By OBBM Network Editorial Staff

Derived from an episode of Armed Attorneys.

What happens when a federal tax on suppressors and short‑barreled firearms disappears overnight? Texas gun owners and lawmakers are watching closely as the Trump administration’s budget victory eliminated the $200 tax on National Firearms Act items, prompting a district court to deem related registration requirements unconstitutional.

Congressional Tax Cut and Its Immediate Fallout

In the 2025 budget bill, the House of Representatives, with strong backing from the Gun Owners of America (GOA), succeeded in reducing the tax on NFA items—including suppressors, short‑barrel rifles, shotguns, and any-other‑weapon (AOW) classifications—from $200 to a nominal $5, and ultimately to $0. The legislation was framed as a direct effort to remove what GOA called “the only constitutional basis for the registration” of these weapons.

Following the tax elimination, a district court issued an injunction against the ATF’s registration requirement, concluding that without a tax, the registry was unconstitutional. The Trump administration’s ATF and Department of Justice quickly signaled agreement, stating they would not enforce the registration. As Richard D. Hayes explained, “The Trump ATF and DOJ essentially came out and said, yeah, we agree with this. We’re not going to enforce it.” This rapid alignment underscores the administration’s commitment to protecting lawful gun owners from what it views as overreaching federal regulation.

Practical Steps for Texas Gun Owners

Even with the tax repeal, the legal paperwork for NFA items remains in place. Hayes advised owners to complete the appropriate forms—Form 1 for making a firearm and Form 4 for transferring one—while the processing queues remain short. “If you really want to protect yourself for a coming Democratic administration, which is probably very likely at this point, it’s a good idea to go ahead and do your $0 tax stamp, Form 4 for some items, Form 1 for others,” he said.

He emphasized that completing these forms now “future‑proofs” owners against potential future restrictions, offering a concrete step that individuals can take while the broader legal environment remains uncertain.

Supreme Court Dynamics and the Risk to Gun Rights

Hayes also addressed concerns about the Supreme Court’s composition. The current 6‑3 conservative majority, he noted, “uses text, history, and tradition when interpreting the law.” However, he warned that two upcoming vacancies could shrink that margin to a 4‑3 split, still conservative but more vulnerable to strategic challenges from states seeking to impose stricter gun controls.

He noted that opponents argued that the Court should decide on constitutionality, a view he disagreed with. “Blue states love to do that,” Hayes said, highlighting the tactical advantage they gain when the Court is perceived as indecisive.

Texas Emergency Powers and Legislative Safeguards

Turning to state‑level concerns, Emily Taylor outlined the limits on Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s emergency authority. Texas Government Code §418.003 restricts the governor’s ability to seize firearms or ammunition, except under narrowly defined disaster circumstances. Moreover, the code protects manufacturers, distributors, and shooting ranges from being shut down solely because of a declared emergency.

While some Texans have called for a special legislative session to curb these powers, Taylor argued that the political reality makes such a move unlikely. “Democrats just won’t show up for a quorum in the House,” she noted, suggesting that any attempt to limit the governor’s authority would be “an exercise in futility.”

Constitutional Carry and the Texas Constitution

One listener asked why Texas does not have explicit constitutional carry in its state constitution. Taylor explained that the Texas Bill of Rights already contains a version of the Second Amendment in Article 1, Section 23, which reads: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, but the legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” This language explicitly permits legislative regulation, meaning any move toward unconditional constitutional carry would require an amendment to the state constitution—a political hurdle that is “never going to happen,” according to the hosts.

Despite this, Texas courts have historically interpreted the provision broadly in favor of gun owners, reinforcing the state’s strong pro‑Second Amendment stance.

Overall, the convergence of federal tax reform, pending Supreme Court vacancies, and Texas’s own legal framework creates a complex environment for gun rights advocates. Hayes and Taylor conclude that staying informed, completing required paperwork, and engaging with state legislators remain the most effective ways for Texans to safeguard their rights.

The full episode of Armed Attorneys is available on OBBM Network TV.