The $4,709 NFA Tax Is Back

Zion Patriot,

Last summer, we warned readers that the repeal of the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax wasn’t going to be accepted quietly.

We were right.

Just weeks after the $0 NFA tax officially took effect on January 1, 2026, Senator Chris Murphy (D–CT) introduced a new amendment to reverse it — this time proposing a $4,709 tax per item on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and other NFA-regulated firearms.

If that number sounds familiar, it should.

This Isn’t New — It’s Phase Two

Back on July 24, 2025, Zion Patriot covered Murphy’s first attempt to undo the NFA tax repeal:

“By passing H.R.1 with the tax on certain NFA items set to $0, we poked the sleeping bear.
And now that bear is awake — and taking notes.”

At the time, Murphy introduced SA 3012 to a different appropriations bill, testing whether a dramatic tax hike could gain traction after the success of H.R.1.

That amendment failed.

But it accomplished something else: it normalized the idea.

Fast-forward to January 2026. The tax repeal is no longer theoretical. It’s real. And within days, Murphy is back — this time attaching his proposal to the FY2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

This isn’t escalation. It’s iteration.

What’s Being Proposed Now

The current amendment would:

  • Raise the NFA transfer tax to $4,709
  • Raise the NFA making tax to $4,709
  • Increase the AOW making tax to $55
  • Apply to suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs

The figure is not about revenue. It mirrors the inflation-adjusted value of the original 1934 tax, which was explicitly designed to suppress ownership without banning firearms outright.

That matters — legally and politically.

Why the Timing Matters More Than the Text

In July 2025, Murphy moved while the repeal was still pending.

In January 2026, he moved after it became law.

That shift tells us two things:

  1. They are no longer trying to stop repeal — they’re trying to reverse it
  2. They are testing whether taxation can succeed where bans now fail

This is a strategic adjustment to a post-Bruen legal environment, where outright prohibitions are increasingly vulnerable in court.

The Legislative Reality Check

Despite the aggressive proposal, the math hasn’t changed.

As of January 2026:

  • Republicans hold 53 Senate seats
  • Democrats hold 45
  • Two Independents caucus with Democrats

Even assuming full Democratic unity, the amendment would need four Republican senators to defect.

That is an extraordinarily high bar for:

  • A punitive tax
  • Targeting a constitutionally protected activity
  • Likely to trigger immediate litigation

This amendment was again ordered to lie on the table, signaling that leadership does not view it as viable legislation.

Which brings us back to motive.

This Is a Trial Balloon — Again

Just as in July, the goal isn’t passage this year.

The goals are:

  • To reframe gun control as “tax policy”
  • To see whether media coverage treats the proposal as reasonable
  • To test whether voters react strongly — or shrug
  • To establish a record for future Congresses

In other words: they are learning from H.R.1, just as we said they would.

What Happens If This Ever Passes?

If a future Congress enacted a tax like this, the response would be immediate:

  • Lawsuits filed within days
  • Injunctions sought to halt enforcement
  • Courts forced to answer whether a constitutional right can be priced out of reach

Under current Supreme Court doctrine, especially Bruen, the government would need to show a historical tradition of such taxes.

There isn’t one.

Which means the endgame isn’t really Congress — it’s the courts.

One More Front in the Fight: Ongoing NFA Challenges

There’s another important backdrop to all of this that deserves mention.

Several active lawsuits are currently working their way through the courts seeking to remove suppressors and other commonly owned items from the National Firearms Act entirely. While these cases are still ongoing and outcomes are not guaranteed, their existence is highly relevant to amendments like this one.

Why?

Because as long as items remain within the NFA framework, they remain vulnerable to exactly this kind of maneuver — whether through taxes, fees, delays, or administrative burden. Even when one barrier falls, another can be erected in its place.

These lawsuits aim at the root of the problem:
Whether commonly owned, lawful arms can constitutionally be treated as exceptional or dangerous enough to justify special taxation and regulation in the first place.

If those challenges succeed on constitutional grounds, proposals like a $4,709 NFA tax don’t just become politically difficult — they become legally impossible.

That’s why these cases matter, even when they move slowly and quietly. Court victories tend to last longer than legislative wins, and they shape the battlefield for decades.

Supporting these efforts — financially, politically, and through sustained public attention — is one of the most effective ways to prevent future Congresses from revisiting the same tactic under a different name.

Because as this amendment shows, the fight doesn’t reset every election cycle. It evolves.

The Takeaway

Nothing about this should surprise anyone who followed the $0 tax fight last year.

  • This amendment doesn’t represent momentum
  • It represents adaptation
  • And it confirms that H.R.1 changed the terrain permanently

They’re not asleep anymore.

But they’re also not winning.

And the fact that they’re reaching for taxation — again — tells you exactly how narrow their remaining options have become.

A Final Word: Dead for Now Doesn’t Mean Dead Forever

There’s no reason to sugarcoat it.

In the current Congress, this amendment is effectively dead on arrival. The votes aren’t there. The math doesn’t work. And leadership has little appetite for attaching a constitutional landmine to a must-pass funding bill.

But that should not breed complacency.

What this amendment makes clear — for the second time in less than a year — is that the moment political control shifts, this idea will return. And when it does, it will almost certainly return in a Congress where the numbers do favor passage.

This isn’t speculative. It’s precedent.

What this episode makes clear is not a party-specific problem, but a structural one.

Congress has increasingly relied on a familiar set of tactics — regardless of which party is in power:

  • Using appropriations bills to bypass standalone debate
  • Framing major policy changes as tax or budget measures
  • Relying on cost and administrative barriers where direct bans are legally vulnerable

These tools are attractive precisely because they work. They allow lawmakers to move controversial policy without the political cost of open floor fights, and they often survive longer than direct prohibitions.

The National Firearms Act itself is a historical example of this approach.

The risk, then, isn’t confined to one party or one Congress. It’s baked into the modern legislative process.

That playbook doesn’t disappear just because it fails once — or twice.

The $0 NFA tax repeal changed the landscape. It forced opponents to adapt. And what we’re seeing now is that adaptation in real time.

So while this particular amendment is unlikely to survive the current Congress, the lesson is clear:

Stay vigilant. Stay engaged. And don’t mistake a failed vote for a settled fight.

As long as the NFA survives as a constitutional framework, Congress can always try to revive or expand it. Only a clear judicial ruling that removes entire categories of commonly owned arms from NFA treatment permanently closes that door.

Because when the numbers change, this proposal — or one just like it — will be back.

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