Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) stands at the forefront of defending gun owners’ rights in Washington. He recently joined forces with five senators and 35 House colleagues to deliver a forceful message to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Their united front makes clear that the Department of Justice has strayed from congressional intent.
According to Gun Owners of America, lawmakers take particular issue with how the Justice Department recently defended the National Firearms Act in litigation brought by Gun Owners of America. The case, formally known as Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, addresses changes made when President Trump signed legislation eliminating the $200 tax on certain firearms regulated under the NFA.
That tax previously applied to short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any other weapons (a category covering items outside standard classifications), and silencers. Anyone wanting to purchase these items had to pay $200, submit to background checks with fingerprints and passport photos, then endure substantial waiting periods.
The legislation Trump approved in July removed the tax requirement. Yet the registration mandates persist, prompting GOA to file suit against both ATF and the Justice Department seeking elimination of these remaining requirements.
Courts have historically justified the National Firearms Act and its accompanying registry (the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record) as legitimate exercises of Congress’s constitutional taxation authority. The legal justification hinges entirely on that word: taxation.
The NFA registry technically tracks tax payments associated with firearms rather than functioning as a direct gun registry. This distinction represents a deliberate method to circumvent constitutional challenges against weapons registration.
The Justice Department compounded its problematic position by relying on standard gun control rhetoric to justify defending this registration system. Their arguments included several troubling elements.
DOJ lawyers labeled NFA-regulated firearms as “weapons of war,” deploying a meaningless phrase designed to frighten citizens unfamiliar with firearms policy. Any weapon can serve military purposes, and the Second Amendment specifically protects precisely those types of arms.
The Department claimed NFA items prove “especially susceptible to criminal misuse,” echoing language from Biden administration briefs supporting various gun bans.
DOJ attorneys argue that because other NFA provisions still generate revenue, the entire act remains constitutional along with registration requirements for untaxed items.
Rep. Clyde and his 40 congressional colleagues reject this reasoning entirely. Their letter explains their position with clarity.
“The registration requirements under the NFA are, in fact, inseparably linked to its taxation provisions. Registration serves as the mechanism by which the ATF accounts for the tax paid on each firearm, identified by its serial number.”
The tax stamp ATF affixes to NFA transfer and registration applications displays both the firearm’s serial number and the tax amount paid for transfer.
“Moreover, the NFA’s criminal provisions pertain exclusively to the failure to pay or register the payment of this tax with the ATF. Any reinterpretation of the NFA that allows registration to persist once taxation has been removed contradicts the statute’s text, its structure, and Supreme Court precedent,” the letter added.
The lawmakers continue by noting that eliminating the tax on broad categories of NFA-regulated firearms undermines the constitutional foundation for applying transfer and registration requirements to those zero-tax firearms.
“These requirements now operate without any corresponding exercise of Congress’s taxing power. As the Supreme Court upheld the NFA’s provisions only as ‘in aid’ of that power, and since the relevant excise taxes have been repealed, the transfer and registration requirements should likewise be understood as repealed with respect to firearms now subject to a $0 tax.”
The congressional letter accuses the Department of ignoring reality while proposing a theory that would transform the NFA from a tax statute into an unauthorized federal gun registry that Congress never approved and has repeatedly rejected.
The GOA lawsuit establishes its legal foundation on two 1930s Supreme Court decisions. US v. Sonzinsky and US v. Constantine together establish that the NFA represents an exercise of congressional taxing power, and that any tax generating no revenue cannot legitimately function as a tax.
Representative Clyde reinforces this point directly in his correspondence.
“As you are well aware, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act in 1934, imposing an excise tax of $200 (equivalent to nearly $5,000 today) on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms. The NFA also established burdensome registration requirements for gun owners seeking to transfer NFA-regulated firearms.”
He continues by explaining the constitutional basis.
“Congress enacted the NFA pursuant to its taxing power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in Sonzinsky v. United States, held that the NFA’s registration provisions were ‘supportable as in aid’ of Congress’s proper exercise of the taxing power. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in United States v. Constantine held that a tax that doesn’t generate revenue cannot be justified as a tax.”
The National Firearms Act derives its entire legal legitimacy from congressional taxing authority. Removing that tax raises an unavoidable question about whether the federal government retains authority to maintain its registry.
The Justice Department now faces a choice between defending outdated gun control mechanisms or aligning with congressional intent and constitutional principles. The 41 lawmakers have drawn a clear line, and the next move belongs to Attorney General Bondi.
