When a tax cut for gun owners came before the U.S. House Rules Committee Wednesday, Democrat Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) was one of the first to try and shoot it down.
The amendment to President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” offered by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a veteran and small business owner, would have removed the $200 tax on suppressors, also known as silencers.
Dean not only rejected the tax cut but called for the tax on suppressors to be doubled or tripled.
“Never adjusted for inflation, it’s been solid since 1934, but I believe it’s Mr. Clyde who wants to die on this hill. Well, others might die on this hill. He wants to remove the tax altogether. Baffling to me.”
Dean told the committee she believed the tax was put in place to discourage Americans from purchasing silencers for their firearms, and that was fine by her.
“Take a look at the history. The tax was used to discourage the purchase of silencers,” she said. She noted that, adjusted for inflation, the $200 tax would actually be “$4,600, $4,700 or $4,800” in today’s dollars, Dean said.
Dean said the current tax is expected to collect $1.4 billion over 10 years, and she would like to see that number increase.
“If we doubled it. If we just went to $400, you could sell only half as many and not lose a penny in revenue. If we tripled it, you might actually discourage some sales of silencers. Wouldn’t that be a good thing for us to be doing in this committee?”
Second Amendment advocates called out Dean’s attempt to increase taxes on gun owners.
“No other constitutional right is taxed and regulated to the same extent as Second Amendment freedoms. Rep. Dean would better serve her constituents by upholding her oath to the Constitution rather than fearmongering over proven hearing safety devices used by Pennsylvania gun owners and hunters,” said John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).
Jim Stoker, president of the Pennsylvania-based Firearm Owners Against Crime, agreed with Dean’s premise that the purpose of the 1934 tax was to restrict ownership of suppressors, adding that is why it should be removed.
“The ATF has actually admitted in the past that the tax stamp (on suppressors) was initially done to prevent people from being able to afford them. So, its initial purpose was suspect in the first place,” Stoker said.
“And then you have a politician like Dean come out and make a comment that basically states that they want to make it cost-prohibitive for a citizen to exercise a constitutional right? I don’t understand how a legislator who is supposedly sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution can say such a thing without being viewed as a tyrant.”
Members of the gun owning community say one problem with the debate over suppressors is the misconception that they “silence” gun shots and are the tools of criminals and spies.
Not so, says U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), sponsor of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA).
“Federal red tape continues to follow the false Hollywood narrative that suppressors are silent, and ignores the reality that they serve a genuine purpose in protecting the hearing of law-abiding American citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
Clyde, who also supports the HPA, responded to Dean’s comments via social media.
“Shall not be infringed is NOT a suggestion. By the way, I’m actually fighting to go further than the current bill. Eliminate the taxation AND registration of suppressors AND short-barreled firearms.”
Taylor Rhodes, communication director for the National Association for Gun Rights, said, “Suppressors are legal safety devices designed to protect hearing and reduce noise complaints, yet Dean and her anti-gun allies want to make them even harder to obtain.
“Frankly, increasing the tax on something that should never have been taxed in the first place is asinine. We don’t pay a fee at the ballot box. We’re not taxed to attend church or speak freely amongst friends. But Rep. Dean thinks exercising your Second Amendment rights should come with a price tag, and a steep one at that. A right taxed is a right denied.”
