Article Info
SAF Asks SCOTUS: Kill Suppressor Tax

| Scope | |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Federal |
| Impact | national |
| Key Entities | |
| Lead filer of amicus brief | Second Amendment Foundation |
| Coalition co-signer | National Rifle Association |
| Coalition co-signer | American Suppressor Association |
| SAF Director of Legal Research and Education | Kostas Moros |
| Petitioned court in George Peterson v. United States | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Legal Issues | |
| |
| What It Means | |
| |
| Timeline | |
| April 2, 2026 | SAF files amicus brief asking SCOTUS to grant cert in Peterson v. United States |
| Related Laws | |
SAF Asks SCOTUS: Kill Suppressor Tax
A coalition of gun rights groups wants the Supreme Court to strip the NFA's $200 tax-stamp requirement for suppressors
From The Boise Gun Club Handbook
The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief April 2 asking the Supreme Court to take up George Peterson v. United States — a direct challenge to the NFA's suppressor registration and tax scheme.
State of play: The brief targets two specific NFA mandates that have governed suppressor ownership since 1934:
- The $200 tax stamp required per suppressor
- The federal registration and extended background check process
The SAF isn't alone here. The NRA, the American Suppressor Association, and multiple state-level organizations co-signed the brief — a coalition that signals this isn't a fringe filing.
The legal question: The brief's core argument is straightforward: suppressors are "arms" under the plain text of the Second Amendment, which means they're protected under Bruen's historical tradition framework. SAF Director of Legal Research Kostas Moros put it bluntly:
"There is no historical tradition supporting the NFA's burdensome per-arm registration and taxation scheme."
The broader argument is that taxing and registering the exercise of a constitutional right is constitutionally suspect — the same logic courts have applied to voting rights and free speech. If the government can't charge you a fee to attend church, the SAF argues, it can't charge you $200 to own a suppressor.
Reality check: This is a cert petition, not a ruling. The Court hasn't agreed to hear the case yet, and SCOTUS takes a fraction of petitions it receives. That said, the post-Bruen landscape has made courts increasingly receptive to NFA challenges, and a well-resourced coalition filing gives this more weight than a solo plaintiff.
What Idaho owners should watch: If the Court grants cert and rules in Peterson's favor, the $200 stamp and registration requirement could be invalidated — potentially making suppressor ownership as legally simple as buying a rifle. No timeline is certain, but SAF is also running parallel NFA challenges in lower courts, so movement could come from multiple directions.
- Phils Custom Handloads(Swartz Creek, MI)
- Gls Guns(Sumner, IA)
- J & L Gunsmithing(Chesapeake, VA)
- Oliver Firearms(Spartanburg, SC)
Loading comments...