Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill prohibits States and their political subdivisions from levying or collecting excise taxes on the sale of firearms, ammunition, or firearm/ammunition parts by manufacturers or dealers when the sale occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce. The text preserves the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and states that subsection (a) does not alter that Act.
Liberal emphasizes lost state public safety funding and social harms
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory preemption that clearly states a single substantive rule but provides minimal drafting detail beyond that rule and a single carve-out for a named federal statute.
The bill prohibits States and their political subdivisions from levying or collecting excise taxes on the sale of firearms, ammunition, or firearm/ammunition parts by manufacturers or dealers when the sale occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.
The text preserves the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and states that subsection (a) does not alter that Act.
Short and targeted but politically charged, reduces state revenue, and preempts state authority—difficult to clear both chambers and avoid legal challenge.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory preemption that clearly states a single substantive rule but provides minimal drafting detail beyond that rule and a single carve-out for a named federal statute.
Liberal emphasizes lost state public safety funding and social harms
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes lost state public safety funding and social harms
Likely opposed.
They would view the bill as preempting state authority to tax and as benefiting the firearms industry.
They would worry about lost state revenue that funds public safety and prevention programs.
Mixed/unsure.
They would appreciate clarifying interstate commerce rules and reducing compliance complexity, but worry about state revenue loss and legal ambiguity.
They would seek limited, pragmatic fixes to balance uniformity and state needs.
Likely supportive.
They would view this as protecting businesses from discriminatory state excise taxes and ensuring a uniform national market.
They would emphasize limiting states' ability to impose burdensome taxes on commerce.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Short and targeted but politically charged, reduces state revenue, and preempts state authority—difficult to clear both chambers and avoid legal challenge.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes lost state public safety funding and social harms
Short and targeted but politically charged, reduces state revenue, and preempts state authority—difficult to clear both chambers and avoid…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise statutory preemption that clearly states a single substantive rule but provides minimal drafting detail beyond that rule and a single carve-out for a nam…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.