Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Suppressor Credit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears broad support and fiscal pushback on a $50 suppressor tax credit pilot
Summary
Rep. Lucas Schubert proposed a refundable $50 credit to offset the federal $200 ATF tax for firearm suppressors; proponents stressed hearing protection and youth training, while fiscal and accounting groups opposed adding new tax credits to the code.
Representative Lucas Schubert presented House Bill 854, a pilot refundable $50 Montana income‑tax credit (one per taxpayer per year through tax year 2027) intended to offset the federal $200 ATF transfer tax on firearm suppressors and to encourage their use as a hearing‑protection measure. Schubert framed the proposal as a narrow, pilot program that "protect[s] our second amendment and hunter safety," and emphasized contingencies that would eliminate the credit if federal law changes.
The hearing drew a large, organized group of proponents: hunters, firearm industry representatives, the American Suppressor Association, Montana Shooting Sports Association, local mayors and business owners. Proponents described suppressors as validated hearing‑protection devices, argued the federal $200 tax is an arbitrary barrier, and said the credit would particularly encourage youth participation in hunting and shooting safety training. Industry witnesses provided price ranges for retail suppressors (roughly $300–$1,200) and noted additional costs such as fingerprint fees and multiple dealer visits.
Opponents included the Montana Society of CPAs, which opposed adding new tax credits and argued credits circumvent budgetary review. Committee members pressed the sponsor and witnesses on the fiscal cost (fiscal‑note estimates), whether the state should offset federal fees, privacy and data concerns related to maintaining lists of purchasers on state returns, and the merits of using general‑fund dollars for a narrowly targeted pilot. The sponsor said the program would be funded from the general fund and framed it as using surplus dollars for a time‑limited pilot.
Why it matters: HB 854 mixes public‑health (hearing protection) arguments, Second Amendment framing and tax‑policy considerations. Although proponents emphasized low utilization and few criminal uses of suppressors, opponents cautioned against proliferating bespoke tax credits.
Next steps: The committee closed the hearing and will take executive action later; the sponsor said he supports a two‑year pilot with a built‑in contingency tied to federal law changes.
