‘One Big Beautiful Lawsuit’ Seeks to Eliminate Gun Control Law

Fred Lucas | July 11, 2025
| Traveling Florida gun show at the South Florida Fairgrounds in West Palm Beach on April 9. (Robert Wallis/Corbis via Getty Images)
Fred Lucas @FredLucasWH

Fred Lucas is chief news correspondent and manager of the Investigative Reporting Project for The Daily Signal. He is the author of fred.lucas@dailysignal.com.
Second Amendment advocates hope what they dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” will strike a final blow to a near century-old gun control law.

The “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that President Donald Trump signed on July 4 included a provision to reduce the $200 excise tax on buying certain firearms, suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns down to $0. The $200 tax was the core portion of the 1934 National Firearms Act, which also included certain background checks.

For decades, the law withstood constitutional challenges based on the fact it was a tax. Plaintiffs—led by Gun Owners of America—are suing the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

“I won’t speak for them, but I hope the Trump administration does not defend the unconstitutional National Firearms Act, now with zero funding, which leaves it extra unconstitutional,” says Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for the Gun Owners of America.
For now, the agencies aren’t speaking for themselves. ATF spokeswoman Natalie Baldassarre responded to an inquiry for the story with a “no comment here.” The ATF is responsible for enforcing the National Firearms Act. The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond.

There is past precedent when the executive branch opts not to defend an existing law, for a third party, such as a state attorney general or a member of Congress, to gain standing to intervene in a case to defend the existing law.

The National Firearms Act was enacted during the Prohibition era to push back against organized crime and gangland violence. The law required registration with the Internal Revenue Service as part of paying the tax. Then-Attorney General Homer Cummings said the proposal would likely only be legally upheld as a tax. In the 1937 case of Sonzinsky v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the law as permissible under Congress’ taxing power.

The plaintiffs contend that once the tax is reduced to zero, the constitutional justification for the law collapses.
“It has never been just the tax. It requires a registration form, fingerprints that stay on a national database, and a waiting period for firearms,” Johnston said. “At zero tax, the law is only an unconstitutional regulation on firearms.”

Other plaintiffs in the case are Palmetto State Armory, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Silencer Shop, and B&T USA. Gun Owners of America’s foundation arm is also a plaintiff.

Gun Owners of America has pushed Republicans in Congress to repeal the National Firearms Act, but the Senate parliamentarian determined it could not be part of the Big, Beautiful Bill if it fell outside the purview of taxing and spending.

Gun taxes or regulations drew some attention during the debate over the reconciliation bill. The most high-profile provisions of the massive legislation were locking in the 2017 tax cuts, new spending for immigration law enforcement, and reforms to Medicaid.

Related posts:

1. How Trump’s DOJ Plans to Use Law Weaponized Against Pro-Lifers to Protect Them Instead
2. How the Trump Administration Is Making Civil Rights Enforcement Great Again
3. AG Bondi Explains Why Trump Admin Hasn’t Released Epstein Client List