The fact that the National Firearms Act has been defended as a tax on gun ownership by the federal government in court cases down through the decades since its passage in 1934 didn’t seem to sway the Senate Parliamentarian. Late last night, Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that both the SHORT Act or the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns, and suppressors from the NFA, violate the Senate’s Byrd rule.
Senate Democrats had pressured the Parliamentarian to pull the two gun-related measures along with other features of the bill (like school vouchers) they claim will end life as we know it if they become law.
With the measures ruled out under the Byrd rule, keeping the SHORT act and the HPA — along with others MacDonough has ruled out — in the One Big Beautiful Bill would mean it longer qualifies under the Senate’s budget reconciliation rules and would require 60 votes to pass. That isn’t happening. And Senate Majority Leader John Thune has announced that he has no intention of using the so-called nuclear option to overrule the Parliamentarian and push forward anyway.
Probably the best remaining option at this point would be the House-passed measure that would leave silencers regulated under the NFA, but would eliminate the $200 tax stamp. That language could still be inserted by the Senate — and submitted to the Parliamentarian — before they pass the final bill. Alternately, the Senate could pass the B³ as is (with no NFA-related language at all) and the provision eliminating the tax stamp could then be added in the conference with the House that will reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill once each side has passed it.
The American Suppressor Association had this to say . . .
“Let’s not mince words – the Senate Parliamentarian got this wrong,” said Knox Williams President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “Removing suppressors and short-barreled firearms from the NFA tax scheme directly impacts revenues and is unquestionably compliant with the rules of reconciliation. This seemingly politically motivated decision was undoubtedly influenced by fearmongering and disinformation by radical liberals and anti-gun activists. In stripping these provisions from the One Big Beautiful Bill, the parliamentarian has unilaterally overruled the majority of lawmakers in both chambers of Congress who would have voted to remove these critical hearing protection devices from this unconstitutional tax regime.
The American Suppressor Association, alongside our Congressional allies and coalition partners, are exploring every available option and will provide updates as they happen.
Stay tuned.
Anything pertaining to guns is special doncha’know.
Always the exception to every ruling, process and precedent.
The most favorable outcome for the vast majority of our ruling elite is always toward restriction.
When the outcome has been predetermined we get all sorts of contradictory and nonsensical justifications to arrive there.
There’s no reason to not go nuclear. There is a now 100% chance the other party will absolutely go nuclear when they are able using the excuse that they’ll have to “save democracy” from all that Trump has done or “ensure democracy” against future Trumps.
But doncha know “if we do that, then they’ll do that.”
Actually, as we have witnessed in the past decade, they will do anything they can get away with regardless of precedent.
It might be time to go after Thune.
Sounds to me like the parliamentarian needs to be replaced.
What’s the procedure?
“Anything pertaining to guns is special doncha’know.”
All is not lost, there remains a few ways forward to correct that injustice :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-9StmmiZyc
Yep, kinda thought it would happen and posted about it. A few days ago those were good to go, but they adopted the ‘compromise/sacrifice’ option to avoid the Byrd 60 vote thing.
BAD NEWS! Senate Parliamentarian PULLS NFA Language From Big Beautiful Bill! Next Steps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TMBISFMLZg
Shockingly surprising and completely unexpected, a left wing court has moment of sanity: WI Leftist-Led Supreme Court Rejects Dems’ ‘Overtly Political’ Scheme.
“The court unanimously rejected lawsuits seeking to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries more to the left’s liking.
…”
https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/27/wi-leftist-led-supreme-court-rejects-dems-overtly-political-scheme/
that’s pretty kickass on it’s face.
Kick-ass and shocking, considering the source…
Did Thune say that before or after she removed SHORT and HPA?
I’d like to hear an honest, professional legal opinion on this.
I imagine that the U.S. Senate Parliamentarian is claiming that the U.S. Senate’s Byrd rule only allows removing the associated taxes or fees associated with suppressors and rifles and shotguns with “short” barrels–thus prohibiting any amendments (which includes removal) to the legal definitions and processes to acquire said items.
I have no idea if that is consistent with the intent and historical application of the U.S. Senate’s Byrd rule or not.
Reconciliation was not always a thing. But during the first several years’ experience with reconciliation, the legislation contained many provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of implementing budget resolution policies. The reconciliation submissions of committees included provisions that had no budgetary effect or increased spending or reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced
spending or increased revenues, or that violated another committee’s jurisdiction. But this was largely ignored, thus creating an exploit. The biggest users of this exploit were democrats who used it further ‘social programs’ and support ‘pork barrel’ spending in their districts, and there were republicans that used this exploit too.
Then came Senator Robert C. Byrd. He was a democrat senator, but ‘far right democrat’ instead of ‘all left wing democrat’ (beyond moderate and middle/center lines leaning towards more, what we have today called ‘independent’).
In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd) on a temporary basis as a means of curbing these practices. The Byrd rule was extended and modified several times over the years. In 1990, the Byrd rule was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as Section 313 and made permanent (2 U.S.C. 644).
The Byrd Rule only applies in the Senate. The house does not have a comparable rule. When members of the house discuss the Byrd Rule they are doing so in the context of how it will impact the reconciliation bill in the senate. If a preponderance of provisions violate the Byrd Rule, there is a risk of the full legislation being ruled not a reconciliation bill and thus losing its privileged status in the Senate. This is a subjective determination and there is no firm cutoff number for how many offending provisions removes the bill from being reconciliation status. This is part of what the senate wants to avoid though along with the 60 vote thing. If either of those happen, everything is lost and nothing gets through.
There are 6 tests of the Byrd Rule the reconciliation must pass to remain in the bill – a provision of a reconciliation bill is considered extraneous and subject to a point of order (meaning the Parliamentarian can remove them):
1. Does not produce a change in outlays or revenues or a change in the terms and conditions under which outlays are made or revenues are collected.
2. Produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions.
3. Is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure.
4. Produces a change in outlays or revenues that is ‘merely incidental’ to the non-budgetary components of the provision.
5. Would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the budget window covered by the reconciliation measure.
6. Recommends changes to Social Security.
The last one, #6, is what overall motivated Senator Byrd to introduce the Byrd Rule bill. At the time democrats were wanting to change social security to reduce the amount of social security paid to recipients if they also had income from other retirement plans, and levy a tax increase on those recipients for their income from the other retirement plans – they wanted to use the reconciliation exploit to do it.
But, extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation can be included and it doesn’t need to be all that of the six rules. It was legitimate to add the HPA and SHORT act to the BBB. However, there is a sort of #7 rule for the reconciliation process and that is the opposition can ‘lobby’ the Parliamentarian to very strictly interpret the ‘extraneous’ even though the opposition is not really suppose to influence (its not strictly forbidden, and it happens) the Parliamentarian but rather let the Parliamentarian reach their decision based upon the rules and that which is permitted. The democrats did exactly this, they lobbied the Parliamentarian and the HPA and SHORT were removed even though a few days ago it was at that time good to go and the Parliamentarian did not remove it. When the opposition successfully lobbies the Parliamentarian it forces the other side to either ‘compromise/sacrifice’, or employ some of the other methods to get around this by ‘over ruling’ the Parliamentarian in some manner (including ‘firing’ them). But employing the other methods does not get rid of the Byrd Rule requirements so a risk of 60 votes would still exist, and if they did not remove stuff they risked having the bill lose its reconciliation status – so its ‘compromise/sacrifice’ to save the bill.
“I’d like to hear an honest, professional legal opinion on this.”
Go to the ‘Four Boxes Diner’ YouTube channel, constitutional lawyer Mark does a breakdown.
TL,DR, Dirty pool…
“MASSIVE BREAKING JUST NOW: NFA REMOVAL BLOCKED BY SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN RULES…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAd3XIurlCg
House & Senate R’s Call FOR FIRING PARLIMENTARIAN | Even RINO’s Are Pissed Right Now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdu7XXiPOig
Supreme Court CRUSHES Universal Injunctions! Judge Ketanji BLOWN OUT! Lawfare Lawyers LOSE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTtToYr4Cg
‘Giant Win’: Trump Reacts to SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Ruling.
”
…
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against courts trying to usurp executive authority by issuing nationwide injunctions regarding leftists’ warped version of ‘birthright citizenship,’ and Donald Trump called it a ‘monumental victory.’
The 14th Amendment aimed to ensure all former slaves and their children were citizens of the USA; it was never meant to allow anyone from any country to walk a few feet across the border, give birth, and have a citizen child. As Donald Trump fights to return our system to the proper understanding of birthright citizenship, rogue judges have tried to stop him. But the Supreme Court put a stop to that Friday, and Trump is thrilled, posting that the ruling was a ‘GIANT win’ against the ‘SCAMMING of our Immigration process.’
…”
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/06/27/giant-win-trump-reacts-to-scotus-birthright-citizenship-ruling-n4941231
BREAKING SCOTUS NEWS JUST NOW: MASSIVE WIN FOR TRUMP!
“Today, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that ‘universal injunctions’ can no longer be used by district courts. Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner, discusses…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-2FN-NBRI
Breaking: In 6-3 Ruling, Supreme Court Affirms Texas’ Right To Protect Children From Online Obscenity.
“…
On the last day of its 2024 term, … (Today, Friday 27 June 2025) “… the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision … to uphold a Texas age verification law aimed at protecting children from online obscenity.
…
https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/27/in-6-3-ruling-supreme-court-affirms-texas-right-to-protect-children-from-online-obscenity/
Breaking: Supreme Court Allows Parents To Opt Children Out Of LGBT Propaganda In School.
“Alito noted in the opinion that the curriculum was designed to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexual unions and ‘transgender’ ideology.
…
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled Friday …” (June 27 2025) “… that parents are allowed to opt their children out of homosexual and ‘transgender’ propaganda in school, noting that a school district forcing young children to be confronted with the perverse sexual program violates parents’ religious liberty.
The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, arose from a group of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, seeking to remove their young children from course material that ‘tells children as young as 3 or 4 to look for ‘underwear,’ ‘leather,’ ‘[drag] king,’ and ‘[drag] queen’ in a ‘pride’ parade,’ and actively advocates gay marriage, ‘transgender’-identifying children, and that a ‘gender identity’ can change at any moment.
…
The Supreme Court decided that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction — meaning they can pull their children out of the instruction — as their lawsuit proceeds. The three left-wing justices on the court issued a dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
…”
https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/27/supreme-court-allows-parents-to-opt-children-out-of-lgbt-propaganda-in-school/
Breaking (Yesterday actually): SCOTUS rules that … States Can Cut Off Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid Money.
“…
Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a big and potentially fatal loss for Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider. …
The case decided today is called Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and it arose out of South Carolina. The decision says that states can cut off abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds for non-abortion services.
…
At issue was a provision of the federal Medicaid law that guarantees Medicaid patients the ability to choose their doctors, or in the words of the statute, they are entitled to “any qualified and willing provider.” South Carolina, however, maintained that it could disqualify Medicaid providers for “any reason that state law allows.” Or as Gov. Henry McMaster, … put it, ‘Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs.’
…”
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2025/06/26/supreme-court-cuts-to-planned-parenthood-are-fine-n3804202
Time for Thune to grow a spine and just fire the Parliamentarian. She doesn’t have any sort of tenure or job protection, and serves at the will of the majority.
Why the GOP Senate majority believes it has to be told what to do by a Harry Reid apparatchik is beyond me.
“Time for Thune to grow a spine and just fire the Parliamentarian. She doesn’t have any sort of tenure or job protection, and serves at the will of the majority. ”
OK, how do we best jump-start the process?
Unfortunately, Thune has issued a statement saying he won’t fire the Parliamentarian, nor seek a vote to overrule her.
Utterly spineless and cowardly.
The strategic thing to do would have been to immediately replace her as soon as the Republicans had control of the Senate. She’s already been there through both R and D control. They could have completely avoided this. Republicans don’t seem to understand how things work, even after the deep state fiascos during Trump 1.0 and the tyrannical nonsense during the Puppet admin.
It would look bad to replace her right now. Since they’re already in this situation, then replace her later this year after this settles down. She’s been there long enough. It’s reasonable to give someone else a shot.
Maybe they’ll get another chance to pass some things before the mid terms. It’s time to lobby Thune.
Agreed that they should have replaced her on Day 1. Nevertheless, politics ain’t beanbag. She’s a political creature who just put the lie to the fiction that she is just an impartial advisor to the Senate. That should have immediate consequences.
The GOP isn’t known as the Stupid Party for nothing.
Called my Senators and McConnell’s congressman that is nominally mine and told them to oppose the bill. No reason to pass this pile of pork anymore.
“Called my Senators and McConnell’s congressman that is nominally mine and told them to oppose the bill. No reason to pass this pile of pork anymore.”
Gun stuff wasn’t the only thing in the bill. Its got significant tax cuts, spending reductions, and provisions for border security, among other reforms. It aims to make permanent many tax benefits from previous legislation and introduces new measures affecting and improving healthcare and changes to defense spending, and reigning in excessive, or stopping, spending on stupid wasteful stuff and now-useless stuff that’s costing us billions of $$$ annually.
Personally I’d like the significant tax cuts, and tax benefits from previous legislation to continue, actually anyone who pays income tax would if they had any sense – without it your taxes are going to increase.
Yes, it does need to pass. Without it passing out of senate it can’t be reconciled with the house version – without that reconciliation the entire effort is dead. And in the house version during reconciliation the NFA language stuff taken out now in the senate version can be added back into the house version as its clearly tax related and the house doesn’t have a Byrd rule in the house. But the house can’t add the language back in the house bill version unless the senate bill gets passed.
The senate bill is not the Big Beautiful Bill. The BBB is the hybrid bill produced from the reconciliation of the senate and house versions in conference. It takes both the senate and house versions to have this bill doing it by the reconciliation process, without the senate version passing there is no bill. So yes, you want the senate version to pass even without the NFA stuff for now as the NFA stuff can be added back in the house bill in conference.
One of my senators sent me an email today thanking me again for contacting her previously. She restated her support for the SHORT Act. In other words, don’t blame her.
Why does one unelected person get to dictate this? Parliamentarian, sounds like something they’d have in England. We don’t have a parliament, we have the best Congress money can buy.
The Parliamentarian can be FIRED, read LKB’s comment above…
Yes the Parliamentarian can be fired. It may not be the best move though unless it can be proven the Parliamentarian is acting in a biased and/or unfair manner. Other wise it would look like the Republicans were trying to circumvent the law which the Byrd rule thing is. Plus, if the Parliamentarian were fired the bill would be forced to a 60 vote and we want to avoid that if possible.
The Parliamentarian does seem biased here though. The HPA and SHORT were blessed to stay in a few days ago then suddenly after lobbying by democrats they are not permitted.
But overall though, yeah, I think the Parliamentarian should be fired of they are biased which it appears they are
Its not a violation of law to do it, and it’s permitted.
The democrats would claim the Republicans were ‘lawless’ and the ‘No Kings’ idiots would scream about it. But in reality its permitted and is not a law violation to do it.
The democrats have done far worse and intentionally violated the law for the last four years facilitating and aiding
the Biden tyranny to do actual harm to the country – and American citizens actually died and multiple thousands of lives ruined and familys torn apart and lively hoods and small businesses ruined and the economy ruined and billions in tax payer $$$ stolen – directly and intentionally because of that tyranny. The democrats did not want to reign in King Bidens rule by fiat in weaponizing government against the people, now they want to scream ‘No Kings’ because Trump is trying to undo the damage the King Biden tyranny did. It was expected they would do this.
But yeah, we need this bill to pass to begin to undo at least some of the damage done by the democrats. If that means having to fire the Parliamentarin to do it then fire the Parliamentarian.
Politically, they missed their opportunity to replace her when they gained control of the Senate. It would probably look bad to replace her now. You don’t want to negatively impact the mid term elections. Thune wouldn’t go for it anyway. I say replace her later this year. That’s reasonable. Lobby Thune.
The Parliamentarian function is basically there as a ‘rules’ arbitrator. There are rules for the Byrd act as to what can or can not be in a reconciliation bill. It has nothing to do with a Parliament.
The Parliamentarian is also suppose to be ‘impartial’ only concentrating on the bill and not leaning towards one side or the other. But they can be lobbied and influenced. In this case, even with gun stuff aside, it seems the democrats did successfully lobby and influence because all the stuff removed so far could be included under the six rules (with exception of a few items, types of which were traditionally permitted under the ‘extraneous’ category).
It is rather odd that after all the work of the House and Senate that one person can destroy legislation. Where are the no queens people!
In the End, Everyone Hated the Iranian Theocracy (… except, mostly, left wingers like Miner49er and a lot of democrat politicians)
https://pjmedia.com/victor-davis-hanson/2025/06/27/in-the-end-everyone-hated-the-iranian-theocracy-n4941209
GOP Grows a Spine: Sidesteps Senate Parliamentarian to Stop Food Stamps for Illegals.
https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2025/06/26/snap-benefits-for-illegals-big-beautiful-bill-n2414812
The Hearing Protection Act isn’t just about taxes or even the 2nd Amendment. As a Vietnam veteran that lost some hearing and is getting worse with age, wake up people! Quit denying and taxing our citizens a means to enjoy shooting sports and yes, protect our hearing.
Make NO Mistake…This is *the* final line in the sand for many of us not just myself
If they bend us over and give this away I am *DONE* playing the “lesser of 2 evils” game and will never again support the RNC or its liars and cowards…
I’ll take it a step further and start voting Blue down ballot to pour gasoline on the dumpster fire…
F*** This E N T I R E Administration and its brainless supporters for putting us in this position
well sure, that seems like a reasonable position. good on ya.
The parliamentarian needs to be removed. Her biased decisions go aginst the constitution, congress and the will of the people.
BASICALLY WE GUN OWNERS ARE GETTING THE SHAFT AGAIN FROM THOSE WHO PROFESS TO BE OUR FRIENDS!@#$%^&*()_+
THE HELL WITH THE NRA
THE HELL WITH REPUBLICANS
THE HELL WITH DONALD TRUMP AND THOSE WHO SUCCEED HIM IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
THE HELL WITH THE PARLIMENTARIAN
THE HELL WITH ANYONE WHO SAYS THEY ARE A FRIEND OF GUN OWNERS
YOU ARE ALL LIARS AND CON MEN AND WOMEN!!!!
YOUR ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO POLITICS TO HAVE POWER AND GET RICH AND IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE YOU ARE DAMNED LIARS
THE ONLY ONES WORKING ON OUR SIDE IS GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remove the parliamantarian.
She has not been elected py a vote. Senators choose bills she shouldnt have any choice on what is in or out. Are American so cowardly to allow this manipulation ???. Stand up and demand her choices be ignored and her post removed.