In a sharp rebuke to the Department of Justice, 41 members of Congress, led by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), have demanded Attorney General Pam Bondi halt the agency’s defense of the National Firearms Act (NFA) registry in an ongoing lawsuit, arguing that removing the $200 tax under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) renders the continued registration requirements unconstitutional.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan coalition of 41 members of Congress, spearheaded by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), a prominent Second Amendment advocate, has sent a strongly worded letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, condemning the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) defense of the National Firearms Act (NFA) registry in a high-stakes lawsuit that could reshape gun rights enforcement in the United States.
The controversy centers on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law by President Donald Trump in July, which eliminated the $200 tax previously required for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any other weapons” (AOWs). While the tax was repealed, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the DOJ continue to enforce registration requirements—a move the lawmakers argue is unconstitutional now that the taxation justification has been removed.
The Legal Battle: “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit”
The Gun Owners of America (GOA) is leading the charge in the lawsuit, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, which challenges the legality of maintaining the NFA registry after the tax was eliminated. Before the OBBBA, purchasing NFA-regulated items required:
- A $200 tax stamp.
- Extensive background checks, including fingerprints and passport photos.
- A lengthy waiting period.
The OBBBA’s repeal of the tax was intended to ease restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, but the ATF and DOJ have continued to enforce registration, threatening penalties for noncompliance—even though no tax revenue is collected.
“It’s absurd to demand registration for a tax that no longer exists,” a GOA legal representative said. “It’s like the IRS abolishing the income tax but still requiring you to file a return—or face prison time.”
DOJ’s Controversial Defense
In its legal filings, the DOJ has relied on arguments that gun rights advocates call misleading and politically charged, including:
- Labeling NFA items as “weapons of war”—a term critics say is designed to stigmatize lawful firearms and appeal to emotion rather than legal precedent.
- Claiming NFA items are “especially susceptible to criminal misuse”—a narrative echoed in Biden-era DOJ briefs that gun rights groups argue lacks evidence.
- Asserting that other NFA taxes still exist, so registration remains constitutional—a legal stretch that Congress now rejects.
Congress: “No Tax, No Registry”
The 41 lawmakers’ letter forcefully pushes back against the DOJ’s position, citing two landmark Supreme Court cases—U.S. v. Sonzinsky (1937) and U.S. v. Constantine (1936)—which upheld the NFA only as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
“The NFA’s registration requirements are inseparably linked to its taxation provisions,” the letter states. “The tax stamp affixed to an NFA transfer reflects both the firearm’s serial number and the tax paid. Without the tax, there is no constitutional basis for registration.”
The lawmakers argue that the DOJ’s interpretation—which separates registration from taxation—contradicts the NFA’s original intent and Supreme Court precedent.
“The DOJ’s theory would transform the NFA from a tax statute into a federal gun registry—something Congress has never authorized and has repeatedly rejected,” the letter warns.
A Call for DOJ to Reverse Course
The lawmakers urge the DOJ to abandon its defense of the registry, emphasizing that the agency’s stance undermines the Second Amendment.
“The NFA was enacted under Congress’s taxing power. If there’s no tax, there’s no legal justification for a registry,” Rep. Clyde wrote. “The DOJ must stop defending unconstitutional gun control and start upholding the law as written.”
What’s Next?
The GOA’s lawsuit is ongoing, and the DOJ now faces mounting pressure from Congress to withdraw its defense. The outcome could have far-reaching implications, potentially forcing the ATF to dismantle the NFA registry for zero-tax items—or setting a precedent for future Second Amendment battles.
“The DOJ’s position is legally indefensible,” a constitutional law expert said. “If they don’t back down, the courts may have to step in and rule against them.”
For now, gun rights advocates are watching closely, hoping the DOJ will reconsider—or risk a judicial defeat that could further weaken federal gun control efforts.
“The American people deserve a government that respects the Constitution—not one that twists the law to fit a political agenda,” Rep. Clyde concluded. “The DOJ should stand down before the courts force them to.”
Original article
Comments