Latest news with #AndrewClyde
New York Post
23-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump's ‘big beautiful' bill deregulates firearm silencers
Firearm silencers could soon get deregulated if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cleared the House earlier Thursday, prevails in the Senate. Buried deep in the megabill is a provision that would scrap a $200 federal excise tax on silencers and remove them from registration requirements under the National Firearms Act in a significant win for gun rights and hearing protection advocates. 'This is a massive 2A victory — one that takes important steps toward restoring our constitutional freedoms,' Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a gun store owner, who aggressively lobbied for the measure, said. Advertisement Contrary to what the name implies and many movies suggest, silencers don't actually make gunshots go silent, proponents argue. Instead, they are used to direct gases from the gun's barrel through a series of chambers to reduce the sound of the loud bang. On average, they can muffle the sound of a gunshot 20–35 decibels. Gunshots generally have an average of 150-170 decibels. For comparison, mowing the lawn usually averages between 85 to 96 decibels. 4 Gun rights advocates argue that silencers are necessary to protect the hearing of law-abiding citizens. Dmitri – Advertisement Virtually all experts recommend wearing hearing protection while firing guns, even with silencers on them. 'There is a common misconception that suppressors can actually eliminate the noise of a gunshot, and that could not be further from the truth,' Knox Williams, the president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association (ASA), told The Post. 'In reality, suppressors do reduce the noise of a gunshot to safer levels, but they are still incredibly loud,' he added. 'Gunshots are so loud that without adequate hearing protection, they will cause permanent hearing damage.' 4 Rep. Andrew Clyde was one of the top advocates among House Republicans to include the silencer language in the megabill. Getty Images Advertisement Gun rights activists generally prefer the term 'suppressor' to describe silencers to counter public perception about them. The firearm attachments remain banned in eight states as well as the District of Columbia. Democrats railed against the move to lighten rules on silencers and furnished an unsuccessful amendment to strike that policy from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'Silencers make mass shootings worse, more deadly,' Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI), whose state bans silencers, said Wednesday. 'They make it harder for victims and law enforcement to locate the source of the shooting. What is beautiful about that?' Advertisement An initial iteration of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act only eliminated the excise tax on silencers, but Clyde and others managed to tack on an amendment scrapping registration requirements during a last-minute amendment. Clyde also sought to deregulate registration requirements for short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and any other weapons (AOWs), but was unsuccessful. 4 House Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and met their goal of getting it through by Memorial Day. Getty Images Gun rights groups such as the ASA and the National Rifle Association have long lobbied in favor of loosening federal barriers to the sale of silencers and have impressed upon lawmakers concerns about hearing loss from guns that lack suppressors. Williams argued that removing silencers from the National Firearms Act is an important step to encourage gun owners to purchase them. 'Gun owners are rightfully very distrustful and averse to any sort of registration requirements. History shows that when there are registries of guns, oftentimes it's just a matter of time before the government that maintains that registry comes to try and take those guns away,' Williams added. Studies cited by ASA found that 70% to 80% of hunters don't wear adequate ear protection. The group argued that making it easier for them to use silencers will help reduce hearing loss. Over half of Senate Republicans backed the Hearing Protection Act earlier this year to remove silencers from registration requirements under the National Firearms Act. Advertisement 'Firearm silencers should not be subject to overregulation and unconstitutional taxes that hamstring Texans' freedoms and pocketbooks,' Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the Hearing Protection Act co-sponsors, said after the House passed the megabill. 'I'm proud to see the House stand up for law-abiding gun owners.' 4 President Trump has generally favored Second Amendment causes. AFP via Getty Images The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a bundle of legislation specially designed to bypass the 60-vote threshold needed to break a Senate filibuster by taking advantage of the cumbersome budget reconciliation process. There are strict rules governing that process — namely the Byrd Rule — and reconciliation bills generally have to pertain the government spending or taxation. Advertisement Otherwise, they won't survive 'Byrd Bath' scrutiny from the Senate parliamentarian. Proponents of the silencer measure argue that it is Byrd Rule compliant because the National Firearms Act essentially uses the tax code to register guns.
New York Post
22-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump's ‘big beautiful' bill deregulates firearm silencers like one allegedly used by Luigi Mangione
Firearm silencers could soon get deregulated if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cleared the House earlier Thursday, prevails in the Senate. Buried deep in the megabill is a provision that would scrap a $200 federal excise tax on silencers and remove them from registration requirements under the National Firearms Act in a significant win for gun rights and hearing protection advocates. 'This is a massive 2A victory — one that takes important steps toward restoring our constitutional freedoms,' Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a gun store owner, who aggressively lobbied for the measure, said. Contrary to what the name implies and many movies suggest, silencers don't actually make gunshots go silent, proponents argue. Instead, they are used to direct gases from the gun's barrel through a series of chambers to reduce the sound of the loud bang. On average, they can muffle the sound of a gunshot 20–35 decibels. Gunshots generally have an average of 150-170 decibels. For comparison, mowing the lawn usually averages between 85 to 96 decibels. 4 Gun rights advocates argue that silencers are necessary to protect the hearing of law-abiding citizens. Dmitri – Virtually all experts recommend wearing hearing protection while firing guns, even with silencers on them. 'There is a common misconception that suppressors can actually eliminate the noise of a gunshot, and that could not be further from the truth,' Knox Williams, the president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association (ASA), told The Post. 'In reality, suppressors do reduce the noise of a gunshot to safer levels, but they are still incredibly loud,' he added. 'Gunshots are so loud that without adequate hearing protection, they will cause permanent hearing damage.' 4 Rep. Andrew Clyde was one of the top advocates among House Republicans to include the silencer language in the megabill. Getty Images Gun rights activists generally prefer the term 'suppressor' to describe silencers to counter public perception about them. Accused killer Luigi Mangione used a 3D-printed 'ghost gun' and a silencer during his alleged assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The firearm attachments remain banned in eight states as well as the District of Columbia. Democrats railed against the move to lighten rules on silencers and furnished an unsuccessful amendment to strike that policy from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'Silencers make mass shootings worse, more deadly,' Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI), whose state bans silencers, said Wednesday. 'They make it harder for victims and law enforcement to locate the source of the shooting. What is beautiful about that?' An initial iteration of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act only eliminated the excise tax on silencers, but Clyde and others managed to tack on an amendment scrapping registration requirements during a last-minute amendment. Clyde also sought to deregulate registration requirements for short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and any other weapons (AOWs), but was unsuccessful. 4 House Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and met their goal of getting it through by Memorial Day. Getty Images Gun rights groups such as the ASA and the National Rifle Association have long lobbied in favor of loosening federal barriers to the sale of silencers and have impressed upon lawmakers concerns about hearing loss from guns that lack suppressors. Williams argued that removing silencers from the National Firearms Act is an important step to encourage gun owners to purchase them. 'Gun owners are rightfully very distrustful and averse to any sort of registration requirements. History shows that when there are registries of guns, oftentimes it's just a matter of time before the government that maintains that registry comes to try and take those guns away,' Williams added. Studies cited by ASA found that 70% to 80% of hunters don't wear adequate ear protection. The group argued that making it easier for them to use silencers will help reduce hearing loss. Over half of Senate Republicans backed the Hearing Protection Act earlier this year to remove silencers from registration requirements under the National Firearms Act. 'Firearm silencers should not be subject to overregulation and unconstitutional taxes that hamstring Texans' freedoms and pocketbooks,' Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the Hearing Protection Act co-sponsors, said after the House passed the megabill. 'I'm proud to see the House stand up for law-abiding gun owners.' 4 President Trump has generally favored Second Amendment causes. AFP via Getty Images The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a bundle of legislation specially designed to bypass the 60-vote threshold needed to break a Senate filibuster by taking advantage of the cumbersome budget reconciliation process. There are strict rules governing that process — namely the Byrd Rule — and reconciliation bills generally have to pertain the government spending or taxation. Otherwise, they won't survive 'Byrd Bath' scrutiny from the Senate parliamentarian. Proponents of the silencer measure argue that it is Byrd Rule compliant because the National Firearms Act essentially uses the tax code to register guns.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gun Silencers, Tanning Beds And Other Weird Stuff Tucked Into The GOP's Tax Bill
WASHINGTON – When House Republicans passed President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy package in the wee hours of Thursday, they didn't just approve giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts to rich people while kicking down millions of poor people. They made it easier to get gun silencers. And quietly removed a weird provision about tanning beds. And expanded a ban on gender-affirming care. And, in a show of fealty to the president, they came up with a new name for tax-saving accounts that the government would seed with $1,000 for babies born in the next few years: 'Trump Accounts.' There was already a lot going on in the GOP's 1,100-page bill, which is actually called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But things got confusing late Wednesday when Republicans unveiled a 42-page amendment with all kinds of eleventh-hour changes. They released their new language as the House Rules Committee was entering its 20th hour of a hearing on the bill, and Democrats barely had time to make sense of all the changes. Decisions in Washington don't just stay in Washington — they shape real lives. HuffPost is committed to reporting on how policies affect people across the country. Support journalism that connects the dots. They're a lot clearer now. Here are some of the weird and last-minute things Republicans slipped into their bill, which is now headed to the Senate and already hitting a wall over there. In order to win over the vote of Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, GOP leaders slipped language into the bill making it easier for people to buy gun silencers. Specifically, the bill eliminates a $200 firearm registration fee for silencers and removes a requirement that people have to register their silencers at all. During the late-night rules committee hearing, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) howled about this 'magical amendment' suddenly being part of the bill. She noted the federal tax on gun silencers has been in place since 1934. 'It's a brazen attempt to make it easier to commit violent crimes,' said Scanlon as she unsuccessfully tried to strip it from the bill. 'I think this is sneaky. I think it's a radical policy change with no explanation for why this longstanding federal policy should be overturned in the middle of the night.' Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the rules panel, ripped Republicans for slipping the unrelated gun provision into their tax bill. 'Quite frankly, what is in this reconciliation bill, you know, does more to support assassins than it does American families,' McGovern said. When a Republican on the committee laughed him off, the Massachusetts Democrat fired back, 'You know what? Talk to law enforcement. Talk to people who have been victims of gun violence. I know you think it's funny, but I don't.' For some reason, Republicans initially included language in the bill to repeal a federal excise tax on indoor tanning services. But it appears they were shamed into taking it out at the last minute. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) flagged the provision in Wednesday's Rules Committee hearing and asked Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who was testifying before the committee, to read the line item out loud. He refused. 'So that the American public knows what this bill does… Would you please read page 901, line 20?' Leger Fernández asked Smith. 'I think it'd be better if you read it,' Smith replied. 'Oh, he doesn't want to read it!' Leger Fernández said with a laugh. 'This is in their bill. They don't want to read a line from their own bill.' Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) eventually read the provision aloud: 'It says Section 11106: Repeal of excise tax on indoor tanning services.' Amid more laughs, Leger Fernández contrasted the provision, which makes it easier to own a tanning bed, with the bill's drastic cuts to Medicaid and food assistance. She took a shot at Trump's tanning habits and wondered aloud if he put that language into the bill. 'There are certain elected officials who appear to have a certain orange hue about them,' she said. 'Maybe they want to make sure tanning beds get a little bit of special credit.' The tanning bed provision was mysteriously gone in the final bill. An eagle-eyed reporter first flagged a slight change in wording in the final bill that significantly expanded a ban on using Medicaid or CHIP funding for gender-affirming care. The GOP bill initially imposed this prohibition on minors, but its final language applies the ban to anyone relying on these programs. 'The House Republican budget bill passed this morning shows that anti-trans policies remain a top priority for both the party and the Trump administration,' said Imara Jones, CEO of Trans Lash Media, an independent news organization that tells the stories of transgender people. 'The fact that they are willing to ban federally funded health care for trans people of all ages — including adults on Medicaid and children enrolled in CHIP — shows that the goal all along has been to push trans people from public life,' Jones said in a statement. The GOP bill creates a new incentive for women to make more babies by paying them $1,000 for every American baby born over the next four years. For babies born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Jan. 1, 2029, the federal government would deposit $1,000 into an account called a 'Trump account.' That money would then be invested on their behalf in financial markets, and when the baby grows up, he or she can withdraw from their 'Trump Account' for things like going to college or buying a house. The kid's parents can also contribute to the account. The GOP decided this money would be deposited into something called a 'money account for growth and advancement' account, or 'MAGA account.' But that didn't seem to sufficiently suck up to Trump, so at the eleventh hour, they renamed these accounts after him. In a rare win for people who care about the environment, Republicans removed language from the final bill that would have allowed for the sale of public lands in Nevada and Utah. Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), who served as Trump's interior secretary in his first term, had threatened to vote against the bill unless this language was stripped. Environmental groups praised Zinke for his efforts, even if the overall bill is terrible. 'The American people have spoken loud and clear - our public lands should not be for sale,' Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said in a statement. 'Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle were right to throw this proposal in the trash can, but a bad bill is still a bad bill,' he said. 'As written, Donald Trump's reconciliation package is a giveaway to corporate polluters that would make it easier for billionaires to drill, mine, and log the public lands that belong to all Americans, from the Arctic Refuge to the desert landscapes of the southwest.' The final bill could result in the closure of as many as 200 Planned Parenthood health centers, or one-third of all these health centers nationwide. These closures would come as a result of the bill's new ban on gender-affirming care for all Medicaid patients and its provisions aimed at eliminating health plans that include abortion coverage from the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The consequences of these health centers closing would be 'catastrophic,' said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood. 'If Congress passes its reconciliation bill as written, an estimated 200 Planned Parenthood health centers could close, leaving entire communities and regions without access to essential health care,' Johnson said in a statement. 'Cancers will go undetected, birth control will be harder to get, and the public health infrastructure – already pushed to the brink – will break down.' 'Instead of actually helping their constituents, politicians want to stop them from getting care at Planned Parenthood health centers and impose their beliefs on everyone else,' she said. Someone initially put language in the bill that attempted to let Trump circumvent the nation's courts and, essentially, serve as a king: 'No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….' Translated, this provision would strip all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of the ability to hold Trump or members of his administration in contempt of court. Not only would this violate the Constitution, but its timing is eerie, as Trump has been flouting an order by the Supreme Court to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a legal U.S. resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. The administration has also been ignoring orders from lower courts to stop deporting migrants without giving them due process. It's not clear which Republican put this language into the bill in the first place, but it was curiously stripped out of the final bill. At the last minute, Republicans revised their bill to expedite the timeline for imposing work requirements on Medicaid recipients. After initially including language triggering these requirements at the start of 2029, the final bill moved up the date to the end of 2026. As a result of the GOP's stricter work requirement for federal health and food programs, an estimated 14 million people may lose their health coverage, and 3 million households may go without food assistance. Republicans originally used their bill to change the formula for calculating federal employees' earned benefits by basing it on a worker's five top years of earnings, versus three years under current law. But by the end, they kept the formula where it was. Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) was among those who had pushed back on this change, saying it wasn't fair to do this to current federal workers, who have already been enduring chaos, stress and fear of losing their jobs for months thanks to the sloppy work of Elon Musk and his surrogates at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. 'Making changes to pensions and retirement benefits in the middle of someone's employment is wrong,' Turner said during a committee hearing on the bill last month. 'Changing the rules, especially when someone has already been vested in their benefits, is wrong,' he said. 'Employee benefits are not a gift, they're earned.' If you're someone who received a Purple Heart during your military service and you're looking for more tax credits after your Social Security disability benefits were cut because you got a job, this bill has you covered. The GOP bill would increase the amount of your Earned Income Tax Credit by the sum of your Social Security disability insurance benefits terminated as a result of you getting a job.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republicans Sneak Terrifying Gun Law Change Into Trump's Budget Bill
Republicans narrowly passed Donald Trump's sweeping budget reconciliation bill through the House Wednesday night, including a last-minute provision that would not require gun owners to register the purchase of silencers. Georgia Representative Andrew Clyde had already ensured the elimination of a $200 transfer tax on gun silencers. But during negotiations Wednesday, he was able to add another provision altogether removing silencers from the regulatory purview of the National Firearms Act, which imposes taxes on the manufacture, distribution, and import of weapons, according to Politico. The last-minute addition would strike another $200 tax on the manufacture of gun silencers. But by removing silencers from the purview of the National Firearms Act, lawmakers said that the change also had eliminated the NFA's registration requirement with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. 'The question I have is, this was not in the bill that we were marking up. So, whose vote was bought with this provision that silencers will no longer need to be registered with the ATF or subject to background check purchasers?' asked Colorado Representative Joe Neguse on the House floor Wednesday night. 'What member was on the fence about this bill, and then went to Republican leadership and said, 'I know you're eliminating the tax on silencers but if you can just eliminate all regulation on silencers, I will vote for this bill?'' Georgia Representative Austin Scott claimed that silencers' exception from ATF registry did not mean that purchasers would not be subject to background checks. Scott, who argued in support of the provision, seemed confused about what it was actually about. He said it was about suppressors, rather than silencers—but that was incorrect. When a person attempts to buy a firearm, they must complete an ATF form, and the seller then relays information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation website. The NICS staff then performs a check to see whether the buyer has a criminal record or is in any way ineligible to purchase the firearm. If the purchaser is not required to fill out a form with the ATF to purchase a silencer, it's not clear how a background check would still be completed. 'Quite frankly, what is in the reconciliation bill does more to support assassins than it does American families,' said Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern. There was some laughter in the hall. 'Yeah, well you know what? Talk to law enforcement, talk to people who have been victims of gun violence,' McGovern continued. 'I know you think it's funny, but I don't.'
Fox News
22-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
GOP rebel mutiny threatens to derail Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' before key committee hurdle
President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" appears to be in peril as of late Thursday afternoon, ahead of a critical meeting by the House Budget Committee to bring the legislation close to a House-wide vote. At least three Republicans on the committee are expected to vote against advancing the bill, a multitrillion-dollar piece of legislation aimed at enacting Trump's priorities on tax, the border, immigration, defense, energy and raising the debt limit. GOP Reps. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., and Ralph Norman, R-S.C., both told Fox News Digital they would vote against the bill in committee in its current form. Norman said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, also would vote against the bill. Roy himself signaled he was opposed to the legislation both on X and in comments to reporters. "Right now, the House proposal fails to meet the moment. It does not meaningfully change spending (Medicaid expansion to able bodied, [Inflation Reduction Act] subsidies). Plus many of the decent provisions and cuts, don't begin until 2029 and beyond. That is swamp accounting to dodge real savings," Roy wrote Thursday on X. Other members of the committee also suggested they had concerns. Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital he wanted the Friday morning meeting delayed. And Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., a rank-and-file member who is not known for defying House Republican leaders, said the legislation did not seem "sincere" and would not reveal how he will vote. With one expected absence for Republicans on the House Budget Committee, the GOP can only afford one "no" vote to still advance the legislation. Once the bill is passed through the House Budget Committee, it must then come before the House Rules Committee — which sets terms for debating the bill House-wide — before it is weighed by all House lawmakers. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said he wants the legislation to pass the House by Memorial Day. "I think we're on schedule," Johnson told reporters leaving a conference-wide meeting on the bill Thursday afternoon. He also said he was confident Budget Committee Republicans could advance the bill on Friday. "I'm talking to everybody and I think we're gonna get this thing done on the schedule that we proposed," Johnson said in response to conservative concerns. Both Norman and Roy have complained that the legislation's provisions aimed at curbing abuse of the Medicaid system and rolling back former President Joe Biden's green energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act did not go far enough. Timing is among their key concerns on both fronts. Conservatives have issues with Medicaid work requirements not going into effect until 2029, the end of Trump's term. They also questioned what they saw as a delay in phasing out green energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. "I questioned the timing on work requirements, I questioned the IRS phase-outs. I didn't get an answer on that," Norman told reporters after the Thursday afternoon meeting. "My point is, we need to have answers before it hits the floor." Clyde told Fox News Digital of his opposition, "I'm a NO on advancing the budget reconciliation bill out of the Budget Committee in its current form." "I'm actively involved in negotiations to improve this package, and I'm hopeful that we will do so quickly in order to successfully deliver on President Trump's agenda for the American people," he said. Another issue at hand involves continued tensions over state and local tax (SALT) deductions, which primarily affect high cost-of-living states — and Republicans representing critical swing districts within blue states. The Trump bill currently would raise the SALT deduction cap from $10,000 for single and married tax filers to $30,000 — a number that's not enough for a group of moderate House Republicans that's large enough to sink the final bill. Conservative fiscal hawks have said higher SALT deduction caps must be paired with deeper spending cuts. "SALT is a pay-for," Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is not on the budget committee, said in response to conservatives asking for offsets. He pointed out that SALT deduction caps would be eliminated entirely if Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which Republicans want to extend permanently via this bill, is allowed to expire. "The fact is, if the tax bill expires, the cap on SALT expires, which means it goes back to unlimited. So any cap is a savings within the bill," Lawler said. "So this idea that we need to find a pay-for, that's not an us problem. That's other people's problems." But Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., another SALT Caucus member, signaled he would be OK with moving up the deadline on Medicaid work requirements in exchange for raising the SALT deduction cap. House GOP leaders are expected to continue negotiating with both groups, however. Both Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said they expected the Budget Committee meeting to go on as planned. House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, however, seemed less optimistic. "We'll see," he said when asked about the Friday meeting, adding the likely "no" votes are "potentially enough to delay it." Congressional Republicans are moving Trump's agenda via the budget reconciliation process. By lowering the Senate's threshold for passage down to the House's own simple majority requirement, it allows the party in control of both chambers and the White House to pass vast pieces of legislation while entirely sidelining the minority — in this case, Democrats. Eleven House committees have cobbled together individual portions of the bill, which will be put back into a framework that the House Budget Committee will consider Friday morning. Then it must head to the Senate, which will likely amend the bill, which then must sync up with the House before arriving on Trump's desk for a signature.
