Congressional Coalition Demands DOJ End Gun Registry Defense After Tax Elimination

A bipartisan group of 41 lawmakers is pushing back against the Department of Justice's continued defense of federal gun registration requirements, arguing that recent tax law changes have undermined the constitutional foundation for such regulations.

Representative Andrew Clyde, joined by five senators and 35 House members, sent a strongly worded letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi challenging the DOJ's position in an ongoing legal battle over the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The Core Legal Question

The dispute centers on a fundamental constitutional issue: can the federal government maintain registration requirements for firearms when the associated tax has been eliminated? The controversy stems from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump in July, which removed the $200 tax on certain regulated firearms including silencers and short-barreled weapons.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 originally imposed this substantial tax, equivalent to nearly $5,000 in today's money, along with burdensome registration requirements. The Supreme Court upheld these provisions in the 1930s specifically as an exercise of Congress's constitutional taxing power.

"The registration requirements under the NFA are, in fact, inseparably linked to its taxation provisions," the congressional letter states. "Registration serves as the mechanism by which the ATF accounts for the tax paid on each firearm."

Constitutional Implications

The lawmakers argue that the DOJ's current position would effectively transform a tax statute into "a free-standing federal gun registry" without proper congressional authorization. They cite Supreme Court precedent establishing that a tax generating no revenue cannot be constitutionally justified as a tax.

This legal challenge, formally known as Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, represents a significant test of federal regulatory authority. Gun Owners of America, the organization bringing the lawsuit, argues that maintaining registration requirements without corresponding taxation exceeds constitutional limits.

Broader Democratic Concerns

While the immediate issue involves firearms regulation, the case raises important questions about executive branch accountability and the limits of federal regulatory power. The congressional letter emphasizes that agencies cannot simply reinterpret laws to maintain authority when the underlying legal justification has been removed.

The dispute also highlights ongoing tensions between different branches of government over regulatory interpretation. Critics argue that allowing agencies to maintain requirements after their legal foundation has been eliminated sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.

What's at Stake

Beyond the specific firearms regulations, this case could establish important precedents for how federal agencies adapt to legislative changes. The outcome may influence future debates about regulatory authority and the balance between public safety measures and constitutional constraints.

The DOJ now faces pressure from Congress to reconsider its defense of the registration requirements. As Representative Clyde noted in the letter, the department has an opportunity to "decide if they want to be on the side of the Second Amendment" or continue defending what lawmakers characterize as unconstitutional overreach.

This developing story reflects broader questions about how democratic institutions should balance competing priorities while respecting constitutional limits and legislative intent.