(This is a rapidly evolving story, I originally authored the morning of June 28th, 2025. By the evening the language had been modified and reinserted into the bill reducing the tax to $0 but keeping the NFA registry. We expect a vote on this bill buy July 4th, 2025)
I like many of you are mad and upset by the Senate Parliamentarian ruling striking the Hearing Protection Act of 2025 (HPA) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT), as it is currently written, from President Trumps “Big Beautiful Bill” which is a budget reconciliation bill. This was not the outcome we wanted, and it’s not completely dead, but it’s not looking good either. After my initial reaction, I have slowly been processing.
I am going to try to look at this pragmatically, the same way I would approach an issue with my rifle, a load, or my truck.
What do we know?
The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) was one of the first major federal firearm regulations. It defined classifications of firearms, accessories and destructive devices. Items like suppressors were caught up in this act. This act created a registry and mandated that a tax was to be paid prior ownership of any item classified as a “NFA” item.
For suppressors, short, barreled rifles, machine guns, and short barreled shotguns. The tax was set at $200 which, when adjusted for inflation, would be about $4800 today. The purpose of the NFA of 1934 was to make owning machine guns, suppressors, short barrel rifles and short barreled shotgun prohibitively expensive to have the effect of outlawing them.
Thankfully, the 1934 NFA contained a bit of a flaw. The $200 fee was spelled out, but no provision was made to adjust for inflation. Today, almost 90 years later, $200 is a complete pain, and a barrier to entry but it is affordable. It’s important for context to know that the 1934 NFA levied a tax. The rules do not outlaw ownership; you are required to provide proof that you paid the tax. Hence the term Tax Stamp. We can get into the arguments around the constitutionality of what is akin to an “Poll tax”.
That is beyond the scope of this commentary. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has upheld the NFA under United States v. Miller (1939) which ruled, in part, that the NFA was constitutional as it fell under Congress’s authority to tax. (I disagree, as I believe it is unconstitutional to tax Rights)
How the department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) decides to enforce this law if via the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which has been created by the department. So while a registry is mandated by the NFA, the submission of fingerprints, the requirement to report when moving across state lines, and the rules governing Trusts and Individual ownership are all completely the machinations of bureaucracy.
House and Senate Proposal
The effort to remove Suppressors from the NFA has been gaining traction as the popularity of Suppressors has soared in the last fifteen years. With the Republican control of all three branches of government, a legislative solution became a real possibility. In order to repeal or significantly change the NFA sixty votes in the Senate is required. Republicans can only muster 53 votes, and we can pretty much rule out any democratic support for the measure.
To get around this requirement the repeal effort was wrapped up in a process known as budget reconciliation. This circumvents the two thirds majority and can be passed with a simple majority vote. The House just barely passed the budget reconciliation package with the Hearing Protection Act included. The rational for including it at part of the reconciliation process is/was built around the fact that the NFA is a tax. Modifying or adjusting taxes is one of the things that can be accomplished via budget reconciliation.
When the reconciliation package entered the senate, senate Republicans revived the SHORT act and included it into the reconciliation bill. This gave hope to millions of 2 advocates that the repeal of NFA tax stamp had some real possibility. That is until parliamentary review.
What is the Byrd Rule?
The Byrd Rule, named after Senator Robert Byrd (D), allows Senators to strike provisions from a reconciliation bill if they do not have a direct budgetary impact, thereby protecting the legislative process from being used to pass unrelated policy changes by simple majority. Bills and provisions which are being put forth under the budget reconciliation process go to the Senate Parliamentarian for review.
Elizabeth MacDonough is the current senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed in 2012 by then Senate Majority leader Harry Ried. The purpose of the Parliamentarian is to guide the presiding officer on what proper process and procedure is. While the office itself is supposed to be nonpartisan, that is rarely the case in national politics. On June 27th, 2025 the senate parliamentarian ruled that both the HPA and the SHORT act, as currently drafted violated the Byrd Rule.
While the exact reason has been hard time come by, the rationale seems to be based on a technicality. The Senate could $0 out the taxes imposed by the NFA through budget reconciliation, but they could not remove the requirement of a registry. It has been implied that a possible rewrite or resubmission of the HPA and the SHORT act may occur prior to the July 4th, 2025 deadline that President Trump has imposed on the passage of this bill. (This is exactly what happened late June 28th, 2025)
The Dangers of Setting Precent
The current senate majority leader, John Thune of South Dakota, could do a couple things. 1. It would be within his power to fire the Parliamentarian.
2. Senator Thune could ignore the advice the Parliamentarian and proceed anyway.
3. or they could either abandon the idea completely or rewrite the provisions to comply with the Byrd Rule.
I have had some time to consider and cool off from the initial upset. This is somewhat difficult for me to admit, so I do so begrudgingly. If the Senators do anything that could be seen as circumnavigating the Byrd rule and push forward with the HPA and SHORT Act as it currently stands, then Republicans are setting precedent that can be used against us.
Most of us understand that there is a political pendulum. This pendulum swings back and forth, sometimes Democrats control the house, and the senate, sometimes Republican do. It is unpredictable, and it has real consequences. In many cases we have been the beneficiaries of a divided government. This has stymied Democrats efforts to enact some serious gun control laws.
If we circumvent the Byrd rule by claiming the budget reconciliation process cannot only remove the NFA Tax but can also delist items from the FA completely. Then we have conceded that the Budget reconciliation process can be used to not only raise the tax but also be expanded to include more than what is currently covered.
This is something that has already been discussed by Democrats. They have floated proposals to significantly increase the NFA tax, to expand the NFA to include so called “Assault Weapons”. They also have been introducing renewed bills for Assault Weapons bans, magazine restrictions and other so called “Gun Control” methods to the point where it is a yearly congressional ritual.
Wrapping it Up
I talked to a coworker recently about the progress of the HPA and the SHORT Act. He expressed his support but also his concern with how it was being done. That it should go through as a separate bill, not though the budget reconciliation mechanism. His reasoning was morally he felt that playing the same flavor of dirty politics that we accuse the Democrats of was wrong. We needed to take the higher road.
I disagreed, I felt like if they were going to play dirty then it was only fair, we pull the same tricks and use the same tactics to run roughshod over them. After all, all is fair in love and war, and this war over our fundamental Rights.
However, it took a moment for me stepping away and separating out my sincere desire for a win, to look at what can of worms we might just be opening. I do not like what I see. I do not like the notion that a precedent set in my favor can be used against me in a manner far more intrusive and consequential. I would rather be protected by a 60-vote threshold, than a pure majority vote.
As I mentioned before, both sides play dirty politics. Republicans and Democrats, there is no one with clean hands. When the Democrats retake both legislative bodies and have the executive, the last thing anyone of use want, is to find ourselves overnight felons because they played the same game.
Jay’s Note: (6/29/2025 – It looks like Trumps Big Beautiful Bill is likely going to pass as it has cleared most of the hurdles. If the taxes on the NFA are changed to $0, but the NFA remains, then it will be largely up to the ATF to change the CFR on how these registrations are processed. Afterall a Tax stamp with zero tax paid in, seems kind of ridiculous. My base concern sill remains. I see it as unlikely that Congress will completely delist Suppressors, SBR’s and SBS’s from the NFA. Which means it only takes a simple majority in a Democrat Majority Congress to raise that tax from $0 to $1 Million.)