On October 18th, the Firearms Research Center, in conjunction with the Wyoming Law Review, hosted a symposium on the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The one-day event featured panels that examined many aspects of this major federal law.
The NFA was enacted in 1934 and was the first major federal restriction on certain types of firearms and accoutrements. The law required registration of machine guns, silencers (suppressors), and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. It also imposed a $200 tax stamp.
Many of these sessions were recorded. In this forum, I will discuss interesting aspects of each over the next few weeks. Several of these sessions are available for self-study CLE credit.
Regulated Arms and Taxation
Yang Liu, Criminal Law Fellow, US District Court for the District of Columbia
Matt Larosiere, Gun Rights Attorney
Charles Eldred, Chief of the Legal Strategy Division, Texas Attorney General
Stephen Halbrook, Attorney at Law
1 ½ hours of CLE Credit
The second video of our National Firearms Act series addresses two major aspects of the NFA. The first discussed arms that are affected by the NFA in more detail, including the regulation of suppressors (legally defined as silencers) and machine guns, specifically post 1986. The second major topic of this panel discussed the constitutionality of the power of Congress to tax.
A central theme throughout this video concerns the constitutionality of several aspects of this law. The first two presenters provide a more nuanced perspective regarding the regulated arms themselves. This portion of the panel will appeal to those interested in diving deeper into the subject matter that was discussed in the first video in this series. Personally, I found the discussion on taxation to be particularly enlightening and compelling. Understandably and importantly, so much attention is paid to the items that are regulated under the NFA. However, other than the average consumer complaint of having to pay the tax, less is heard about the NFA’s exercise in taxing power and whether it may alone be unconstitutional.