HPA and SHORT Act Become Law

It’s July 4^th, 2025 and President Trump has signed the Budget Reconciliation Bill into law. This marks the end of about three months of rollercoaster for anyone who had been watching the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act (SHORT). There has been tremendous work spanning well over a decade to get where we are today.

With that said, the two acts have fallen short of completely gutting the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The NFA still regulates Short Barreled Rifles (SBR’s), Short Barrel Shotguns (SBS’s), Suppressors and Any other Weapons (AOWs). While the tax stamp has been reduced to zero, there is still the requirement to register, and there are several Codes of Federal Regulation (CFR) which mandate fingerprints, a requirement to report when traveling across state lines, an additional background check, a requirement to engrave, etcetera, etcetera 

Until the CFR’s have changed, there are still some not so insignificant hurdles to purchasing or owning any NFA item as easy as owning a firearm. The legal requirement to register remains the sole surviving pillar of the NFA’s enforcement.

Nullifying the Tax; Opening the Doors

Much of the modern (last 25 – 30 years) NFA justification has boiled down to this. The NFA is a Tax; Congress has the ability to tax, therefore the NFA is constitutional under congress’s authority to institute taxes so long as it generates revenue. Does changing that tax to $0 nullify the NFA’s justification?? What is next?

We already have a pretty good glimpse as to what is next. First, both the HPA and the SHORT Act do not take effect until October 1^st, 2025. While the law takes effect October 1st, the administrative machinery, such as Form 1/Form 4 updates, tax stamp processing, and registry adjustments, may not be ready until January 1st, 2026. This may change, but that is what seems to be the consensus at the moment.

Second, a total of ten 2^nd Amendment advocacy groups have committed to file, either jointly or independently, in lawsuits challenging the legality of the NFA registry with a null tax. That number is expected to rise.  It is up to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to mount a defense. If this was done under a democratic administration you could expect this defense to be spirited, but at this time, under the Trump administration, every indication seems to support the notion that the DOJ’s defense may be somewhat lackluster.

We really do not need to look back too far to find evidence that the DOJ may decide it’s not a fight worth fighting. May 16, 2025 the ATF and DOJ decided to settle lawsuits brought by Rare Breed against their classification of Force Reset Trigger as a machine gun. This settlement included returning the confiscated triggers, and an agreement that the FRT was not a machine gun and could be legally sold.

We will likely have early indications on how this is going to go.

1. ATF moves to change the CFR regarding the purchasing, possession and registration of NFA Items. Any changes to CFR are announced and are supposed to trigger a 90-day comment period preceding implementation.  If we see the ATF is proactive, and is proposing changes that serve to deregulate, this may be a good leading indicator.
2. The movement in the courts, if the DOJ is going to defend this, we would expect to see filings in response to the lawsuit. Courts are slow, so this may take time, but I would expect to hear from groups like the Gun Owners of America (GOA) or others the moment that there is positive or negative news.
3. The DOJ fails to meet filing deadlines. This can be a leading indication that the DOJ is going to be a “no show” or have a very muted response.
4. Expect there to be a lot of pressure from both sides. 2A groups are going to want to button this issue up during President Trumps presidency. Attorney Generals pressured by Anti 2A Groups (calling a spade a spade here), will likely try and force the issue and step in if the DOJ does not mount a spirited defense. Expect more Legislation at the state level to ban NFA items locally.

Legal Precedent

Rulings that upheld or helped to define the legal framework which upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934, understanding this helps to reinforce why the firearms community has legal footing to challenge the NFA now that the tax has been reduced to $0.

Sonzinsky v. United States 1937

• Jack Sonzinsky challenged the constitutionality of the NFA’s annual tax and registration requirement for firearms dealers, arguing that it was a regulatory scheme disguised as a tax.
• The Court reaffirmed that as long as a statute imposes a tax that produces revenue, it is generally constitutional under Congress’s power to tax, regardless of its regulatory effect.

United States V. Miller 1939

• The Court held that the Second Amendment protects arms that are part of “ordinary military equipment” or that contribute to the “common defense.”
  • In this case the reasoning was used against the defendant as it was argued that Short Barreled Shotguns were not part of common military arms at the time. (This was not true), however it now works in our favor as SBR’s, and SBS are the common arms of militaries worldwide.
• No one argued in favor of Miller at the Supreme Court level, as he had passed away prior to the Court hearing of the case. This is highly unusual and means the justices only heard the government’s interpretation of the law.
  • Had there been an opposing council, they likely would have pointed out that the Thompson Machine Gun was in use by the United States Marines (Pictured Below) and only had a barrel length of 10.5in making it an SBR.
• This lack of an opposing argument likely influenced the Court’s narrow, one-sided ruling. However, it has been used to justify numerous gun control laws at Federal and State Courts.

Now that we have a bit of the historical precedent that upheld the NFA, let’s look at the legal cases and the precedents that have chipped away at it, thereby making it ripe for legal challenge now that the NFA tax has been reduced to $0.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

• Rejected the idea that Right to Own Arms is connected in anyway to the use by a militia (This refutes the United States V. Miller 1939 precedent)
• Upheld the rights of the Individual to own firearms commonly used for lawful purposes.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

• Said all modern gun laws must be deeply rooted in historical tradition.
• Rejected the notion of interest balancing, i.e., that safety was justification for limited Rights
• The government must show that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

In Summary:

Bruen sets a “text, history, and tradition” standard and explicitly rejects means-end scrutiny. Heller affirms the right to possess firearms “in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

Together, these rulings laid the legal groundwork for challenging the NFA now that its primary justification, a revenue generating tax, has been effectively removed.

• The items regulated by the NFA’s are in common use for lawful purposes (Rejecting Miller)
• The NFA regulation is not tied to any historical analog

So after outlining all of that, I should mention that I suspect it is likely we will not get a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the NFA. Either it will not get that far, i.e., the DOJ will fail to appeal a loss at a district court, or the Supreme Court will not hear the case (Less than 1% of cases submitted to the Supreme Court are heard).

The Supreme Court has indicated they are potentially open to taking another firearm related case, as both Bruen and Heller have been ignored by courts and legislators all over the country, but this is likely to be over the issue of “Assault Weapon bans or Magazine capacity laws”.  (We’d really like a solid win there)

Even if we get a win at the Federal level, individual states like California, Illinois and New York will have laws banning most, if not all, NFA items. Depending on who issues the ruling (District Court, Circuit Court or Supreme Court) these States are likely to continue enforcing these laws on the books until separate legal challenges are made. Each one of those legal challenges could escalate to a Supreme Court ruling eventually but we are likely a decade away from that.

In Short, Hang Tight

Many influencers on social media are screaming over the fact the entire NFA was not done away with. I was talking to a buddy, and he mentioned that if you’d asked him two years ago if there would be legislation that $0 NFA Tax Stamp he’d laugh. Yet here we are. Let’s not “look a gift horse in the mouth”. This is how politics is done, it is a messy business, and no one gets everything they want. The fact we are here is a huge accomplishment.

It is highly doubtful that we will be rid of NFA completely. The courts are not likely to strike down part of the NFA that regulates destructive devices or machine guns, nor will they reverse the egregious 1986 Hughes Amendment.  Any ruling will likely be tailored to the items in question, namely SBR’s, SBS’s, AOW and Suppressors. Again, until that happens, your guess is as good as mine, I am just grateful we are in a place where we can speculate.

However this shakes out, the momentum is real, and the conversation has shifted in our favor for the first time in decades.

Jay