Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Supreme Court shoots down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun makers | Main | Relief from disabilities functional again! »

Senate Committee: Deregulate Suppressors and Short Barreled Firearms

Posted by David Hardy · 16 June 2025 05:31 PM

The Senate Finance Committee has reported out a reconciliation bill that will de-regulate suppressors. §70436.

The amendment to 26 U.S.C. §5845(a) removes suppressors and short barreled rifles and shotguns from the NFA's special definition of "firearm," which defines what items the NFA regulates. "Any other weapon" is likewise eliminated. Now only full-autos and destructive devices are covered.

The amendment to §5845(f) removes all shotguns from the definition of "destructive device." The DD designation now covers everything everything above .50 caliber except shotguns that the Attorney General finds are "generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes." The amendment would change the exemption to simply cover shotguns.

Finally, it deals with possible state law problems by stating that state licensing requirements that refer to the NFA shall be deemed met if the firearm is possessed in accord with the Gun Control Act. This is a rough way of meeting a certain problem: some state gun laws dealt with suppressors and short-bareled arms simply by outlawing them, then stating there is an exception for those registered under the NFA. What happens if there is no NFA registration requirement any more? There might still be some problems -- can a federal statute say that a state law is complied with under certain conditions? But we may suspect that those states will amend their statutes to conform.

It'll be a great improvement if this gets enacted!!! Incidentally, the "any other weapon" provision just got into the statute by accident. The original draft of the NFA imposed a $5 tax and registration on pistols, revolvers, and any other firearm capable of concealment (to prevent someone from inventing a non-pistol to get around the law). Gun owner opposition led to delete of the pistol or revolver provision, but Congress forgot to take out the "any other" category at the same time. So we wound up with special legal requirement for a really obscure and mostly antique set of guns, guns that weren't defined as handguns, rifles, or shotguns -- palm "squeezer" pistols, cane guns, etc., most of which fired ammunition that hasn't been available for a century (altho I do have some .38 rimfire ammo somewhere).

4 Comments | Leave a comment

ARLDN | June 16, 2025 6:31 PM | Reply

It appears that someone just copied the preemption text from the SHORT Act, so the preemption text doesn't include silencers (since the SHORT Act doesn't do anything for silencers). I assume this is an oversight/inadvertent error, but it needs to be fixed.

Anonymous | June 17, 2025 6:44 AM | Reply

We really need a federal law saying that since this is a right state laws can't be any stricter than federal law. There are numerous rulings specifying that rights should be equal for everyone. Apply them to the 2nd amendment.

Old Guy | June 18, 2025 8:50 AM | Reply

I doubt NJ will change their laws to conform, just don't see that.

FW | June 18, 2025 9:55 AM | Reply

We have a federal law that says no government can infringe on the Right. How's that going?

Leave a comment