WASHINGTON — A sweeping Republican tax and spending bill, backed by former President Donald Trump, is sparking controversy not just for its massive cuts—but for what’s quietly been added in: provisions that would loosen federal regulations on gun silencers and certain rifles and shotguns.

The inclusion marks a major win for gun rights advocates and the firearms industry, but it’s drawing fierce pushback from Democrats and gun safety groups who say it could make it harder to stop mass shooters.

A Gun Store Owner’s Wish List Becomes Lawmakers’ Language

The gun-related measure was first pushed by Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Georgia Republican, gun store owner, and vocal Second Amendment defender. Clyde had initially opposed the broader tax package—until this provision was included. He proudly claimed credit on the House floor, saying, “Who asked for it? I asked.”

The House version of the bill would remove silencers—also known as suppressors—from the National Firearms Act, a law dating back to the 1930s that was designed to curb organized crime. The change would eliminate a $200 tax and the additional background checks required to purchase them.

When the bill moved to the Senate, the provision stayed—and expanded. Republicans added language to deregulate short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well, firearms that have long been subject to stricter controls due to their concealability and potential use in close-range attacks.

Republicans Say It’s About Rights and Hearing Protection

Supporters argue the move is about restoring constitutional rights and helping lawful gun owners. “Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn’t stand in the way of protecting American gun owners’ hearing,” said Clyde, who often wears an assault rifle–shaped pin on his lapel.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who helped negotiate bipartisan gun legislation just three years ago, is now embracing the rollback. “I’m glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution,” he said, echoing Trump’s praise of the bill as “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Industry leaders back the changes, too. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation says silencers are primarily used by hunters and sport shooters. “It’s about protecting hearing,” Keane said. “Use in violent crime is extremely rare.”

Democrats Push Back: “Police Don’t Want Silencers on the Streets”

Democrats are sounding alarms, especially in the wake of recent shootings. The silencer provision was unveiled just days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in separate incidents. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the timing “tone-deaf and dangerous.”

“Parents don’t want silencers on their streets. Police don’t want silencers on their streets,” Schumer said.

Critics argue that loosening regulations on silencers and short-barreled guns could make it easier for mass shooters to go undetected—and harder for law enforcement and bystanders to respond in time. “There’s a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Rep. Maxwell Frost, a Florida Democrat and former gun control activist, slammed the provision as a handout to the gun industry. “This bill would help gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people,” he said.

A Sharp Shift From Bipartisan Gun Reform Just Three Years Ago

The GOP’s push to roll back gun regulations is a stark reversal from just three years ago, when a bipartisan gun safety bill was passed following the Uvalde school shooting. That legislation enhanced background checks for buyers under 21 and aimed to keep firearms away from dangerous individuals—earning rare praise from both parties.

Now, with Republicans in control of Congress and looking to pack their legislative wishlist into a single fast-moving package, the tide has turned.

Democrats are currently pressing the Senate parliamentarian to strip out the gun provisions during procedural review, arguing they’re unrelated to budget matters. But with pressure mounting to pass the bill before July 4, and Trump’s enthusiastic backing, the window to stop it may be narrowing.

“We’re going to fight this at every level,” Schumer said. “This isn’t about tax reform. It’s about making America less safe.”

Source: AP News – GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns

The post Republicans Push to Deregulate Silencers and Short-Barrel Guns in Tax Package appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Mexico has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow its $10 billion lawsuit against several major American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. The lawsuit alleges that these companies market and design firearms specifically for drug cartels, fueling violence and crime across Mexico. This legal battle comes at a time when U.S.-Mexico relations have been tense, with President Trump pressuring Mexico to address issues like migration and drug trafficking.

The Lawsuit’s Claims

In 2021, Mexico filed the lawsuit, claiming that U.S. gun manufacturers are indirectly responsible for the deaths of Mexican citizens—children, judges, journalists, police, and others—by selling firearms that end up in the hands of cartels. According to Mexican officials, 70% to 90% of firearms found at crime scenes in Mexico are made in the United States. The country argues that while there is only one gun store in Mexico, its streets are flooded with American-made weapons.

The case does not involve the Second Amendment but has garnered significant attention from both gun control and gun rights groups. Advocates for gun control argue that the case could set a dangerous precedent that allows gunmakers to avoid accountability for the damage their products cause.

David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told CNN, “The gun industry defendants are trying to use this case to rewrite the law and dramatically expand their immunity to include actions that break the law.”

Gun Rights Groups Push Back

Opponents of the lawsuit, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), argue that it is an attempt to undermine the American firearms industry. They claim that the lawsuit seeks to make it easier to sue gun manufacturers, circumventing a 2005 law that shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed with their products.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act provides gunmakers with immunity, except in cases where there is a direct connection between the harm caused and the manufacturer’s actions. The NRA has criticized Mexico’s suit, claiming that the country is attempting to “extinguish” the American right to bear arms.

The Core of Mexico’s Argument

Mexico accuses U.S. gunmakers of facilitating the trafficking of firearms to cartels by selling weapons to dealers who supply criminal organizations. The country also claims that the gun manufacturers have intentionally resisted making changes that would make firearms easier to trace, such as modifying serial numbers to prevent tampering.

Mexico further asserts that some of the guns marketed by these companies are designed specifically for gangs, citing products like the Super “El Jefe” pistol, which the country claims are targeted for sale to criminal organizations.

Hudson Munoz, executive director of Guns Down America, stated, “This case is not about the Second Amendment—it’s about whether an industry can facilitate illegal arms trafficking, destabilize a neighboring country, and face zero consequences.”

The Legal Journey: From Lower Courts to the Supreme Court

A federal district court initially sided with the gun manufacturers, dismissing the case. However, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Mexico’s lawsuit could proceed, allowing the case to move forward. The gun companies have since appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear the case.

A Skeptical Supreme Court

The 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is expected to be skeptical of Mexico’s claims. The Court’s 2021 decision in Twitter v. Taamneh could set a precedent in this case. In that instance, the Court ruled that social media platforms like Twitter could not be held liable for hosting content that allegedly helped ISIS recruit members, since the connection between the platform’s actions and the attack was too indirect.

Gun manufacturers are making similar arguments, claiming that they have no control over what buyers do with the guns they sell. “This court has repeatedly held that it requires a direct connection between a defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury,” the gun companies wrote in their appeal.

However, the appeals court that ruled in Mexico’s favor stated that the gun manufacturers’ conduct might be more directly involved in fueling the illegal gun market than social media companies’ actions in the Twitter case. The three-judge panel noted that the manufacturers may not be passive observers but active participants in a supply chain that ends with illegal firearms being trafficked to Mexico.

What’s at Stake

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mexico, the lawsuit could move forward, potentially holding U.S. gun manufacturers accountable for their role in the cross-border arms trade. A decision against Mexico could provide gun companies with greater immunity, reinforcing the protections they already enjoy under the 2005 law.

This case highlights the complex intersection of U.S. gun laws, international relations, and the devastating impact of gun violence on Mexico’s security. As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed, the outcome will have significant implications for both the American firearms industry and the future of cross-border legal actions.

Source

The post Mexico Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Let It Sue Gunmakers Over Cartel Violence appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.