Chris Murphy Just Flinched – And It’s a Big Deal for Gun Rights

Gun rights YouTuber Braden Langley, host of Langley Outdoors Academy, recently reported a surprising move by Senator Chris Murphy, a staunch advocate for gun control. Murphy, known for his strong ties to groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords.org, has long been a vocal critic of gun rights. However, in a new amendment filed by Murphy, a key piece of legislation surrounding suppressor taxes was altered in a way that could have major implications for gun rights in America. 

This unexpected shift in strategy is a noteworthy development, suggesting that even the most ardent gun control advocates may be feeling the pressure. Langley’s breakdown of Murphy’s actions gives us a clear picture of how the political dynamics in the Senate are changing, especially regarding the Second Amendment.

Chris Murphy’s Amendment Proposal

Senator Murphy has filed an amendment that would increase the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax on suppressors from zero dollars to one dollar. To many, this may seem like a trivial change – a small amount that doesn’t make much of a difference. But as Langley highlights, the significance of this move should not be underestimated. The key point here is not the dollar itself, but what the tax change represents. 

By raising the tax, Murphy and his allies could be trying to circumvent the growing legal challenges that have emerged in response to the zero-dollar tax on suppressors. This move suggests that they are anticipating further pressure from gun rights groups and legal experts who see the tax reduction as a direct infringement on Second Amendment rights.

Recognizing Legal Vulnerabilities

Langley explains that this amendment could be seen as a “blink” from Murphy, a sign that gun control advocates are starting to recognize the legal vulnerabilities in their current approach. For years, gun control advocates have used tax increases and restrictions as a way to limit access to certain firearms accessories, but this amendment signals that they may now be worried about the legal ramifications of such tactics. The decision to raise the tax on suppressors, even by a seemingly insignificant amount, could be seen as a preemptive move to shield their policies from potential lawsuits down the road.

The Suppressor Debate: A Taxing Issue

The debate over suppressors and their regulation is not a new one. Suppressors, also known as silencers, have been a point of contention in the gun control debate for years. While advocates for gun rights argue that suppressors are a valuable tool for responsible gun owners, gun control groups have painted them as tools of crime, often citing the fear of undetected violence. Langley refutes this by reminding his audience that suppressors do not make firearms completely silent and do not make it easier to commit crimes undetected, as some gun control advocates claim.

Using Taxation to Restrict Rights

The real issue here, according to Langley, is the use of taxation as a tool to restrict rights. The move to reduce the NFA tax to zero dollars for suppressors and short-barrel rifles was a strategic move to make these items more accessible. However, the tax reduction also drew criticism from gun control proponents, including Murphy, who has long advocated for higher taxes and more regulation on firearms accessories. 

The attempt to raise the tax to one dollar can be seen as an effort to return to a more familiar, restrictive position without completely overturning the gains made by the gun rights community.

A Telling Move: Why Murphy’s “Flinch” Matters

What makes this development so interesting is the fact that Murphy, a known advocate for gun control, is backing away from his previous stance. Langley suggests that this move is a clear indication that gun control advocates are beginning to feel the heat from the gun rights community. 

By proposing a tax increase on suppressors, Murphy is signaling a level of discomfort with the current trajectory of gun policy. The fear, according to Langley, is that if the NFA tax reduction remains at zero dollars, it could pave the way for the eventual repeal of suppressor taxes altogether, which would be a massive blow to gun control efforts.

Regulating Firearm Accessories

Langley’s commentary highlights a deeper strategic concern for gun control advocates: the erosion of their ability to regulate firearms accessories. The tax reduction on suppressors, if left unchanged, could undermine the entire structure of firearm-related taxes and fees, which have long been used as tools of control. By raising the tax, even by a small amount, Murphy is trying to maintain the framework of regulation without appearing too extreme.

Political Strategy: A Weakening of Gun Control’s Grip

Murphy’s amendment is not just about suppressors. It’s about maintaining a broader framework of gun control. By filing this amendment, Murphy is attempting to ensure that gun control laws continue to have teeth, even in the face of growing opposition from pro-gun forces. 

Langley views this as a strategic move to protect the status quo, but one that reflects a recognition that gun control advocates may not be able to impose their will as easily as they once thought. This shift in strategy may also be a sign that gun control proponents are beginning to understand the political strength of the gun rights movement.

Gun Rights Community Has an Impact

Langley’s perspective on this is clear: the fact that Murphy is backing down from a more extreme position shows that the gun rights community is having an impact. The fact that a lawmaker with Murphy’s background is now proposing a seemingly minor tax increase suggests that gun control advocates are concerned about the momentum building behind gun rights. This could be the beginning of a larger shift in the political calculus surrounding gun control.

The Larger Picture: Why This Could Set a Precedent

If Murphy’s amendment is passed, it could set a precedent for future legislative battles over gun control. As Langley points out, the move to raise the tax on suppressors may be small, but it signals that gun control advocates are acknowledging the growing influence of the gun rights movement. If the gun rights community continues to push back effectively, it could force lawmakers to reconsider their stance on other key issues related to firearms regulation.

Langley also notes that this move is part of a broader trend in which gun control advocates are attempting to maintain their policies while avoiding direct confrontation with the powerful gun rights lobby. By making small concessions, like the one-dollar tax, they hope to appease their base while still keeping some form of regulation intact. However, Langley argues that this is a dangerous game, as it could backfire and further galvanize the gun rights movement.

The Role of Legal Challenges

One of the key factors in this ongoing battle is the role of legal challenges. As Langley reminds his viewers, the gun rights community has successfully pushed back against many forms of gun control through the courts. The recent ruling on concealed carry laws in California is just one example of how legal challenges are reshaping the gun control landscape. If gun control advocates continue to overreach, they risk triggering more legal battles that could further erode their position.

The amendment proposed by Murphy could be seen as a preemptive move to avoid legal challenges. By raising the tax on suppressors, he may be trying to avoid the potential for lawsuits that could arise if the tax were to remain at zero dollars. In this sense, the amendment could be viewed as a defensive move, aimed at protecting the current framework of gun control laws.

Langley’s Perspective: A Win for Gun Rights?

Langley’s commentary on this situation is both insightful and hopeful for gun rights advocates. He believes that Murphy’s amendment is a sign of weakness, a recognition that the gun control movement is not as powerful as it once was. By attempting to raise the tax on suppressors, Murphy is showing that he and his allies are worried about the future of gun control laws. Langley encourages his viewers to view this development as a win for the Second Amendment, as it highlights the growing influence of gun rights groups and the political power they wield.

In Langley’s view, the fact that Murphy is “flinching” signals a turning point in the political landscape. While this may be a small victory, it is part of a larger trend of shifting power dynamics in the ongoing battle over gun control. As Langley points out, the gun rights community is gaining ground, and this amendment is just another sign that the tide is turning in their favor.

What Comes Next?

Chris Murphy’s recent actions in the Senate mark an important moment in the ongoing debate over gun rights. By proposing an amendment to raise the NFA tax on suppressors, Murphy is acknowledging the growing influence of the gun rights movement. While this move may seem minor, it carries significant implications for the future of gun control. 

As Langley suggests, this could be the beginning of a larger shift in the political dynamics surrounding firearms regulation, one that will continue to shape the debate for years to come. Gun rights advocates should view this development as a sign of victory – one step closer to ensuring that the Second Amendment is fully protected for all Americans.

For additional info, watch the Langley Outdoors Academy video here.