GOA Backs Boebert Bill to Scrap Machine Gun Tax
Gun Owners of America endorses Rep. Boebert's bill to eliminate the final NFA tax stamp on machine guns, arguing the century-old regulatory framework collapses without its constitutional tax foundation.
For nearly a century, a $200 fee has kept law-abiding gun owners at arm's length from machine gun ownership. After Congress zeroed out the tax on every other National Firearms Act weapon on Jan. 1, 2026, that remaining charge stands as the last pillar of a century-old regulatory framework—and Rep. Lauren Boebert's latest legislation aims to pull it down.
Gun Owners of America endorsed Boebert's Freedom from Taxes Act of 2026 on Wednesday, backing a measure that would eliminate the final NFA tax and expose the original gun control law as an unconstitutional framework of penalties masquerading as taxation. The federal government already reduced taxes to $0 on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and other weapons, leaving machine guns and destructive devices as the only categories still subject to a $200 transfer fee that generates no meaningful revenue.
"This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dismantle one of the most abusive federal gun control laws on the books," said Erich Pratt, GOA senior vice president. "With the tax struck down by Congress, the rest of the NFA is standing on air."
Boebert introduced the legislation on May 20, timed to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the Hughes Amendment that banned civilian transfer of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The Colorado Republican's bill would eliminate the Special Occupational Tax entirely, reducing annual regulatory burdens from $1,000 to $0 for importers and manufacturers, and from $500 to $0 for dealers.
"Taxing our constitutional rights is unacceptable and unconstitutional," Boebert stated. "The government should not be imposing penalties on law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights."
The constitutional foundation of the 1934 National Firearms Act rests entirely on the Taxing Clause, as established by the Supreme Court in its 1937 Sonzinsky v. United States decision. With the tax at $0 for most NFA items, retaining the $200 tax on machine guns serves as a prohibitive barrier mirroring the original intent to discourage transactions rather than generate revenue.
Congress originally set the fee at $200 in 1934—roughly $4,800 in today's dollars—deliberately designing it as a prohibitive sum to restrict ownership. The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated this tax on all other NFA weapons starting this year, creating what legal scholars call a constitutional inconsistency that undermines the entire regulatory framework.
Gun control advocates have criticized the broader tax elimination effort. John Feinblatt, Everytown for Gun Safety president, called previous tax cuts "a $1.7 billion gift to boost gun industry sales that will endanger law enforcement and our communities."
Federal data contradicts this revenue-based framing. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimated a $2.4 billion ten-year transfer from government to consumers and manufacturers due to the 2025 tax elimination, confirming the NFA's original purpose as a regulatory penalty rather than a meaningful revenue generator.
Two major federal lawsuits now challenge the NFA's remaining provisions. The Silencer Shop v. ATF case, filed July 4, 2025, and Brown v. ATF, filed August 1, 2025, both argue that with taxes neutralized, the law's registration requirements lack constitutional foundation under the Taxing Clause.
Justice Department filings defend the NFA via the Taxing Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. Legal experts argue this defense collapses when the tax becomes a zero-dollar penalty, making registration requirements neither "necessary" nor "proper" to execute legislation that no longer collects revenue.
"From its inception, GOA opposed the Hughes Amendment when it was signed into law," Pratt said. "Forty years later, GOA still opposes any infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
The Freedom from Taxes Act has attracted immediate cosponsorship from Republican representatives including Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, Barry Moore of Alabama, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and Eric Burlison of Missouri. These conservatives view the measure as the next logical step in dismantling what they call century-old gun control overreach.
The bill completes a tax relief agenda that began with the One Big Beautiful Bill, which survived Byrd Rule challenges in the Senate by focusing solely on revenue elimination rather than full deregulation. Now, with the NFA's constitutional foundation exposed, proponents argue the entire regulatory structure must fall.
As the ATF implements 34 regulatory notices representing the largest modernization of federal firearms regulations in agency history, the legislative and judicial challenges converge on a central question: can a regulatory scheme survive when its sole constitutional justification has been neutralized?
For gun rights advocates, the answer is clear. The Freedom from Taxes Act represents not merely tax relief but the final dismantling of a system that has penalized constitutional rights for generations.