(DailyAnswer.org) – Can the Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty (RIFLE) Act eradicate what some view as an unconstitutional financial roadblock to gun ownership?
At a Glance
- Rep. Hinson and Sen. Cotton introduce legislation to eliminate a $200 firearms transaction tax.
- The tax, from the 1934 National Firearms Act, viewed as unconstitutional by proponents of the bill.
- The RIFLE Act aims to alleviate financial burdens on working-class gun owners.
- Major firearms advocacy groups lend their support to the proposed legislation.
A Legislative Push to Abolish Perceived Unjust Tax
Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA) joined with Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) to champion a legislative move aiming to repeal a $200 tax imposed on certain firearm purchases and transactions. Both lawmakers assert this fee represents a substantial obstacle infringing upon the ability of citizens to fully exercise their Second Amendment rights. The tax, originally enforced through the 1934 National Firearms Act, was implemented as a method to control the distribution of firearms.
Rep. Hinson argues this fee disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens, particularly within the working-class, by creating unnecessary financial hardships on legitimate gun ownership. The intention behind the Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty (RIFLE) Act is to dismantle these barriers, allowing for affordable and unrestricted access to firearms for all citizens.
Significant Advocacy and Support
The proposed legislation has gathered substantial backing from multiple firearms advocacy groups. These organizations, including the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have voiced their approval of the RIFLE Act, citing its necessity in preserving the accessibility to gun ownership without undue financial burdens.
“The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right that is not to be infringed. Law-abiding gun owners should not be forced to pay an unconstitutional firearm tax. This bill will remove unnecessary financial barriers on lawful gun owners from the antiquated 1934 National Firearms Act and protect the Second Amendment rights of Iowans and Americans.” – Rep. Ashley Hinson
Critics label this $200 fee a “sin tax,” characterizing it as a tactic designed to inhibit Second Amendment freedoms. In response, Hinson and Cotton stress the RIFLE Act will eliminate outdated legislation that no longer aligns with the protection of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Path Forward for the RIFLE Act
Sen. Cotton reaffirms support for the Senate version of the bill, underlining the urgency to amend the National Firearms Act and eradicate what he regards as an unjust levy on the American people. He emphasizes the need to ensure each citizen can exercise their constitutional rights without facing prohibitive costs or untoward restrictions.
“The National Rifle Association applauds Representative Hinson’s leadership on the Second Amendment and her reintroduction of the RIFLE Act. This $200 punitive tax has only ever served as a financial barrier for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.” – John Commerford
As legislative discussions advance, the RIFLE Act represents a focal point for key players prioritizing the freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The outcome remains uncertain, but the dialogue around minimizing restrictions and preserving citizens’ rights continues.
Copyright 2025, DailyAnswer.org
