In a bold legislative move, the U.S. Senate has added language from the SHORT Act—which would deregulate short-barreled rifles (SBRs) under federal law—to the sprawling legislative package conservatives are now calling the “Big Beautiful Bill.”
The move came just as Democrats in the House ramped up efforts to strip the Hearing Protection Act (HPA)—a long-sought pro-gun reform that would eliminate the burdensome $200 tax on suppressors—from the bill entirely.
And it was Texas Gun Rights (TXGR) that first broke the story, confirming that SBR deregulation was buried deep in the new Senate draft, mirroring the core goals of the SHORT Act introduced in prior sessions of Congress.
“If we actually get the SHORT Act added to the BBB along with the HPA, this might be the gun rights win of my lifetime,” tweeted Brandon Herrera (@TheAKGuy), a leading Second Amendment advocate. “And that is not an exaggeration.”
What’s in the Senate’s Version?
Page 263 of the Senate text makes it plain: individuals who acquire or possess SBRs, short-barreled shotguns, or other NFA-designated firearms in accordance with federal law will be exempt from state and local licensing requirements—effectively nullifying the most oppressive layers of regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
This move follows Texas’s own lead. Last month, Texas passed SB 1596, a bill decriminalizing SBRs at the state level, with strong support from TXGR and Gun Owners of America.
“Washington should follow Texas’s lead,” said Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights. “The NFA is a relic of FDR-era gun control extremism. This is the right time to chip away at its unconstitutional grip on law-abiding gun owners.”
Democrats Move to Strip Suppressor Deregulation
But while the Senate was advancing one piece of the gun rights puzzle, Democrats led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were already working overtime to rip the Hearing Protection Act from the bill—citing procedural rules and fearmongering about so-called “silencers.”
“Schumer’s claims are ill-informed at best — and idiotic at worst,” McNutt said. “Suppressors don’t silence anything. They simply reduce the deafening report of a firearm to a safer level. That’s not dangerous — it’s responsible.”
While Europe encourages suppressor use for hearing safety, American gun owners face federal taxes and red tape for buying the same hearing protection devices.
And Democrats’ efforts to strip the HPA only further expose their real aim: to tax gun rights out of reach.
Indeed, many on the Left have called for increasing the $200 tax, not eliminating it—suggesting it should be adjusted for inflation, not repealed.
“This isn’t about crime or safety,” McNutt said. “It’s about pricing responsible gun ownership out of reach.”
Call to Action: Hold the Line
As the Senate finalizes the bill, Texas Gun Rights is urging pro-gun Americans to call their senators with a clear message: Keep the SHORT Act language and the Hearing Protection Act fully intact.
The next few days could shape the future of the Second Amendment for a generation.
DEVELOPING: “Drafting Error” Reveals Issue With Suppressor Removal & Controllers SHIFT To Stop US…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hIQjrM6qCM
Madigan Sentencing Provides Another Example of Systemic Gun-Grabber Corruption.
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/06/madigan-sentencing-provides-another-example-of-systemic-gun-grabber-corruption/
Gun-Control Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver Indicted for Attacking ICE Agents in Newark.
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/06/democrat-lamonica-mciver-indicted-for-attacking-ice-agents/
From Anti-Gun Powerbroker to Prisoner: Bob Menendez Begins 11-Year Sentence, While His Son Protests ICE ~ VIDEO
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/06/prisoner-bob-menendez-begins-11-year-sentence/
Giffords’ “Push Poll” on Firearm Suppressors Lies, Misfires.
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/06/giffords-push-poll-on-firearm-suppressors-lies-misfires/
5 comments and every last fvicking one of them is .40cal boog?
Jesus H. Christ, get a rest, dude.
What I want to know is, will this bill FORCE the slave states to allow cans and short barrel toys?
You want Jesus H. Christ to get a rest?
“What I want to know is, will this bill FORCE the slave states to allow cans and short barrel toys?”
Force? No. But will it make it unlawful/unconstitutional for them to deny “cans and short barrel toys”? Yes. (it was already unconstitutional BTW for them to deny)
But you know how the blue states act, so there will probably be a flurry of bills and laws or many ‘intentional speed bumps’ in those states that will be coming forth because you know how much they don’t like the Constitution and Trump.
But keep in mind – this is actually a reconciliation bill, and although its possible to put stuff like this in such a bill (the way they did it) it does not mean it will pass legal or constitutional muster in a court battle so there is probably going to be some court battle if it passes that will stay those items for a while. So it simply passing is not a guarantee those provisions will go into effect right away. The items their selves are constitutional and legal, but the inclusion in a a reconciliation bill is what will spark a court battle to determine if its constitutional or legal for them to be included in a a reconciliation bill. Although, removing the $200 tax thus removal from the NFA for that is an actual thing that can be in a reconciliation bill because it is a tax and taxes can be changed or levied or removed in reconciliation bills.
No. If a provision is in a reconciliation bill that is certified as passing both chambers and signed into law by the POTUS, it’s game over for whether the provision was “properly” considered by the Senate.
Whether or not a provision can be included in a reconciliation bill is up to the Senate, as the Byrd Rule is an internal Senate rule (same as filibuster practice). No judicial review is available, as it’s up to the Senate to develop and interpret its own rules. Just as an question of whether the Hughes Amendment actually passed the House (it was on an outcry voice vote) was mooted by the ultimate passage of the bill containing it, so it will be if the HPA and SHORT Acts are contained in final, passed versions of the BBB.
On paper, the Senate Parliamentarian can rule a provision violates the Byrd Rule and thus is out of order, but the GOP has devised a procedural way to force a vote on the Parliamentarian’s ruling.
So all it will take is for the GOP to stand together on passing the BBB. If they do, WOW! I have to admit I never thought the GOP would have the stones to nuke these parts of the NFA.
Now, if it passes, what kind of new weapons are we likely to see? I’d like to see a magazine fed, intregally-suppressed, semiautomatic SBS, which would be the ultimate home defense weapon.
“No. If a provision is in a reconciliation bill that is certified as passing both chambers and signed into law by the POTUS, it’s game over for whether the provision was “properly” considered by the Senate.”
Something can be “‘properly’ considered by the Senate” yet still be found illegal or unconstitutional in court, even provisions in a reconciliation bill signed into law by the president.
here’s my concern about doing this in a reconciliation bill – the democrats can do the same type of thing in a future bill and wipe it all out and not worry about a majority vote.
“Something can be “‘properly’ considered by the Senate” yet still be found illegal or unconstitutional in court, even provisions in a reconciliation bill signed into law by the president.”
If the grounds for it being “illegal or unconstitutional” is only because, contrary to the Byrd Rule, it was in a reconciliation bill (as opposed to a regular bill), then you are simply wrong: federal courts have no jurisdiction to decide whether the Senate properly followed its own internal rules or not. (If you disagree, show me an example where something in a reconciliation bill has been nuked as inconsistent with the Byrd Rule. I’ll wait . . . .)
As far as some *other* reason for why a repeal of provisions of the NFA is unconstitutional / illegal, what could that possibly be?
Well, you are a lawyer and I’m not, but I’ve read other lawyers and they expect it to be challenged in court like I said and I already know a few states (California and Washington state) are teeing up such lawsuits.
Oh wait, I just realized that you think I’m talking about the Byrd Rule. I’m not.
OK, so what are you talking about? What’s the purported ground of illegality / unconstitutionality for Congress undoing part of a statute that Congress itself passed?
One more time:
Byrd Amendment (i.e., then repeal of NFA provisions can’t be done via reconciliation): this simply cannot be the basis of a court challenge, because (1) nobody has standing to argue that the Senate didn’t follow its own procedural rules, and (2) district court’s don’t have jurisdiction over the Senate’s enforcement / nonenforcement of its internal parliamentary procedure rules. Such a challenge wold be akin to claiming Goresuch’s confirmation wasn’t valid because the Senate abrogated its prior filibuster rule on SCOTUS nominees.
Non-Byrd challenges: will some states try and make them? Of course. Will such challenges last very long, or meaningfully frustrate the rollback? I don’t think so, for the reasons I have articulated. The procedural posture of such cases puts those states in what I see as an incredibly weak legal position.
SUPPRESSORS, SBRs, AND SHORT BARREL SHOTGUNS REMOVAL DEEP DIVE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVempFpc9G8
Oh wait, I just realized that you think I’m talking about the Byrd Rule. I’m not.
“OK, so what are you talking about? What’s the purported ground of illegality / unconstitutionality for Congress undoing part of a statute that Congress itself passed?”
I’m talking about the anti-gun states and anti-gun groups. After these years your should have realized they will sue to try to stop anything that supports the 2A. The exact wording of their complaints I don’t know. I do know that California and Washington state are wanting to tee up such lawsuits, and I have no doubt that Illinois will want to jump on the bandwagon. I suspect they might go along the path similar to its their state right to regulate and deny and the federal government doing this usurps that right after all these years of it being ‘constitutional’ (in their view) for them to do their denial and regulation. And when SCOTUS gets hold of a ‘states rights’ case on this from anti-gun states, whats going to happen then? California and Washington state have the 9th circuit and I have no doubt the 9th will side with them and this will go on for years in that circuit. Then there will be these anti-gun states attempts to get around it with crafty schemes like “OK, suppressors are constitutional, but we can require you to have a license to purchase a suppressor and the license costs $500.00” and then there are more years in courts. It doesn’t matter that congress passed it. heck, congress also passed the PLCCA yet Mexico for years went though the court system to challenge it. The anti-gun have been doing stuff like this for years, it doesn’t matter if Congress passed it our not – these anti-gun states have shown they are willing to violate a federal law or constitutional right any time they want with the stroke of a pen and their victims are stuck with years of the court system.
Heck, even now we are still battling simple things, for example, 18-20 year old right to carry. You think something like these bill provisions are going to sit well with anti-gun states – you think those states are just gonna go “Well, its constitutional and congress passed that bill, so yeah you can own a suppressor and short barreled rifle” – no of course not, they are gonna try to stop it by taking it to court and at some point a court will try to injunction those provisions effectively staying them. Heck rouge left wing judges injunctioned the President of the Unites States on things that are clearly legal and constitutional for the president to do knowing he could simply ignore them if he wished because the branches are co-equal and the courts are not above the executive branch – if they would try to do that what do you think they will try to do with an anti-gun state bringing a states rights case, well they will want to injunction those provisions and issue a crazy national injunction (they tried that with Trump).
PLCAA … not PLCCA
You keep saying ‘congress passed’ (i.e. “…statute that Congress itself passed”) ….It doesn’t matter if congress passed it or not…these mentally ill left wingers and anti-gun do not care, they are willing to blatantly ignore that and try to stop in any way, or at the least make it as burdensome as possible to exercise or try to treat it as a ‘privilege’ they control, anything to do with the 2A and they would really prefer the 2A did not exist. These are fanatics that conduct this as though a religion. I’ve had an inside peek at what they really are from someone who herself was for years one of them and finally recovered after a horrifying incident made her realize the truth. These people want control and domination over constitutional rights. They pay lip service to it in public that they support the 2A but just want ‘common sense’ gun reform – its a lie, behind the scenes they are always plotting to in some way simply do away with the 2A or at the very least make it a privilege they control, not just the anti-gun groups but the anti-gun politicians too – they hate the constitution.
You seem to think that because its a “…statute that Congress itself passed”, these idiots are done. If it gets signed by Trump, we can shout “We won!”, but then we have to keep it and that means once again engaging the anti-gun who don’t like it and more years in court fighting every little thing and word in every law or ordinance or policy or just plain ’cause they want to’ in their ‘death by 1,000 cuts’ strategy. Its not over because its a “…statute that Congress itself passed” like people want to think, and we have seen the perverted novel ways these mentally ill constitution hating anti-gun have used to try to stop other things that were “…statute that Congress itself passed”. We are not at the top of the hill with a win like this until all can have the right unhindered, we still have a hill to climb to have our constitutional right in this for all and its shameful that in America we have to do that but its the reality so the next time an anti-gun politician screams ‘But our democracy!” you know damn well they are lying.
Then there is the thing about it being done in a reconciliation bill. The procedure overrides the Senate’s filibuster rules, which may otherwise require a 60-vote super-majority for passage. So if the democrats get back to the point where they can do another reconciliation bill, they can undo all this in their reconciliation bill – and the republicans just showed it can be done, so the democrats are gonna say “Hey, you guys did it so we can do it too and we don’t need to worry about the filibuster rules.” Heck, the democrats already wanted to get rid of the filibuster rules so they could have their way when they had the majority these last 4 years, you think they would give up a chance to do something not having to worry about filibuster rules?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy the republicans did this. But doing this in a reconciliation bill makes these things very ‘fragile’ for the future.
And while talking about a reconciliation bill… why wasn’t the stupid ‘in the business’ thing from the ‘safer communities act’ (SCA) included? Its related to a tax AND fee as implemented. But its not defined clearly as to what ‘in the business’ means in the SCA, just a vague thing that even the creators of the bill says they did not intend to be interpreted the way it was by the ATF. That lack of being defined clearly gave ‘permission’ to a rouge tyrannical Biden ATF already out of control and emboldened by a tyrannical Biden with his rule-by-fiat via ‘executive order’ and a Biden-weaponized-against-the-American-people government and use of anti-gun orgs embedded in the deceptively titled “White House Office Of Gun Violence Prevention’ – to ‘self-interpret’ to create in effect unconstitutional ‘defacto law’. The ATF used that ‘self-interpret’ to, without actual evidence of a crime or probable cause, get a fishing expedition no-knock search warrant and send a fully armed hostile ATF para-military tactical team eager to pull the trigger to raid a home in darkness looking exactly like a criminal home invasion without actually identifying them selves and they proceeded to ‘murder’ an innocent peaceful man who had committed no crime at all trying to defend his home and wife from what was for all practical purposes in effect, and looked exactly like, a criminal home invasion, and then threaten to shoot his wife and proceeded to terrorize her.
Why wasn’t that addressed in the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ ?
and while I’m talking about the ‘safer communities act’ (SCA)…
Its got nothing to do with ‘safer communities’ in reality, sure, its got that name and the hype but in reality it was created to be one big permission-slip for the anti-gun democrats to do just what they wanted when they wanted under the guise of saying ‘its the law’ when in reality it will let them self-interpret under it to do anything they want for guns and not only that but to affect other constitutional rights as well. The democrats were so assured in their minds and dreamed they would get another democrat congress and president this time around, they believed their own false hype, and if they did get their dream they would have exploited the heck out of the SCA permission slip to basically muzzle and relegate to ‘permission status’ the 2A, 1A, 4th A, using the claims of “‘safer communities’ and ‘its the law so we just enforcing the law’.
Of course the anti-gun cheer it, and pro-2A/gun abhor it and for good reason too. That’s to be expected. But it should really be hated by any American citizen. It set a precedence that constitutional rights can be controlled or denied by being able to create a law that’s exploitable to allow government to do what it wants with a constitutional right and then claim ‘its the law’. It was already bad enough, but to create what is basically a ‘permission slip and do what ever you want’ for government with the SCA? What happens when the government decides they want more control over the 1st amendment, or the 5th, or the 10th, of any other constitutional right? Well, the SCA is the blueprint for it.
That abomination needs to go away. Its a threat to every American – gun owner or not, pro-2A or not, anti-gun or not.
There’s a much bigger picture here that’s being ignored, at some point its going to come back to bite us in the butt.
Everyone was screaming “We want suppressors and short barreled rifles and no NFA! Yeah…Big Beautiful Bill”.
That was fine, I did it too. I’m very happy congress did this. But I also see a much bigger picture here with a lot of moving parts that are being ignored, and overall, although seemingly monumental and is considering the context, these provisions in the BBB are just a very small portion of that picture. We need to put a ‘stake through the heart’ of the anti-gun movement ‘vampire’ that’s been slowly over time ‘sucking the blood’ out of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and it still continues today even with this BBB if it suceeds. We need to do that because they are not going to stop with just the 2A, that was just the warm up all these years, refining strategy and methods over time for what worked and what didn’t to affect a constitutional right, slowly ‘redefining’ and getting it accepted in courts and law to set precedence for what can be done to a constitutional right. They have already applied the same techniques in attempts to control other constitutional rights, and if they are successful in time eventually our children’s children will not have a country with constitutional rights but rather a country with ‘government controlled permissions’ or no constitutional rights at all. And that’s what these anti-gun group hierarchy and politicians are really working towards, the 2A was just the most ’emotionally exploitable’ by them into which they could ‘shoehorn’ their anti-constitution arguments to get precedence set.
We need to put a ‘stake through the heart’ of the anti-gun movement ‘vampire’ that’s been slowly over time ‘sucking the blood’ out of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, they will eventually want more ‘blood’ and go after the other constitutional rights and all Americans will suffer then.
As far as challenges to a repeal of the NFA as affecting cans, SBR’s, and SBS’s that is NOT bottomed on the Byrd Rule, none of the arguments you postulate would even survive a motion to dismiss.
The “states’ rights” position went down in flames decades ago . . . indeed, if it were accepted, then virtually ALL federal regulations of firearms (apart from regulation of interstate transactions) go away. See the State of Texas’ recent effort to argue the 100% “made in Texas, sold in Texas, possessed only in Texas” cans could not be regulated under the NFA because they were not in “interstate commerce” and thus solely the province of state power — it failed because of the awful Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS precedent (which essentially said everything ultimately affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated by the feds). Even the most diehard leftist judge isn’t going to want to undermine the precedent that is the foundation of the overreach in federal regulation of the economy that occurred in the wake of Wickard.
As far as the argument that the dereg was passed as part of reconciliation, I’ve already repeatedly explained why that doesn’t fly. District judges simply don’t have jurisdiction (and no party has standing) to challenge whether the Senate followed its own rules (which, BTW, the Senate can change or suspend — that’s basic parliamentary procedure (see Roberts’ Rules)).
Will the usual anti-gun state kick a fuss? Of course. But now we have a DoJ that has already served warning that attempts by state and local politicians to infringe 2A rights will be treated as attempts to infringe federal civil rights. Faced with potential personal liability (or even criminal charges), I suspect a more muted response that you posit.
Bottom line: if the BBB passes as it currently is posited in the Senate, the case to judicially overrule the dereg of cans, SBR’s, and SBS’s would be extremely weak. That’s not to say that you won’t see a whack job like Breyer try and enjoin it, but like Breyer’s effort to interfere in PDT’s calling out the California NG, those will swiftly be stayed and ultimately vacated.
“The “states’ rights” position went down in flames decades ago”
No it didn’t. Its alive and well today. If it wasn’t (for 2A), anti-gun states would not have been able to argue for what they wanted to do, and basically the biggest example of this is the Bruen decision which in one aspect said basically ‘Yes, you can have a permit thing in one aspect but not another aspect’ and today well call this ‘shall issue’ because a state has a right to have a permit available if they want – that’s states rights. And the arguments for a states rights still continue today in courts over things 2A related, for example, 18-20 year old carry for which a circuit split just happened, the anti-gun states basically argue its their right to deny 18-20 year old carry. The “states’ rights” position arguments are alive and well in the courts today, heck, just look at how often the 9th circuit sides with the state who at the foundation of their argument is basically saying ‘we have a right to do this, its in the states interest cause ‘ – that’s a states rights argument.
“As far as challenges to a repeal of the NFA as affecting cans, SBR’s, and SBS’s that is NOT bottomed on the Byrd Rule, none of the arguments you postulate would even survive a motion to dismiss. ”
Once again, I’m not talking about the Byrd Rule and I’m not talking about a ‘motion to dismiss’. And every argument I postulated has worked at one time or another to affect something to do with the 2A, and they are still active in courts and practice today.
“As far as the argument that the dereg was passed as part of reconciliation, I’ve already repeatedly explained why that doesn’t fly.”
Huh? I mean its right there in the ‘proverbal’ ‘black and white’. Without the reconciliation bill, there would have been no ‘dereg’ (which I think is the wrong term and concept to use here but ok, you use it so I will too).
ya know, I started replying with Geoff PR where the context was just what he asked about, the states. That was my original context too, and I stuck with that. You jumped in with Byrd Rule and went along those lines. I appreciate you engaging, and have enjoyed your comments a lot over time, and even the ones here now. But I think you are going into a different context here that I did not intend to get into which is why I stayed with actions of anti-gun states (and by related extension anti-gun in a broader sense as I’ve written) as they are the most ‘present’ threat to these 2A provisions being enjoyed by all unhindered or burdened as theses states have done to other 2A related stuff.
Are you saying for a fact (because it sure sounds like it), that anti-gun states will not try to stop or ‘impede/burden’ these provisions and can not stop or ‘impede/burden’ these provisions in their actions in court or in their own states action in the state?
We (meaning GOA) Answer Your Questions About Gutting The NFA In The Big Beautiful Bill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6tDlnzZa3Q
Major Development in the Suppressor Saga.
“While there is 1,001 things going on with the reconcilliation act, today, Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, focuses on some signifant changes to the legal landscape related to suppressors, primarily in the 5th Circuit, which traditionally treats the Second Amendment pretty well. Until of course they ruled that suppressors are not even protected by the Second Amendment in the matter of United States v. Peterson. That not only shocked everyone, but imagine what those promoting civilian disarmament could do with bad case law such as that. Well, it appears that the DOJ has backed off their position and in turn, so has the 5th Circuit.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vqTkF3Zj4Y
NOW: Circuit Split On 18-20 Year Old Bans… Judge ROASTS Everytown For Hints Of Racism, Sexism, etc. (note: circuit split – going on to SCOTUS I guess).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAXTBaUfuPI
Gun Owners Deserve Freedom To Enjoy the Sound of Silencers.
https://reason.com/2025/06/18/gun-owners-deserve-freedom-to-enjoy-the-sound-of-silencers/
End to Taxes, Registration on Most NFA Items Faces a Weekend Byrd Bath.
“Donald Trump has said he wants to see his One Big Beautiful Bill hit the Resolute desk in the Oval Office by July 4th, and though it remains to be seen whether Republicans in the House and Senate will be able to meet that deadline, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has set an aggressive schedule in the upper chamber, with a goal of having the full Senate cast its first procedural vote on the bill by the middle of next week.
For gun owners, the biggest question is whether the language removing the tax and registration requirement on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “any other weapons” will survive the Senate parliamentarian’s scrutiny of the bill. Politico reports the Byrd bath, as it’s colloquially known, will begin in earnest this weekend.
…
Punchbowl News reports that Democrats are planning on challenging about 60 provisions in the text offered by the Senate Finance Committee, and the language that would remove the taxation and registration requirements for most NFA items is among their their targets. Supporters of the language have expressed confidence that the measures will survive the Byrd Bath, with Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia telling Fox News that the ‘taxation and registration of firearms under the draconian NFA are inseparably linked,’ and therefore should easily fit within the reconciliation guidelines.
Over at The Reload, Stephen Gutowski isn’t quite as confident. Gutowski notes that while the Senate language is more expansive than what was approved by the House, which only dealt with suppressors, it’s likely more ‘vulnerable to an adverse ruling from the parliamentarian’ because the language from the Finance Committee doesn’t separate the elimination of the tax requirement from the provisions delisting the NFA items.
…”
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/06/20/end-to-taxes-registration-on-most-nfa-items-faces-a-weekend-byrd-bath-n1229008
Bring it on. If it passes, all my AR pistols will become SBR’s in two days. I’ll waste my kids inheritance on suppressors. Heck, I might even put an SBR in my trunk. Now, I would fear the State Patrol, since they have arrested people for SBR’s when they had a legal pistol. But I have my doubts that any such bill would ever pass. Too many libtards.
.