Why Repealing the Tax Creates a Constitutional Time Bomb

Zion Patriot,

Congress is on the verge of enacting legislation that will repeal the $200 federal tax on suppressors—commonly called silencers— as well as Short Barreled Rifles (SBR), Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS) and Any Other Weapons (AOW) but not repeal the registry requirement created by the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA).

While this may sound like an incremental policy change, it sets up a legal contradiction so profound that it could unravel the entire regulatory framework surrounding these highly regulated firearms and accessories—and possibly trigger a landmark Supreme Court case.

Let’s break down why this is such a big deal.

🎯 A Brief History of the NFA

When Congress passed the NFA in 1934, the goal was simple: regulate certain firearms and accessories by imposing a hefty tax—$200 in 1934 (about $4,600 today). To enforce this tax, the government created a registry.

The logic was:

No tax payment, no registration certificate—no possession.

This was explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court in Sonzinsky v. United States (1937). The Court ruled that Congress had the power to tax these items and that the registry was a valid tool to collect and enforce the tax.

In other words:
✅ The registry existed solely to prove you paid the tax.

🎯 What Just Changed

Under the proposed Senate version of the bill (part of the so-called “OBBB” budget package), the tax on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs would be repealed.

However:

  • The registry requirement remains.
  • The ATF would still require Form 4 paperwork, background checks, and federal approval.
  • You’d just no longer pay the $200 fee.

This happened because the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that repealing the tax is budgetary and can be passed with a simple majority, but repealing the registry is a “policy change” that requires 60 votes.

🎯 Why This Is a Legal Contradiction

This split creates an obvious question:

If the tax is gone, why does the registry exist?

After all:

  • The NFA was justified under Congress’s taxing power.
  • The registry is designed to enforce the tax.
  • Without a tax, you have a registry of lawful property ownership for no clear reason.

That’s not just awkward—it could be unconstitutional.

🎯 The FOPA Problem

There’s more. In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), which explicitly prohibits the federal government from maintaining a registry of gun owners or firearms, except for records “maintained for purposes of taxation.”

Once the NFA tax is repealed, the last legal justification for the NFA registry disappears.

So what do you call a registry of tax compliance when there’s no tax?

An illegal registry.

🎯 A Nightmare for the ATF

If this bill becomes law, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will be trapped in a regulatory no man’s land:

  • They can’t process tax payments that don’t exist.
  • They’ll be forced to maintain a registry with no tax to justify it.
  • They could face immediate lawsuits arguing the registry violates both the Constitution and FOPA.

It’s not speculation—this is the exact kind of situation that almost guarantees a wave of litigation from gun rights organizations like the NRA, GOA, SAF, and FPC.

🎯 What Happens Next?

If multiple lawsuits are filed:

  • District courts will likely issue conflicting injunctions.
  • Some gun owners will be protected (because they are members of organizations that sued).
  • Others will still be subject to the registry.
  • Dealers will face impossible compliance challenges.

Even more important, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be asked to step in. Because the contradiction is so clear, and the stakes are so high, this is the kind of issue that could get fast-tracked to SCOTUS within 12–18 months.

🎯 The Big Picture

This is not just about suppressors, SBR, SBS and AOWs. It’s about:

  • The limits of Congressional power to regulate firearms through tax law.
  • Whether procedural Senate rules (like the Byrd Rule) can produce incoherent laws.
  • Whether FOPA’s ban on registries will finally be enforced.

In many ways, it’s the perfect storm:
✅ An obsolete tax scheme.
✅ A politically fractured Congress.
✅ A Supreme Court skeptical of expansive federal power.

If you think the legal battles over pistol braces and bump stocks were messy, this will be far worse.

🎯 1️⃣ What happens if the registry is ruled unconstitutional?

If the Supreme Court decides the NFA registry no longer has any valid constitutional basis (because it was justified solely by the taxing power), the most likely result would be:

✅ An injunction prohibiting the ATF from continuing to enforce the registration requirement going forward.

This is the minimum remedy—ending further enforcement.

🎯 2️⃣ Could the Court order the destruction of existing records?

This is absolutely possible, but not guaranteed. It would depend on:

🔹 How the plaintiffs ask the Court to frame relief.

🔹 Whether the Court agrees that simply retaining the records constitutes an ongoing constitutional violation.

🔹 How broad the Court wants to make the remedy.

🧭 Historical precedent: Destruction of records in unconstitutional schemes

We do have parallels:

✅ Haynes v. United States (1968):

  • The Supreme Court ruled the NFA’s requirement for felons to register was unconstitutional because it violated the 5th Amendment (self-incrimination).
  • After Haynes, ATF and DOJ had to halt prosecutions based on the registration requirement but did not destroy all prior records—because only the application by felons was unconstitutional, not the entire registry.

✅ Chicago gun registry litigation:

  • When Chicago’s handgun registry was struck down (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010), the city did abolish the registry and ended recordkeeping.
  • Some records were retained for administrative reasons, but new records were forbidden.

✅ General Fourth Amendment/Privacy doctrine:

  • Courts have sometimes ordered government agencies to purge records created under an unconstitutional statute.
  • Example: If a surveillance database is held unconstitutional, courts can order it shut down and records deleted.

✅ So the Court has the authority to order the destruction of records if:

  • The registry itself is unconstitutional.
  • Retaining the data is considered an “ongoing violation” of rights.
  • Plaintiffs specifically ask for this relief.

🎯 3️⃣ What would likely happen in this specific case?

Realistically, there are 3 main options:

Option 1: Prospective Injunction Only

“The ATF is enjoined from requiring or collecting further registrations.”

Result:

  • Existing records stay in the NFA Registry.
  • No new entries.

This is the least disruptive remedy and most likely default if no further relief is requested.

Option 2: Destruction of records

“The ATF shall permanently destroy all registry records maintained under the unconstitutional scheme.”

Result:

  • All existing records of suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs (and potentially more) must be purged.
  • This would be a massive operational and historical loss of data for the government.

This would be the most sweeping and aggressive remedy.

Option 3: Transitional or partial retention

“The ATF shall cease maintaining the registry, and any records retained shall not be used for any enforcement purpose.”

Result:

  • Records exist for historical or administrative purposes.
  • They cannot be used to prosecute or enforce anything.
  • This is a compromise approach.

🎯 4️⃣ What factors would influence which option the Court picks?

✅ How the plaintiffs frame the request.

  • If they demand destruction and make strong privacy/constitutional arguments, it increases the chance.

✅ How the Court views the ongoing harm.

  • If the existence of the registry is seen as continuing a violation, it’s harder for the government to justify keeping it.

✅ Practical considerations.

  • SCOTUS is sometimes reluctant to order the government to erase entire databases if less drastic remedies suffice.

✅ Precedent.

  • The Court could look to Haynes, McDonald, and surveillance cases to shape relief.

✅ BOTTOM LINE:
Yes—the Supreme Court could order the ATF to destroy all existing NFA records if it rules the registry unconstitutional.

  • This would depend heavily on what relief plaintiffs request.
  • It would also depend on whether the Court concludes that simply retaining the records is an ongoing constitutional violation.

✅ In plain English:

If the registry has no legal basis, keeping it could be just as unconstitutional as continuing to require new registrations.

🎯 Conclusion

Whether you support or oppose NFA deregulation, the coming showdown over the NFA registry is a textbook case of why piecemeal legislation can create unintended—and possibly unconstitutional—consequences.

If this becomes law, get ready. This will almost certainly be the next major Second Amendment and administrative law battle—and it’s going to be one for the history books.

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