A federal measure that would restrict states and municipalities from imposing excise taxes that target the firearm industry and lawful consumers as a means of funding gun control programs is drawing support from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry trade association.

Larry Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel, said the measure is a direct result of states targeting guns and gun owners with taxes to pay for anti-gun programs.

“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,” Keane wrote in a column posted on the NSSF website. “California has already enacted an additional 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition, administered by the state’s tax agency. Colorado has a 6.5% excise tax on firearms, firearm precursor parts and ammunition that went into effect last year.”

Now, legislators in five more 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, Keane wrote.

S. 1169, The Freedom From Unfair Gun Taxes Act, 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. The measure was introduced by U.S. Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, and a House companion measure, H.R. 2442, was introduced by Reps. Darrel Issa, R-California, and Richard Hudson, R-North Carolina.

“These proposals are often marketed as a way to make the ‘gun industry’ pay for ‘public safety’ measures, i.e., criminal misuse of firearms,” Keane wrote. “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.

“This is not an argument against taxation. It is an argument against discriminatory taxation aimed at chilling the exercise of a specific constitutional right.”

According to Keane, 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.

Ultimately, Keane said it is important that the Senate and the House pass the act to protect lawful gun owners nationwide.

“Rights are not luxuries,” he concluded. “They do not belong only to those who can afford an additional 6.5% here or 11% 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.”