or accessory and orders its surrender or destruction under threat of prosecution, owners may have little practical choice but to comply while the courts determine whether the agency acted lawfully. Even if the regulation is eventually overturned, the property may already be gone, with no automatic compensation or remedy for the owner. The constitutional questions extend beyond the Second Amendment, and the consequences can be permanent.

Could Congress Use Taxation to Restrict Commonly Owned Firearms?

There is another question worth watching: Could a future Congress attempt to use the NFA’s taxing structure to regulate a much broader range of firearms?

Imagine legislation expanding NFA coverage to include commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, while simultaneously restoring or substantially increasing the making and transfer tax.

Would the tax serve a legitimate revenue purpose, or would its practical effect be to discourage or prevent the exercise of a constitutional right?

Would existing owners be required to register their firearms?

Would they receive grandfathering protections?

What would happen to someone unable to afford the tax?

And could Congress impose a substantial financial burden on ownership of firearms otherwise protected by the Second Amendment?

These questions are not settled simply because the Supreme Court upheld an NFA dealer tax in Sonzinsky v. United States in 1937.

That case did not establish that Congress possesses unlimited authority to tax constitutionally protected firearms out of ordinary citizens’ reach. But it also ruled the tax as legal.

Supporters of expanded firearm regulation would likely argue that Congress has legitimate authority to address public safety through carefully drafted legislation. Opponents would argue that burdensome taxation and registration requirements can function as restrictions on an enumerated constitutional right.

Any future proposal would have to be evaluated on its actual language, practical effects, and constitutional justification.

The important point is that a tax can have consequences far beyond collecting revenue, particularly when noncompliance carries criminal penalties.

And this is precisely why the constitutional analysis should happen before legislation becomes law.

The Supreme Court May Have Something Important to Say

On December 2, 2026, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, consolidated with Grant v. Higgins.

At issue is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

AR-15-style rifles have become a central focus of firearm legislation at the state and local levels. Supporters of restrictions argue that these weapons present particular public-safety concerns and may be regulated consistently with the Constitution. Challengers argue that the rifles are commonly possessed for lawful purposes and fall within the Second Amendment’s protections.

A ruling recognizing constitutional protection for these firearms could complicate future efforts to prohibit them outright. It might also inform challenges to registration requirements or taxes that substantially burden ownership.

However, the Court could issue a narrower decision. Even a ruling protecting AR-15-style rifles would not necessarily resolve every question involving taxation, licensing, or the National Firearms Act.

The Filibuster, Reconciliation, and the Presidential Veto

Control of Congress is important, but it does not give a political party unlimited legislative authority.

When Democrats assume their new majorities in January, President Trump will still occupy the White House.

That means legislation he opposes would ordinarily face the possibility of a presidential veto. Overriding that veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

The Senate presents another procedural obstacle.

Under its current rules, most contested legislation requires 60 votes to end debate. A simple majority generally cannot advance ordinary legislation past a determined filibuster without changing the rules or obtaining additional support.

Could Senate Democrats attempt to nuke the filibuster? Many prominent Democrats have already called for it. But even if they succeed it would not eliminate the president’s veto authority.

Budget reconciliation legislation receives special procedural treatment in the Senate, tax-related proposals may attract interest from lawmakers seeking to avoid the ordinary filibuster.

I think we will see the Democrats attempt to add the NFA tax back in via reconciliation and likely increase the tax to account for inflation.

Forced Reset Triggers: Another Issue to Watch

Another potential target for the incoming Congress is the forced reset trigger (FRT).

The ATF previously classified certain FRTs as machine guns, exposing owners to serious federal criminal penalties. In July 2024, a federal district court rejected that classification for the devices at issue, and in May 2025, the Trump administration reached a settlement with Rare Breed Triggers that ended the federal government’s pursuit of those devices as machine guns under specified conditions.

That settlement did not end the political or legal controversy. Democratic attorneys general from multiple states challenged the federal government’s decision, and some states continue to prohibit FRTs independently.

Congress could attempt to resolve the dispute legislatively by changing the federal definition of a machine gun to expressly include forced reset triggers.

Such legislation would raise familiar questions: What happens to Americans who purchased these devices while they were lawful under the applicable federal framework? Would existing owners receive grandfathering protections, or would they once again face the prospect of surrendering or disposing of legally acquired property?

The history of FRT enforcement demonstrates why gun owners should pay attention to more than proposed firearm bans. Changes to statutory definitions can have substantial consequences for existing owners, even when Congress never prohibits an entire category of firearms.

The Longer-Term Question

There is also a political reality that extends beyond January 2027.

Legislation introduced during divided government can serve as the foundation for proposals in a later Congress.

A bill that cannot overcome a presidential veto today might be reintroduced under different political circumstances.

That does not mean every proposal will eventually become law. It means that legislative language, committee hearings, and proposed enforcement mechanisms deserve attention even when immediate passage appears unlikely.

The 2028 presidential election will determine whether divided government continues or whether one party again has an opportunity to control both Congress and the presidency.

For that reason, the next two years may matter as much for the legislative groundwork they establish as for the laws they actually produce.

Constitutional Rights Should Not Depend on Political Timing

In my article, “The Constitution should be a starting point, not an after thought“, I examined a fundamental problem with the way constitutional disputes are often handled.

Government acts first. Citizens challenge the action afterward. Courts may eventually determine whether the government exceeded its authority.

But what happens to the people caught in the middle?

They may spend years navigating legal uncertainty, paying attorneys, complying with disputed regulations, or facing the threat of prosecution.

Even a favorable court ruling cannot always restore what was lost.

The current NFA situation illustrates that concern unusually well.

Congress reduced a tax to zero. A federal court questioned the remaining regulatory framework. The executive branch adopted a nationwide nonenforcement policy. And now the ATF itself acknowledges that future changes could revive enforcement obligations without automatic grandfathering protections.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is preparing to consider the constitutional status of some of the country’s most widely discussed semiautomatic rifles.

Lawmakers should be expected to identify their constitutional authority, explain how proposed restrictions comport with relevant Supreme Court precedent, and account for the consequences their legislation may impose on people who have acted lawfully.

And when Congress changes the rules, it should address the status of existing owners rather than leave them exposed to uncertainty that only years of litigation may resolve.

What Comes Next

As the new Congress prepares to take office, three developments deserve especially close attention.

First, watch for legislation affecting the National Firearms Act—particularly proposals involving taxation, expanded firearm classifications, registration requirements, and protections for existing owners.

Second, follow the Supreme Court’s consideration of Viramontes v. Cook County. Its eventual ruling could shape the constitutional framework for future legislation involving commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

Third, pay attention to the procedural realities of divided government. A congressional majority can introduce legislation, hold hearings, and shape the national debate. Enacting contested laws is another matter.

There is no reason to assume that every proposed restriction will become law. There is equally little reason to ignore proposals until they are on the verge of enactment.

The time to examine their constitutional implications is when they are first introduced.

Because the Constitution should not become relevant only after someone has been forced to defend their rights in court.

It should guide the people writing the laws in the first place.