Back to News
February 6, 2026
Freedom From Unfair Gun Taxes Act Aims to Stop Punishing Taxes
A growing number of state politicians are testing a new way to burden the lawful exercise of the Second Amendment by imposing targeted excise taxes on firearms, firearm parts and ammunition and routing the proceeds to “gun violence prevention” or taxpayer-funded gun control programs. California has already enacted an additional 11 percent excise tax on firearms and ammunition, administered by the state’s tax agency. Colorado has a 6.5 percent excise tax on firearms, firearm precursor parts and ammunition that went into effect last year.
This approach is not limited to one region; legislators in five additional states – Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Washington have introduced similar bills. Framed as “public safety” measures, these state-level schemes are designed to make it more expensive to purchase the tools of lawful self-defense and practice shooting responsibly, particularly for working families and first-time gun owners.
Crafted to stop states from weaponizing tax policy against a constitutionally protected right, the Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act, S. 1169, draws a clear line; States can regulate within constitutional limits, but they cannot impose punitive, targeted excise taxes designed to burden the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
Excise taxes are traditionally used on goods a government wants to discourage citizens from consuming, like tobacco. When that concept is applied to constitutionally protected rights, it becomes something else entirely. It becomes a policy lever meant to make a right more expensive and, therefore, less accessible.
These proposals are often marketed as a way to make the “gun industry” pay for “public safety” measures, i.e., criminal misuse of firearms. In practice, they single out a constitutionally protected activity by a law-abiding American for a special financial penalty. The revenue is then earmarked for advocacy and programs that treat lawful gun ownership as a problem to be reduced rather than a right to be protected.
Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R. 2442 by Reps. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) and in the Senate as S. 1169 by U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act, is a federal response to this state-level end run. The legislation would bar states and localities from imposing excise taxes that target the firearm industry and lawful consumers as a means of funding gun control programs. That is the core point. A right that exists for all law-abiding Americans cannot be reserved only for those who can afford whatever surcharge their state legislature decides to add.
This is not an argument against taxation. It is an argument against discriminatory taxation aimed at chilling the exercise of a specific constitutional right.
Growing Need for Growing Momentum
The Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act would prohibit states and their political subdivisions from imposing an excise tax on the sale of firearms, ammunition or components by manufacturers, producers or importers. The legislation was carefully drawn to avoid collateral damage to long-standing conservation funding. It explicitly states that it does not affect the federal excise taxes that support the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration framework.
In other words, this bill does not touch the lawful “user pays” model that has funded wildlife restoration and hunter education for decades. Support for the Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act is growing. In a press release announcing his addition as a cosponsor, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, “Alongside President Trump, I was proud to champion provisions to reduce the federal suppressor tax to $0 as part of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. This bill would take it a step further by ensuring blue states can’t usurp Congressional intent and use state taxes to deter law-abiding Americans from exercising their Second Amendment right to purchase firearms and ammunition.”
Virginia is the latest example of how quickly this state-led assault on the firearm industry is spreading. With antigun politicians in the Governor’s Mansion and controlling the state Assembly, punitive gun control in their sights. That includes HB919, which would impose an 11 percent tax on gross receipts from the retail sale of any firearm or ammunition by a firearm retailer, among other details.
This is the blueprint. Adopt California-style policies, set the rate high enough to sting and frame it as “prevention” while the predictable burden falls on lawful gun owners and the small businesses that serve them. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has demonstrated that criminals don’t buy their guns at retail anyway.
Rights With a Price Tag
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. The Court has also held that this right applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. And in its modern framework, the Court has emphasized that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Against that backdrop, a targeted excise tax designed to deter the purchase of arms and ammunition raises a straightforward question: Can the government price a constitutional right out of reach?
Americans already understand the answer in other contexts. The Supreme Court struck down poll taxes because a state cannot condition the exercise of a fundamental right on payment of a tax. The same principle should apply when the state’s purpose and design are to burden a protected right, particularly one the Supreme Court has described as fundamental and applicable to all states.
Rights are not luxuries. They do not belong only to those who can afford an additional 6.5 percent here or 11 percent there, layered on top of existing taxes and fees.
The Freedom from Unfair Gun Taxes Act is a necessary backstop. The Second Amendment is not a privilege for the wealthy. It is a right for all law-abiding Americans and Congress should ensure it remains that way.
You may also be interested in:
Categories: BP Item, Featured, Government Relations, Top Stories
25650
