You’d be right to wonder why, when you’ve finally got a majority in both chambers and the Chief Executive is one of yours, you’d waste your time on a bunt when you could swing for the fences. Ironically, we’ve got that in New Hampshire and DC, but Republicans don’t seem to know what to do with a majority when they’ve got one. Even the New Hampshire Republican supermajority of 2011-2012 could only get so much done before Republicans got in the way.
It’s been a minute since then, and there are no supermajorities. I’m sorry, the NH State Senate has one, but we’ve got healthy enough majorities elsewhere if we stand together and do the work. But for some reason, they have to make it so damn difficult.
Exhibit One:
Congress has the opportunity to undo nearly a century of Second Amendment injustice, and instead of that, they’re looking to do away with an excise tax on indoor tanning. Every orange man should cheer, and who doesn’t want fewer or lower taxes (zero being the optimum state of taxation). But is that really so important? Does the indoor tanning lobby have that much more influence on a Republican majority than the damn US Constitution?
The House of Representatives will soon vote on a reconciliation bill, but the current bill – as drafted by the House Ways and Means Committee – BETRAYS gun owners.
The bill does NOT include the full Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404) or the SHORT Act (H.R. 2395) – two critical GOA-backed measures aimed at GUTTING the unconstitutional National Firearms Act (NFA).
It also FAILS to remove the NFA registration requirement on suppressors, choosing instead to merely lower the tax transfer tax on suppressors. On top of that, committee Republicans didn’t even lower the $200 making tax on suppressors. That’s half the tax!
Despite the Hollywood writers’ long-held belief that a suppressor is a “silencer,” anyone who has used one or seen one in use in the real world knows otherwise. It’s not quiet. It is, however, sufficient to protect your hearing, which is the point. It is an accessory like a new grip or some other aftermarket add-on.
Suppressors, contrary to popular misconceptions, do not silence firearms but significantly reduce noise levels, mitigating the risk of permanent hearing loss for shooters and hunters. The American Academy of Otolaryngology– Head and Neck Surgery has endorsed suppressors as effective tools for preventing hearing damage, a public health concern affecting millions of Americans. The current NFA requirements — including a $200 tax stamp for both manufacture and transfer of the devices, extensive paperwork, and excessive waiting times — serve no meaningful public safety purpose while imposing undue financial and administrative burdens on responsible citizens. With over 4.8 million suppressors in civilian circulation, their widespread use underscores the need for reform.
Republicans also neglected to consider this an opportunity to ADDRESS ANOTHER INJUSTICE.
H.R. 2395—The SHORT Act, introduced by Rep. Andrew Clyde, would prevent any future attempt to reintroduce the Biden administration’s unconstitutional pistol brace ban. The NFA was the actual law that the Biden Administration used to justify the pistol brace ban.
In other words, there’s still time to remind forgetful Republicans of this and convince them to support these opportunities for meaningful change.
Gun groups across the country are sending a letter to Congress asking them to right this wrong or, if you prefer, take advantage of the opportunity.
The Second Amendment unequivocally protects the right to keep and bear arms, and the NFA’s restrictive provisions—originally enacted to combat gang violence nearly a century ago—have long outlived their utility. The Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act represent measured, practical steps toward aligning federal law with contemporary realities and constitutional principles. Their inclusion in the reconciliation bill is not merely a policy preference but a moral and legal imperative.
Here is a link to a copy of the letter. Please contact your member of Congress or, in the case of New Hampshire, someone else’s (we don’t have any pro-gun congress-critters in the Granite State) and ask them to support this.
