Democrats Pushing a $10,000 Gun Tax Next?

What if the Democrats regained full control of the federal government and passed a law requiring a $10,000 tax stamp for every suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or shotgun under the National Firearms Act (NFA)? That’s the scenario raised in a recent Four Boxes Diner video hosted by constitutional attorney and Second Amendment scholar Mark W. Smith. While the idea may sound outrageous, Smith breaks it down to explain exactly why it wouldn’t hold up under constitutional scrutiny.

The NFA Debate, Reignited

Mark W. Smith begins by applauding Republican efforts in Congress to remove suppressors and short-barreled firearms from the NFA entirely. These proposals, championed by Donald Trump, would eliminate the current $200 tax and long registration delays. But then Smith pivots to the viewer’s question: What if the political tide turned and Democrats used budget reconciliation to reinstate these restrictions with an even more punishing $10,000 tax per item?

Reconciliation: A Shortcut With Major Implications

According to Smith, if Democrats retake the House, Senate, and White House, they could use reconciliation to bypass the filibuster in the Senate and push through sweeping firearm restrictions. That’s how they could theoretically jam suppressors and short-barreled rifles back into the NFA, this time with a massive tax hike. “It would be a targeted attack on gun owners,” Smith explained, adding that this is the exact kind of overreach the courts would likely strike down.

Second Amendment Text Gets Triggered Immediately

The Constitution, Smith reminds us, starts with the plain text of the Second Amendment. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Suppressors and short-barreled firearms qualify as “arms,” according to the Department of Justice and prior court rulings. So, the moment you tax, restrict, or register them, you’re engaging in a restriction of protected conduct, which triggers strict judicial scrutiny under the Bruen and Heller standards.

No Historical Basis for This Kind of Tax

Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, once the government restricts something covered by the Second Amendment, it bears the burden of proving a historical tradition of similar restrictions. Smith points out that there is no historical precedent for a tax of this size on a constitutional right. “The government would have to show a tradition of taxing protected arms,” he said. “They can’t. It doesn’t exist.”

Common Use Means Protected Status

Smith explains that the key legal test here is whether suppressors and short-barreled rifles are “in common use” by Americans for lawful purposes. If they are, the government cannot classify them as “dangerous and unusual” – a crucial term used in Heller to justify banning certain weapons. And with more than 3 million suppressors currently registered, and rising sales each year, Smith argues they’re obviously common.

More Sales = More Legal Protection

Here’s where it gets interesting. Smith encourages gun owners to buy more suppressors and short-barreled firearms now, while Republican efforts to deregulate them continue. The reason? The more common these items become, the harder it becomes for future lawmakers to restrict them. “By the time the Democrats could even try something like this, these items will be even more entrenched,” Smith noted.

Taxing Guns? That’s Already Been Rejected

Smith connects this discussion to two major Supreme Court rulings: Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections and Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue. In both cases, the Court found that you can’t place targeted taxes on constitutional rights – whether it’s voting or freedom of the press. By extension, a $10,000 tax on a firearm accessory would almost certainly violate that same principle. “It would crash head-first into Supreme Court precedent,” Smith warned.

The Burden Lies on the Government

One point Smith hammered repeatedly is that the burden of proof lies entirely with the government, not with the gun owner. Just like in a criminal trial, where the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the government must prove that a specific gun or accessory is not protected by the Second Amendment. “Gun owners don’t have to prove they deserve their rights,” Smith emphasized. “The government has to prove why it can take them away.”

A Bad Idea That Would Backfire

Let’s be real – $10,000 per tax stamp would be political suicide for any party that attempted it. Even some moderate gun control supporters would likely draw the line there. But what’s fascinating about Smith’s analysis is how airtight the legal argument is against such a move. If Democrats were bold enough to try it, they’d likely hand a golden opportunity to Second Amendment lawyers – and possibly create the next landmark Supreme Court case.

States Banning Suppressors? That’s Looking Shaky Too

Smith also pointed out that several states still ban suppressors entirely. But in his view, those bans are now extremely vulnerable under the Bruen standard. As suppressors become more common, especially if removed from the NFA, it’s hard to justify a complete ban on an item that’s in lawful use across the country. “Those state laws probably aren’t long for this world,” Smith said.

Don’t Panic, But Stay Informed

Mark W. Smith’s analysis makes one thing clear: while the idea of a $10,000 gun tax sounds terrifying, it wouldn’t stand up to constitutional review. Thanks to Bruen, Heller, and the “common use” test, the legal system offers strong protections – if they’re defended. The bigger concern is whether gun owners remain vigilant. “The future of the Second Amendment depends on how much Americans care about it,” Smith concluded. And based on what we’ve seen in recent years, that passion is far from dead.