Sen. Murphy and Political Performance Art

Readers of our alerts know, very well, that U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) does not believe in the Second Amendment, and would probably like to see virtually every law-abiding American disarmed. And he has held such views for a long time.

Back in 2013, he tried to bully Fox into not broadcasting a NASCAR race (showing his apparent disdain for the First Amendment, too) because NRA’s name was attached to it.

In 2015, he received Four Pinocchios from the Washington Post—a newspaper that has a long history of supporting virtually any anti-gun proposal—for parroting misinformation from Everytown, a part of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun conglomerate.

In 2016, he earned another Three Pinocchios from the Post for more disinformation. Also that year, he demanded Democrat leadership be in lockstep on anti-gun positions.

In 2023, after years of repeated blows to the anti-gun movement by the U.S. Supreme Court rendering decisions that affirmed the protections inherent in the Second Amendment, Murphy implied that the Court was “illegitimate.”

He has sponsored or supported virtually every anti-gun proposal imagined, including gun bans, mandatory storage, “smart guns,” permit requirements for handgun purchasers, and banning the private transfer of firearms, just to name a few.

Many of these proposals were little more than political theater, as Murphy knew they were destined for defeat; either because he did not have the votes in one or both chambers of Congress, there was a president who would veto them (Donald Trump), or the U.S. Supreme Court would strike them down as unconstitutional.

But passage isn’t always the goal of anti-gun legislation. Sometimes the goal is just to get attention, or as a thank you to anti-gun organizations for their endorsement or contributions. Murphy’s latest effort is clearly in the realm of seeking attention and paying back his supporters, as it has no chance of succeeding.

Bearing Arms recently reported about an attempt by the Connecticut senator to offer an amendment to the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill that would not just negate the tax relief for certain NFA items secured in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), but would jack up the tax by more than 2,000%.

Considering the hard-fought victory the pro-gun members of Congress and President Trump earned while fighting to secure the abolishment of the tax on those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment-protected right to acquire the affected items, it seems rather unlikely that Murphy will get what he wants.

But maybe he already did.

He was quickly praised by the anti-gun extremists at Brady, as they posted to X:

Thank you @ChrisMurphyCT for introducing this critical amendment to strike the provision in the big UGLY bill that removed taxes on deadly silencers & other uniquely lethal weapons, and instead adjust taxes to reflect inflation today.

Of course, both Murphy and Brady ignore the fact that NFA items are already far more strictly controlled than other firearms. They cannot be legally transferred without involvement of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and are almost exclusively sold (again, legally) through specially licensed dealers. Purchasers undergo a background check, are fingerprinted and registered, and are subject to a waiting period even Murphy wouldn’t dare introduce for the purchase of other firearms; in the past, processing times have been up to a year.

On top of all that regulation, Murphy wants to tax anyone who purchases an NFA-regulated item nearly $5,000. Not only is that outrageously prohibitive, but it greatly exceeds the value of the vast majority of suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns that were exempted from the NFA tax.

Now, the explanation for the tax increase ultimately reveals the unconstitutional problem with the NFA’s origin. Murphy and his supporters from Brady claim the increase is intended to “reflect inflation today.” In other words, they want to not just reject the Trump tax cut on these NFA items, but they want it increased to reflect what the original $200 tax would be in today’s dollars.

Whether or not they got the math right on that point, it’s hard to imagine Americans’ purchasing power has kept pace with their inflationary multiplier.

But it also makes the point that the NFA tax was always designed to discourage people from purchasing NFA regulated items by imposing a punitive, prohibitive fee.

The NFA, the nation’s first federal firearm prohibition law, was passed long before the landmark rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen that clearly affirmed the Second Amendment as protection against government infringement of Americans’ individual right to arms. But even without the benefit of those decisions, the anti-gun lawmakers of 1934 knew any proposal to overtly ban arms would almost certainly run afoul of the Constitution. Their workaround was to impose a tax that vanishingly few could afford, rather than a direct prohibition. The Supreme Court ruled that tax was a valid exercise of Congress’ authority in 1937.

But the NFA, as amended by the OBBB, will soon get a new look by the courts, as NRA has partnered with the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation in “a new strategic lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the NFA in Federal Court.” That case will require the courts to answer the question of what happens to the validity of a taxation statute when there are only administrative requirements with no tax collection to justify them.

Although Murphy’s proposal is both ridiculous and was likely doomed the moment it was introduced, NRA will still do everything necessary to work with Congress and the White House to ensure it never has any hope of passage. And our battle in the courts challenging the constitutionality of the NFA is intended to stop similar efforts in the future.