Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Washington Gun Law President William Kirk is not sugarcoating his reaction to the midterms.

“That was a disaster,” Kirk said after Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress. But rather than conducting another broad election autopsy, Kirk focused on one immediate question for gun owners: Could the election results unravel the recent victories involving suppressors, short-barreled rifles and other National Firearms Act items?

His short answer is yes. But there are some important hurdles between Democratic control of Congress and the return of the old NFA system.

How We Got Here

Congress reduced the NFA making and transfer taxes to $0 for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and “any other weapons.” Machine guns and destructive devices remained subject to the $200 tax.

That change eventually produced a major court victory in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.

In August, a federal judge ruled that the NFA’s registration and approval requirements could no longer stand as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power when the covered items produced no tax revenue. The court’s injunction formally protected only the plaintiffs, but the Justice Department declined to appeal and ATF adopted a nationwide nonenforcement policy.

Under ATF’s October 9 guidance, the agency stopped enforcing the NFA’s approval, registration and tax-stamp requirements for those untaxed items. Gun Control Act requirements, state restrictions and several other federal rules remain in place.

That is the honeymoon Kirk is worried about losing.

The One-Dollar Problem

Kirk’s central point is simple: “That which could be done through budget reconciliation could also be undone through budget reconciliation.”

Republicans used reconciliation to reduce the taxes to $0. With Democrats controlling the House and Senate, they could attempt to use the same process to restore them.

Reconciliation matters because qualifying budget legislation cannot be filibustered in the Senate and can pass with a simple majority. It must, however, comply with rules limiting the process to provisions that meaningfully affect federal spending or revenue.

Kirk argues that Congress would not necessarily need to restore the old $200 tax. Even a $1 tax would once again produce revenue, potentially removing the foundation supporting the Silencer Shop decision.

SEE ALSO: 7 Creedmoor Takes 2nd in NRL Hunter

That does not mean every registration requirement would automatically spring back to life overnight. It would mean the government could argue that the NFA is once again a revenue-producing tax law and seek to revive enforcement. More litigation would almost certainly follow.

But Kirk’s larger point is valid: the current arrangement rests partly on a tax rate that Congress can change.

Trump Still Has the Veto Pen

The election gave Democrats control of Congress, but it did not give them complete control of the federal government.

President Donald Trump can veto a reconciliation bill containing an NFA tax increase. Based on the incoming congressional numbers, Democrats would not appear to have the two-thirds majorities needed to override that veto.

The risk, according to Kirk, is that lawmakers could bury a small NFA tax inside a much larger reconciliation package containing provisions the administration wants.

A president cannot simply cross out the NFA section and approve everything else. The Supreme Court struck down the federal line-item veto in Clinton v. City of New York, holding that the president must accept or reject the legislation Congress actually passed.

That could leave Trump with an all-or-nothing decision: sign a massive budget package containing a small NFA tax or veto the entire bill.

Still, that is political leverage—not a guaranteed Democratic victory. The White House could draw a hard line, and congressional Republicans could make the NFA provision politically toxic long before the legislation reaches the president.

Kirk’s Timeline Needs Some Context

Kirk points to the federal budget calendar as the period gun owners should watch.

Federal law generally requires the president to submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. The statutory timetable then targets April 15 for completion of a congressional budget resolution and June 15 for reconciliation legislation.

Those are targets, not reliable deadlines. Congress regularly misses them, and reconciliation can stretch well beyond June.

The real danger signal would be a budget resolution containing reconciliation instructions related to NFA taxes or firearm regulation. Until actual text appears, everything else remains speculation.

Should Gun Owners “Stock Up”?

Kirk’s practical advice is that anyone already considering a suppressor, SBR or another affected item may want to act during the next several months.

That does not mean current owners should expect federal agents at their doors if Congress changes the law. Kirk believes the government would likely offer a registration or amnesty period if enforcement returned.

“Likely” is doing important work there. No grace period has been promised, and defenses such as entrapment by estoppel depend heavily on the government’s statements and the individual facts of a prosecution. Gun owners should not treat either as an automatic shield.

The brass-tacks takeaway is that the NFA victory remains in place today, but it is less permanent than some supporters initially suggested. Democrats now have a procedural path to attempt restoring the tax. Trump has the power to stop them, unless the tax becomes a bargaining chip inside a much larger bill he is willing to sign.

So, did the midterms end the NFA honeymoon? Not yet. But Kirk is probably right that gun owners need to start watching the budget process as closely as they watch the courts.

Would you purchase an NFA item now, or trust the presidential veto to preserve the current system?

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search