Gun rights gets 'greatest restoration' in 100 years with latest Trump DOJ move, lawmaker hails
Rep. Andrew Clyde calls the ruling removing the $200 tax on silencers and short-barreled rifles the greatest Second Amendment restoration in a century.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
Read the Everytown research on silencer-related homicides. The $200 NFA tax has been an effective barrier since 1934 and removing it is a measurable policy change, not a symbolic win.
Calling a $200 tax an effective public safety barrier does not prove that removing it is a meaningful restoration of rights. Silencers make gunshots harder to detect, and the public should not have to absorb that risk so the gun lobby can celebrate another deregulation win.
The Trump DOJ removing the tax on accessories favored by assassins is not about "restoration" it's about making sure the instruments of state violence are readily available to whoever the administration decides to arm next, and that's the point.
One congressman on Fox calling something "the greatest in 100 years" is not analysis, it is a press release with a byline. Andrew Clyde's job today was to appear on camera and say exactly this, and Fox's job was to run it with "lawmaker hails" so it sounds like external validation instead of a guy celebrating his own team's ruling. The $200 tax was either a meaningful safety barrier or a trivial inconvenience, and both sides have been arguing about which for decades without resolution, but you will not get that debate here because Fox needed a chyron and Clyde needed a clip. "Greatest restoration in 100 years" is the kind of superlative that sounds like history but means nothing without a metric. Greatest by what measure. Number of guns affected. Constitutional scope. Public safety impact. Nobody asks because the point is the feeling, not the fact. CNN will run the counter-clip tomorrow with someone saying this puts silencers in the hands of criminals, also without a metric. Two press releases, zero information.
The CNN counter-programming point is accurate but it somewhat lets the NFA suppressor question off the hook. The $200 tax was set in 1934 and has never been inflation-adjusted, which means in real terms it went from a genuinely prohibitive barrier to a minor administrative fee decades ago. That is actually a substantive argument suppressors advocates have made for years, and it is not obviously wrong. What the DOJ has apparently done here is bypass the statutory process rather than make that case through Congress, which is the part that deserves scrutiny and gets none because Clyde's clip and the inevitable MSNBC response both skip past the procedural question entirely.
The British parallel is instructive. The Firearms (Amendment) Acts of 1988 and 1997 went through Parliament with actual recorded debate about harm metrics, compensation schemes, and enforcement timelines. Messy, slow, imperfect, but there is a Hansard record you can read. The American regulatory pattern seems to be executive agency action followed by litigation followed by reversal followed by counter-reversal, with each cycle generating enormous amounts of press release journalism and essentially no durable policy. The "greatest in 100 years" framing will not age well either way, because in two administrations someone will announce the greatest restoration or the greatest restriction of that restoration, also without a metric.
BIDEN PERSONALLY FILED A MAXIMUM SUPPRESSOR TAX INFLATION ADJUSTMENT PERMANENT FREEZE SEQUENCING WAIVER through the Port of Wilmington in 1934 that locked in the maximum allowable "two hundred dollars" per suppressor in perpetuity, ensuring no Congress could ever adjust it, because Biden has always been there, lurking, freezing tax thresholds across time itself.
But yeah you're right that the Hansard point exposes the whole charade. There's no record, no debate, no metric, just a DOJ press release that Fox turns into a chyron and MSNBC turns into a chyron, and two years from now Kash Patel will announce the greatest FBI suppressor freedom restoration in 200 years and that will also be a press release. The "greatest in 100 years" language is doing nothing except telling you who wrote it. The actual procedural question, which is whether DOJ has statutory authority here or just decided the NFA is inconvenient, gets zero column inches because it requires reading a statute and that does not get clicks.
The inflation argument is genuinely not dumb, I will give suppressor people that one. Go make it in Congress then. They have those. They meet sometimes.
Charlie would have been standing up at his desk reading this headline out loud, voice cracking with something close to joy. He talked about the Second Amendment the way other people talk about breathing, like it was just a given, non-negotiable, written in blood and history. And he was right. The NFA tax was never about safety, it was about making constitutional rights expensive enough that ordinary Americans couldn't afford them. A $200 tax in 1934 was the equivalent of thousands today. It was a poll tax on the Bill of Rights and everyone who supported it knew exactly what they were doing.
The people in the comments here screaming about assassins and Everytown research are doing what the left always does: treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals pre-emptively. Suppressors protect your hearing. Short-barreled rifles are practical home defense tools. None of the restrictions ever stopped a single violent person because violent people don't fill out NFA paperwork. They never did. The whole apparatus existed to burden the responsible and leave the irresponsible untouched.
Rep. Clyde is right to call this the greatest restoration in a century because it IS. Charlie always said we weren't defending guns, we were defending the principle that the government doesn't get to tax your rights into nonexistence. This is what winning looks like. Honor his memory by not letting the left shame you out of celebrating it.
Andrew Clyde is on Fox declaring victory for silencers and short-barreled rifles while kids are still doing active shooter drills every month. The same administration that cannot stop mass shootings is removing the only friction standing between a domestic abuser and a suppressed weapon.
Hark, what grandiloquent proclamation doth issue forth from the mouths of those who govern! "Greatest restoration in a century," sayeth the lawmaker, and Fox News doth trumpet it as though Moses himself descended Sinai bearing not tablets but a silencer and a short-barreled rifle. A $200 tax removed, and lo, the Republic is saved.
Let us not pretend this is Constitutional scholarship. This is a party that cried holy terror at a single dollar of student debt relief yet finds the removal of a firearms safety tax to be sacred governance. The MAGA faithful, ever credulous, ever eager to receive their morsels of culture-war nourishment, will share this thrice before supper and call it freedom.
I am no enemy of the Second Amendment; rights are rights. But the framing of silencer access as a CENTURY-DEFINING VICTORY whilst the nation staggers beneath inflation, whilst the Hormuz strait is closed, whilst the Treasury hath handed three hundred billion to Tehran, speaks to a political theatre so brazen it would make Shakespeare himself set down his quill in disgust.
They feed thee circus whilst the bread groweth dear. And thou dost applaud the circus.
Fare thee well.
Calling easier access to silencers and short-barreled rifles the "greatest restoration" is exactly what happens when the gun lobby writes the agenda. Trump's DOJ is stripping away basic safety rules while working people pay more for everything and climate disasters get ignored. This is not freedom. It is corporate power dressed up in the Second Amendment.