NFA deregulation of Suppressors and SBRs removed

[DontreadOnMe556]

Apparently last night, the part that was supposed to de regulate suppressors and Short Barrel rifles from the big beautiful bill was removed by the senate. Hopefully this isn’t the end and republicans can do something about the removal of these things from NFA control. It’s a never ending fight for gun rights

Senate Parliamentarian Strips Silencer, Short-Barrel Shotgun Deregulation From Budget Bill

The Senate’s top rule keeper has determined the effort to delist silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and other guns from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 doesn’t fit within budget reconciliation rules.

thereload.com

 

[Enthused]

Well it looks like people in other states will have to continue waiting 6-12 months in order to pick up their new rifle or pistol can. Life must be rough for them.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Looks like the Democrats removed it....how sad

 

[DontreadOnMe556]

Well it looks like people in other states will have to continue waiting 6-12 months in order to pick up their new rifle or pistol can. Life must be rough for them.

True, but the overall battle for gun rights is everyone’s problem. If this were to pass, we would just need to push for the legalization of those items here in California. Why is it that they’re legal in other states and not here?

California democrats have made progress for years stripping us of gun rights here

 

[DontreadOnMe556]

Looks like the Democrats removed it....how sad

It’s always them

 

[Enthused]

State laws are 95% of the problem here. Even if the other 5% gets overturned and made legal on a Federal level, it will still fall under the 95% here and be completely irrelevant for us anyways.

You are absolutely right. The Democrats in Sacramento (many of whom users on this forum are surprisingly fond of and vote Blue no matter who) who are responsible for stripping away what we no longer have.

 

[General]

It was the Senate Parliamentarian.
A nonelected swamp creature.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) imposes taxes and registration on items like suppressors and short-barreled rifles. The Senate Parliamentarian ruled that a proposal to remove these taxes and requirements violates the Byrd Rule, which limits budget bills to fiscal changes only. This means the proposal can't pass with a simple majority in the current bill and needs 60 votes separately. Gun rights advocates argue it's a tax issue, but the ruling sees it as policy, not budget-related. The provision likely won't pass now, but future standalone bills are possible.
https://x.com/GunOwners
https://x.com/GunOwners

 

[Robdog1]

Oh my heart bleeds for those poor people in free states, life must be so rough for them, especially having to wait to get their toys!

In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet.

 

[SomeOne]

We only need seven Democratic Senators to help fix the issue. So far, we have exactly zero. Keep voting Dem and blame the parliamentarian and GOP.

 

[treelogger]

It was the Senate Parliamentarian.
A nonelected swamp creature.

No, she's a staffer who was appointed by the senate (more accurately, by the speaker), and has served for over a decade, about half the time under a republican speaker with a republican majority. The speaker could replace her (or have replaced her), but they have chosen not to.

Calling her a "swamp creature" is a pointless insult.

 

[skb720]

No, she's a staffer who was appointed by the senate (more accurately, by the speaker), and has served for over a decade, about half the time under a republican speaker with a republican majority. The speaker could replace her (or have replaced her), but they have chosen not to.

Calling her a "swamp creature" is a pointless insult.

Incorrect. This position has nothing to do with the House. The position is appointed by the Senate Majority Leader. The current person was appointed by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Democrat) in 2012.

 

[Jimi Jah]

No matter what the feds do Excremento will keep those illegal here.

 

[morooster]

final bill language is rumored to be released as early as tonight, might even vote on it tomorrow.... when a car crash happens it always happens too fast

 

[Suchar-Enterprises]

Apparently last night, the part that was supposed to de regulate suppressors and Short Barrel rifles from the big beautiful bill was removed by the senate. Hopefully this isn’t the end and republicans can do something about the removal of these things from NFA control. It’s a never ending fight for gun rights

Senate Parliamentarian Strips Silencer, Short-Barrel Shotgun Deregulation From Budget Bill

The Senate’s top rule keeper has determined the effort to delist silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and other guns from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 doesn’t fit within budget reconciliation rules.

thereload.com

It doesn't seem right that one un-elected person has the power to decide what stays in or can removed from from these "tax" related matters. No check or balances on this one. I knew it was too good to be true...

 

[treelogger]

Incorrect. This position has nothing to do with the House. The position is appointed by the Senate Majority Leader. The current person was appointed by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Democrat) in 2012.

So sorry, you're correct, I should have said by the Senate Majority Leader. She was appointed by Reid, but neither McConnell, Schumer or Thune decided to replace her.

 

[Dvrjon]

It doesn't seem right that one un-elected person has the power to decide what stays in or can removed from from these "tax" related matters. No check or balances on this one. I knew it was too good to be true...

The Parlimentarian is appointed by elected officials to do a specific job. If you have an issue with that then you have to start your tirade against everyone appointed by the President.

 

[Robdog1]

The Parlimentarian is appointed by elected officials to do a specific job. If you have an issue with that then you have to start your tirade against everyone appointed by the President.

The parliamentarian was appointed by Harry Reid, who was, you guessed it, a Democrat. The President doesn’t appoint the parliamentarian, the senate majority leader does. I’m failing to see how you equate “everyone appointed by the president” with being appointed by the senate majority leader?

 

[Dvrjon]

The parliamentarian was appointed by Harry Reid, who was, you guessed it, a Democrat. The President doesn’t appoint the parliamentarian, the senate majority leader does. I’m failing to see how you equate “everyone appointed by the president” with being appointed by the senate majority leader?

Your complaint was the Parliamentarian was, “…one non-elected person (with) the power to decide…”. But she was appointed by (Senate) elected leaders.

That describes every, “non-elected person with the power to decide”, appointed by the President. And remember, those appointments need to be approved by the Senate.

The authority “to decide” is delegated through the appointment.

The presiding officer of the Senate may overrule the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Senate majority leader may also fire the Parliamentarian.

But that hasn’t happened to the current Parliamentarian, and although she was appointed by Sen Reid in 2012, she has served at the pleasure of an equal number of D’s and R’s any of whom could have removed her. They didn’t and haven’t.

112th Congress (2011–2013)	Harry Reid (D-NV)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
113th Congress (2013–2015)	Harry Reid (D-NV)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
114th Congress (2015–2017)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	Harry Reid (D-NV)
115th Congress (2017–2019)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
116th Congress (2019–2021)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
117th Congress (2021–2023) 17 17	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
118th Congress (2023–2025)	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
119th Congress (2025–2027)	John Thune (R-SD)	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)

 

[Robdog1]

Your complaint was the Parliamentarian was, “…one non-elected person (with) the power to decide…”. But she was appointed by (Senate) elected leaders.

That describes every, “non-elected person with the power to decide”, appointed by the President. And remember, those appointments need to be approved by the Senate.

The authority “to decide” is delegated through the appointment.

The presiding officer of the Senate may overrule the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Senate majority leader may also fire the Parliamentarian.

But that hasn’t happened to the current Parliamentarian, and although she was appointed by Sen Reid in 2012, she has served at the pleasure of an equal number of D’s and R’s any of whom could have removed her. They didn’t and haven’t.

112th Congress (2011–2013)	Harry Reid (D-NV)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
113th Congress (2013–2015)	Harry Reid (D-NV)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
114th Congress (2015–2017)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	Harry Reid (D-NV)
115th Congress (2017–2019)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
116th Congress (2019–2021)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
117th Congress (2021–2023) 17 17	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
118th Congress (2023–2025)	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
119th Congress (2025–2027)	John Thune (R-SD)	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)

You’re talking to the wrong person here. I never had that complaint, I’m simply pointing out that the President does not appoint the parliamentarian, the majority leader does, so why would you start complaining about POTUS?

 

[bonesurf]

the parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of whomever the senate majority leader is. ie mcconnel or Thune could (have) replaced if they felt like it. this particular parliamentarian has been there for a long time and noone seems to question this person in general. the job is to apply a set of obscure senate "rules" and to make sure that parliamentary "procedure" is followed. it should be telling to everyone that trump gave a very wishy washy answer about what the parliamentarian ruled . also should be telling that Thune and Hawley basically shrugged their shoulders. in the past both sides of the aisle have been "affected" by this (and prior) parliamentarian rulings. it's not a particularly partisan position. now granted. since the "rules" of our democracy/republic suddenly seem a bit more fungible, who knows. but in general this is not considered a "partisan" position. the person in this position tends to be there for long periods of time spanning multiple senate majority leaders.