Some state statutes prohibit NFA firearms without compliance with federal law. Some of these states explicitly call for federal registration or possession of an NFA tax stamp in order to possess a suppressor or a short-barreled firearm at the state level. Therefore, GOA proposes the following conforming language:

(a) Ensuring minimal disruption to lawful ownership while eliminating the tax.—Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:

“(f) Requirements for National Firearms Act weapons determined by reference.—In the case of any registration or licensing requirement under State or local law with respect to a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or any other weapon (as defined in section 5845(e)) which is determined by reference to the National Firearms Act, any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or any other weapon.”.

BYRD ARGUMENT #1 – This Language Is “Necessary and Conforming” to Avoid Unintended Consequences

The core intent of removing these firearms from the NFA is to eliminate the associated $200 tax and related paperwork per firearm, simplifying federal taxation and reducing burdens on gun owners. However, if this tax change inadvertently triggers state laws that ban these firearms (because some states tie their regulations to NFA status), it could accidently criminalize previously lawful possession. Congress intends to strike the tax on certain NFA firearms, not cause de facto gun bans at the state level.

This would undermine the purpose of the tax relief by creating new legal risks for gun owners. This language is necessary to protect gun owners in these states from criminal prosecution. This state protection is also necessary to preserve the intended effect of the tax change—relieving tax burdens without altering the legal status quo at the state level—making it directly tied to the budgetary provision. Furthermore, by preventing federal tax changes from unintentionally overriding state firearm laws, this tweak upholds state sovereignty.

BYRD ARGUMENT #2 – This Language Is “Necessary and Conforming” to Collect the Federal Arms Excise Tax in Certain States.

It is also necessary to protect the legality of the firearms to be taxed, which are currently legal at the state level and will become illegal. Currently, the federal government collects either a $5 or a $200 tax on NFA firearms. Once removed from the National Firearms Act, they will no longer qualify for an exemption from the Federal Arms Excise Tax at 26 U.S.C. 4182(a). Instead, they will be subject to a 10% Federal Arms Excise Tax under 26 U.S.C. 4181.

However, if removing certain firearms from the NFA results in a de facto ban at the state level, then this language is necessary to maintain their legality and thus allow the federal government to collect its 10% excise tax on each firearm manufactured.

NOTE FOR BOTH: These two tweaks are narrowly crafted to address only the direct fallout of removing the NFA tax, avoiding broader policy shifts. The state protections tweak prevents legal disruptions caused by the tax change, while the interstate transportation tweak ensures enforceability of existing laws post-tax removal. They do not introduce new firearm policies or regulations beyond what is required for smooth execution of the budgetary measure.