Schumer Fights to Keep Suppressors in NFA

According to Axios and Second Amendment attorney Mark W. Smith, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is making a direct push to stop suppressors, also called silencers, from being removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA). The suppressor provision is currently embedded in President Donald Trump’s proposed “big beautiful budget bill,” which includes major changes to federal firearms regulation.

Smith, the host of the pro-gun rights YouTube channel The Four Boxes Diner, called this move “a major attack” by Democrats and specifically pointed to Schumer’s reliance on a technical rule known as the Byrd Rule to try and block the suppressor deregulation from proceeding.

What’s Actually in the Bill?

The House-passed version of Trump’s budget bill proposes to deregulate firearm suppressors by removing them from the NFA entirely. This change would eliminate the $200 tax stamp currently required for purchase, along with removing suppressors from the long and burdensome registration and approval process managed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

In Mark W. Smith’s words, this part of the bill isn’t just a minor tweak – it’s a big win for gun owners, if it survives. Suppressors, while widely misunderstood, are legal to own in most states and are heavily regulated not because of their danger, but because of an outdated tax law passed in 1934.

The Byrd Rule: Schumer’s Favorite Weapon

Schumer and Senate Democrats are claiming that removing suppressors from the NFA violates the Byrd Rule – a legislative guardrail used to limit what can be included in reconciliation bills. Reconciliation is a fast-track process for passing budget-related bills with a simple majority in the Senate, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

The Byrd Rule blocks provisions that are considered “extraneous” to the federal budget. Schumer argues that deregulating suppressors is not a budgetary issue, but a substantive change in gun control law; therefore, in his view, it doesn’t belong in a reconciliation bill. Smith pushes back hard on this claim.

Mark W. Smith Says the Byrd Rule Argument Falls Flat

Smith cites not just political logic, but historical and legal precedent. According to Smith, the NFA itself has only survived constitutional scrutiny because it is a taxation scheme, not a regulatory one. He points to the Supreme Court’s 1937 decision in Sonzinsky v. United States, which upheld the NFA solely because it raised revenue through taxation.

In Smith’s legal analysis, suppressors were taxed as a way to generate government revenue, not regulate firearms. That, he argues, makes the suppressor deregulation squarely a tax issue, which does fall within the boundaries of reconciliation and should be protected from Schumer’s objections under the Byrd Rule.

The Legal Weight Behind the Taxation Argument

To further support his case, Smith references the 2012 Supreme Court case NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a tax. The Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, made clear that laws primarily about collecting revenue, even if they have a behavioral effect, can still be considered tax policy.

Smith uses this same logic: just because removing suppressors from the NFA might influence gun ownership behavior doesn’t make it a regulatory change. It’s still about altering a federal tax, he says. And under reconciliation rules, that means it qualifies for inclusion.

Schumer’s Endgame: Slice Suppressors Out of the Budget Bill

According to Axios, Schumer’s plan is simple – if he can convince the Senate Parliamentarian that the suppressor provision breaks Byrd Rule restrictions, it will be sliced out of the budget package before the full Senate even votes on it.

That would effectively kill the reform unless it can be passed later through regular legislative order, where it would face a guaranteed Democrat filibuster. Schumer is not even trying to hide his opposition, Smith says. “They’re doing this out in the open,” he explained on The Four Boxes Diner. “It’s a direct attack on gun owners using obscure parliamentary tricks.”

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

Smith explains that if suppressors are removed from the NFA, millions of gun owners could legally and affordably use these hearing-protection tools without federal registration, long wait times, or the $200 tax.

He notes that suppressors are legal in 42 states and widely used for hunting and sport shooting. Their main benefit is reducing the noise and recoil of firearms, not making guns “silent,” as is often portrayed in Hollywood. Removing the suppressor tax would also stop discouraging responsible firearm owners from using safer equipment, Smith argues.

Reconciliation: A Rare Opening Without Filibuster

Mark W. Smith emphasizes just how rare and valuable this legislative moment is. Reconciliation bills only need 51 votes to pass and can’t be filibustered. That means Republicans, or any simple majority, can push through changes without needing bipartisan support – if the changes are budget-related.

That’s why Schumer is fighting so hard now. If the suppressor provision survives the Parliamentarian’s review, Democrats will have no procedural way to stop it in the Senate. “That’s why the Byrd Rule is their last line of defense,” Smith says.

The Short Act Could Be Next

Smith also mentions that this bill sets the stage for additional reforms. Along with suppressors, the Short Act, which aims to remove short-barreled rifles and shotguns from the NFA, could follow the same strategy and be pushed through under reconciliation.

If that happens, several long-time restrictions dating back to the 1930s could be undone with simple majority votes. “And this would not just be a win,” Smith says, “It would be a tectonic shift in federal gun policy.”

Supreme Court Precedent Is a Major Barrier for Schumer

Mark Smith clearly believes Schumer is on the wrong side of both the law and history. He reemphasizes how the Sonzinsky and Sebelius rulings show that tax laws, even those with indirect regulatory effects, still qualify under Congress’s taxing power.

In Smith’s legal opinion, suppressors were only included in the NFA because Congress knew it couldn’t get away with banning them outright in 1934. Instead, they used a $200 tax, a massive fee at the time, to discourage ownership. That makes the suppressor issue fundamentally a tax matter, not a gun control law.

Why This Fight Is About More Than Suppressors

This battle is more than a technical squabble over tax definitions. What’s really happening is a high-stakes test of how far Congress can go using reconciliation to chip away at outdated gun control laws. Schumer’s challenge is a reminder that gun rights victories often come down to rules buried deep in legislative process, not just winning elections.

What fascinates me most is how something as small as a suppressor, used mainly to reduce hearing damage, has become a lightning rod in the bigger Second Amendment war. Smith is right: if suppressors get cut, it shows just how far anti-gun lawmakers will go to block even non-lethal, health-focused reforms.

A Court-Tested Argument with Momentum

In conclusion, if Mark W. Smith is correct, and both the Sonzinsky and Sebelius rulings hold weight, then Schumer’s Byrd Rule challenge is likely to fail. That would allow suppressor deregulation to remain in the final budget bill and pass without a filibuster.

Still, nothing is guaranteed. The Senate Parliamentarian holds the power to interpret whether suppressor deregulation qualifies as budget-related. But if history and Supreme Court precedent mean anything, the argument for removing suppressors from the NFA through reconciliation seems strong.

As Smith reminds viewers at The Four Boxes Diner, gun owners shouldn’t let their guard down yet, but there’s good reason to be hopeful.