Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
The bill bars States and localities from levying or collecting excise taxes on sales of firearms, ammunition, or their parts and components by manufacturers or dealers when the sale occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.
It does not alter or affect the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.
The prohibition is limited to excise taxes; other state taxes or regulations are not explicitly addressed.
Short and targeted but politically charged, removes state revenue tools, and lacks compromise features or implementation detail.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a straightforward substantive prohibition on State and local excise taxes targeting firearms, ammunition, and related components sold by manufacturers or dealers in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. The central rule is concise and unambiguous in wording, but the measure provides limited statutory detail beyond the core ban.
Progressives emphasize state revenue loss; conservatives emphasize commerce protection.
Progressives emphasize state revenue loss; conservatives emphasize commerce protection.
Likely to oppose the bill as a federal preemption that advantages firearm manufacturers and dealers at the expense of state fiscal authority.
Concerned it removes a tool states use to raise revenue and regulate market behavior.
Notes the Pittman-Robertson carve‑out preserves hunting conservation funding but does not mitigate the broader revenue impact.
Mixed reaction: appreciates reduced interstate tax complexity for businesses but worries about federal preemption and state budget impacts.
Would weigh the bill’s narrow scope against precedent for limiting state taxation power.
Seeks clear fiscal estimates, legal defensibility, and possible safeguards for state services.
Likely to strongly support the bill as protection against what proponents call unfair or punitive state excise taxes on the firearms industry.
Views it as promoting free interstate commerce and preventing protectionist state measures.
Values the explicit protection while noting the Pittman‑Robertson Act remains intact.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Short and targeted but politically charged, removes state revenue tools, and lacks compromise features or implementation detail.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize state revenue loss; conservatives emphasize commerce protection.
Short and targeted but politically charged, removes state revenue tools, and lacks compromise features or implementation detail.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a straightforward substantive prohibition on State and local excise taxes targeting firearms, ammunition, and related components sold by manufacturers or…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.