Are ATF and NFA Repeal Bills Just Legislative Virtue Signaling?

In early 2025, Missouri Representative Eric Burlison introduced two high-profile pro-gun bills in Congress: H.R. 221, known as the Abolish the ATF Act, and H.R. 335, the Repeal the NFA Act. According to reporting by Luke McCoy of USA Carry, these bills aim to completely dismantle two of the most controversial pillars of federal gun regulation – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. Burlison’s actions were joined by familiar names in the gun rights world, including Reps. Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Barry Moore, and others.

H.R. 221: A One-Page Proposal to End the ATF

The Abolish the ATF Act is exactly what it sounds like. As summarized in both the congressional record and William Kirk’s Washington Gun Law breakdown, the bill is just one page long and includes a simple directive: the ATF shall be abolished. The legislation doesn’t go into deep procedural details. It cuts straight to the point – an approach that many gun rights supporters may find refreshing, if not overly optimistic.

H.R. 335: Erasing the NFA From the Tax Code

The Repeal the NFA Act, introduced days later, is equally direct. H.R. 335 would eliminate Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, effectively gutting the NFA. As outlined by USA Carry, this means no more tax stamps, registration, or restrictions on short-barreled rifles, suppressors, or even machine guns. The proposal echoes a long-standing demand from gun rights organizations like Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition, which argue that the NFA is outdated, unconstitutional, and punishes lawful owners.

The Harsh Reality: Odds Are Slim

But here’s where hope runs into hard facts. William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, offered a clear-headed reality check in his YouTube analysis. While praising the bills as “fantastic ideas,” Kirk labeled them as legislative virtue signaling – a term often used to describe symbolic actions that signal political allegiance without real legislative teeth. “The chances of these passing the House are slim,” he said, “and in the Senate? Nonexistent.”

Virtue Signaling: A Common Tool on Both Sides

Kirk is no stranger to the legislative games both parties play. He noted that this kind of posturing isn’t unique to pro-gun lawmakers. The other side does it too – by introducing sweeping federal gun bans that have zero chance of becoming law, simply to rally their base. “It’s the same playbook,” he said. The difference is that these two bills happen to align with constitutional rights, while many anti-gun proposals chip away at them.

Why Repealing the NFA Is So Difficult

Even among pro-gun lawmakers, repealing the NFA is a heavy lift. As Kirk explains, the Act has been on the books since 1934 and is deeply embedded in federal firearms regulation. It’s not just a policy – it’s infrastructure. The NFA tax stamp system has created decades of bureaucracy, licensing procedures, and even a niche economy. Removing it would require unraveling a massive web of administrative code, something Congress has never shown the will or coordination to do.

Abolishing the ATF: Dream or Distraction?

As for eliminating the ATF, some critics wonder if it’s more dream than strategy. While many in the gun rights community argue that the agency has overstepped its mandate, particularly in light of recent rule changes targeting pistol braces, ghost guns, and bump stocks, others suggest that reform, not removal, may be the more achievable goal. Kirk floated the idea of restructuring the ATF, merging it with other federal agencies, or defunding problematic divisions instead.

Grassroots Enthusiasm Remains Strong

Regardless of the bills’ chances, the grassroots enthusiasm is undeniable. McCoy’s USA Carry article captured the sentiment clearly: many Americans are tired of being treated like criminals for owning pieces of metal that are legal in one state and felonies in another. By introducing these bills, Burlison and his allies are showing that they hear that frustration – and are at least trying to give it a voice in Washington.

Symbolism Isn’t Always Useless

Some might dismiss these bills as a waste of time, but I’d argue that symbolism has power, especially in a Congress where few meaningful victories happen overnight. The existence of H.R. 221 and H.R. 335 gives voters something to rally behind, and it forces opponents to defend unpopular institutions like the ATF and antiquated laws like the NFA. It also helps clarify where each lawmaker stands when election season rolls around.

If nothing else, these bills serve as a legislative line in the sand – a clear declaration that there are still lawmakers willing to stand up for the Second Amendment in its full, original intent. That’s not nothing.

What’s Next for the Bills?

As of now, H.R. 221 sits with the House Judiciary Committee, while H.R. 335 is with the House Ways and Means Committee. Whether either receives a hearing or floor vote remains to be seen. As McCoy noted in his reporting, their progress depends heavily on committee leadership and broader Republican alignment – neither of which is guaranteed. The divided nature of Congress only adds another layer of difficulty.

Even Long Shots Matter

In politics, even long shots matter. While no one is pretending that abolishing the ATF or repealing the NFA will happen this session, just having the conversation is a form of political resistance. As gun control advocates become more aggressive and regulatory overreach grows, pro-2A lawmakers are planting flags in places where constitutional freedoms still matter.

The real test won’t be whether these bills pass. It’ll be whether enough voters see them for what they are: a spark, not a solution – and a signal that the fight for the Second Amendment is far from over.