Big Beautiful Bill Scraps Tax On Sawed-Off Shotguns & Short-Barreled Rifles

[mab22]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/big-beautiful-bill-scraps-al-capone-era-tax-sawed-shotguns-short-barreled-rifles

 

One of the things that should annoy you is that there is the house, the president, and the senate and 1 other person, not listed in the constitution, standing in the way of your liberties. The "Parliamentarian", if they, the "Parliamentarian" don't like the language or if it doesn't pass the Byrd rule, or some other bull crap, it doesn't pass muster and can't be included. They pulled the same excuse with removing the Obamacare tax, "aww shucks the Parliamentarian said the language was not rite and gee wilikers we are just powerless to do anything... 

 

So until it's passed in the House and Senate, don't get too excited.

 

Democrats are the cause of all of our problems, but the Republican's are not always the solution!

 

Quote

On Monday, the Senate Finance Committee released the current text for the Reconciliation Bill, also known as the "Big Beautiful Bill."

In the text, Republican Senators have removed Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns and "Any Other Weapons" (a catch-all term used to restrict other types of firearms not originally covered by the NFA) from the taxation, and therefore the entire tax scheme of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

 

Now, the next step for the bill is to pass the Senate's infamous "Byrd Rule." A process where provisions in a bill are tested to see if they are primarily tax-focused or policy-focused.

If a provision is primarily policy-focused, it fails the test, and the provision is stripped from the bill.

Thankfully, the proposed changes to the NFA should pass the Byrd rule process with flying colors—as long as the Senate Parliamentarian is honest and unbiased in her ruling.

That's because the NFA is primarily a tax. 

 

 

[John Q Public]

Democrats are the cause of all of our problems, but the Republican's are not ever the solution!

[mab22]

There appears to be much consternation around the bill in general.

Has anyone checked to see if the ATF tax stamp has made the cut or not?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/senate-gops-big-beautiful-bill-brink-tax-clashes-medicaid-cuts-and-parliamentarian-delays

Quote

Senate Republicans are in panic mode this week, frantically rewriting their so-called “big, beautiful bill” before a planned Thursday Friday vote, but the trillion-dollar package is sagging under the weight of internal brawls, Medicaid landmines, and the looming judgment of the Senate parliamentarian, Politico reports.

 

GOP leaders insist they’re on track to start voting Thursday, but senators emerging from a tense closed-door briefing Monday night admitted that major parts of the megabill, including key tax language and Medicaid provisions, remain in flux, and the final text still hasn’t been released.

“I think we’ll eventually pass something, I just can’t tell you when,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said bluntly. “We’ve got a lot of stuff to work out, and the bill will be changed on the floor.”

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leftist-senate-parliamentarian-cuts-immigration-enforcement-other-items-gop-megabill

Quote

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough (D) has booted several major provisions from the Republican megabill to enact President Trump's agenda - including language which would authorize states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement (which are traditionally duties of the federal government). 

 

The reason - whatever's in the bill needs to adhere to the "Byrd Rule" - named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV-KKK Exalted Cyclops-Hillary Clinton's Mentor) - and which requires that bills passed via reconciliation (a two-stage legislative process that allows the majority party to pass legislation while avoiding a filibuster) must relate to the federal budget, government revenue, and the national debt. 

 

Another provision stripped out of the bill was the nonapplication of civil service protections for new federal employees - which would have reduced their pay if they didn't agree to be "at-will" employees. Civil service rules notably make it difficult to fire longtime federal employees, while the Trump administration has done just that through recommendations made through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), of probationary employees.

 

[Upholder]

Removal of the tax on and the presence in the NFA of suppressors and short barreled rifles and shotguns is, as of now, included in the bill.

 

At the moment, it is being reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule (which requires that it be revenue focused).  The parliamentarian has not yet returned a ruling on the NFA related items, but is expected to soon(tm).

[djmarkla]

I can't believe that the name of the rule has not been changed. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 6/24/2025 at 1:51 PM, djmarkla said:

I can't believe that the name of the rule has not been changed. 

 

The Grand Wizard

[ScottFM]

FWIW: 

 

A Parliamentarian has been appointed by the Speaker in every Congress since 1927. In the 95th Congress the House formally established an Office of the Parliamentarian to be managed by a nonpartisan Parliamentarian appointed by the Speaker (2 U.S.C. 287). The compilation and distribution of the precedents of the House are authorized by law (2 U.S.C. 28 et seq.). The current Parliamentarian is Jason Smith. He succeeds Thomas J. Wickham Jr. (2012-2020), John V. Sullivan (2004-2012), Charles W. Johnson III (1994–2004), William Holmes Brown (1974–1994), and Lewis Deschler (1928–1974).

Constitutional Authority

The parliamentary law of the House of Representatives emanates from the Constitution, specifically article I, section 5. These rules include not only the standing rules adopted from Congress to Congress but also Jefferson's Manual. They also include rules enacted as law and special rules adopted from time to time. On this foundation rests a body of precedent established by decisions of presiding officers on actual parliamentary questions or by long custom and tradition.

Nonpartisan

The Parliamentarian is appointed by the Speaker without regard to political affiliation. The Office of the Parliamentarian, and its subsidiary Office of Compilation of Precedents, comprise lawyers and clerks who provide nonpartisan assistance on legislative and parliamentary procedure to the Speaker, presiding officers, and the House.

 

The Principle of Stare Decisis

The overarching role of the Office of the Parliamentarian is to strive for consistency in parliamentary analysis by attempting to apply pertinent precedent to each procedural question. In resolving questions of order, the Speaker and other presiding officers of the House adhere to the jurisprudential principle of stare decisis—a commitment to stand by earlier decisions. This fidelity to precedent promotes analytic consistency and procedural transparency, and thereby fosters legitimacy in parliamentary practice. The Parliamentarian achieves consistency by fidelity to precedent, and achieves transparency through publication of the precedents. The commitment of the House to stand by its procedural decisions requires rigor concerning what constitutes precedent. In the parliamentary context, the term does not refer to a mere instance in which something occurred or was suffered; rather, it refers to a decision or order actually disposing of a question of order.

[mab22]

Not that I want to drift too far off topic.
Mmmmmm no.

as it states, (and this is congress? Senate has a president of the senate?)

Quote

A Parliamentarian has been appointed by the Speaker in every Congress since 1927

Our constitution was created in the late 1700’s, that states 1927, well after the constitution was established, not seeing the parliamentarian as an amendment ratified by the states either.

Second, the article states 

Quote

The parliamentary law of the House of Representatives emanates from the Constitution, specifically article I, section 5.

According to the text of the constitution 

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
Article 1, section 5…. (Not seeing parliamentarian)

Quote

Section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

 

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

 

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

 

[Euler]

Parliamentarian is really not a controversial position. Imagine if the ILGA had one in each chamber, so that they actually followed the legislative rules.

[mab22]

The Illinois rules being broken are directly written in the constitution, 3 readings rule. 

For the senate, the parliamentarian is NOT in the constitution, and as I pointed out, use it as a scapegoat, like Mitch did with the Barry care tax. The Senate can overrule the  parliamentarian, and even re-write a bill to make it comply with the rules. But "OH SHUCKS, what ever can we do about the parliamentarian not liking it.... we are just the senate...."

 

[Upholder]

Last night, the US Senate Parliamentarian ruled that the HPA and SHOT acts did not comport with the Byrd Rule.

 

[ScottFM]

On 6/27/2025 at 7:38 AM, Upholder said:

Last night, the US Senate Parliamentarian ruled that the HPA and SHOT acts did not comport with the Byrd Rule.

 

Which means they can leave it in, but then the Senate needs 60 votes to pass the bill or they can remove it and only need 51 votes to pass. 

[ScottFM]

On 6/25/2025 at 2:25 PM, mab22 said:

The Illinois rules being broken are directly written in the constitution, 3 readings rule. 

For the senate, the parliamentarian is NOT in the constitution, and as I pointed out, use it as a scapegoat, like Mitch did with the Barry care tax. The Senate can overrule the  parliamentarian, and even re-write a bill to make it comply with the rules. But "OH SHUCKS, what ever can we do about the parliamentarian not liking it.... we are just the senate...."

 

Article 1 Section 5 of the US Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules and they adopted within their rules a parlimentarian. So it is there. If they want to get rid of that office, they have the power too. 

[mab22]

On 6/27/2025 at 7:38 AM, Upholder said:

Last night, the US Senate Parliamentarian ruled that the HPA and SHOT acts did not comport with the Byrd Rule.

 

Knew it!
And Thune will probably NOT have it go to a separate vote, and he has the power to overrule the parliamentarian, but he won't.
Just like Barry care, "Gosh! What can we do,  We are powerless...." a non elected bureaucrat provides them cover so they can say it was in the Bill but the parliamentarian would not allow it... 🤷‍♂️

 

[mab22]

On 6/27/2025 at 8:41 AM, ScottFM said:

Article 1 Section 5 of the US Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules and they adopted within their rules a parlimentarian. So it is there. If they want to get rid of that office, they have the power too. 

So they can just make a rule that says they forfeit all power vested in them and give their power to the executive branch?

Edited June 27, 2025 at 01:55 PM by mab22

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

The Senate Parliamentarian's decisions are looking very political, and it started with her conflicting decisions on the medicaid cuts in the BBB.  

 

The first decision was that the work requirements for medicaid recipients were budget related.  The second decision was that noncitizens (illegals) couldn't be kicked off medicaid because that was regulatory.  The problem is that illegals are getting medicaid in some states.  Illegals also can't legally work, so it looks like they won't be subjected to the work requirement so only citizens will be removed, and not illegals. At least that is how it stands now. 

 

Now she comes up with this 180.  She is essentially saying the tax isn't a budget item, it is more of a regulatory item. 

 

It looks more like an effort to sabotage the entire bill with decisions that introduce poison pills. 

[davel501]

On 6/27/2025 at 11:01 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

The Senate Parliamentarian's decisions are looking very political, and it started with her conflicting decisions on the medicaid cuts in the BBB.  

 

The first decision was that the work requirements for medicaid recipients were budget related.  The second decision was that noncitizens (illegals) couldn't be kicked off medicaid because that was regulatory.  The problem is that illegals are getting medicaid in some states.  Illegals also can't legally work, so it looks like they won't be subjected to the work requirement so only citizens will be removed, and not illegals. At least that is how it stands now. 

 

Now she comes up with this 180.  She is essentially saying the tax isn't a budget item, it is more of a regulatory item. 

 

It looks more like an effort to sabotage the entire bill with decisions that introduce poison pills. 

 

If it's regulatory then it undermines Miller. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 6/27/2025 at 11:05 AM, davel501 said:

 

If it's regulatory then it undermines Miller. 

 

I'm not familiar with Miller.  

[soundguy]

On 6/27/2025 at 11:11 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'm not familiar with Miller.  

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

 

 

 

Quote

 

Argued: March 30, 1939

Decided: May 15, 1939

Annotation

Primary Holding

Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

 

 

Quote

 

An indictment in the District Court, Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton

 

"did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4 [§ 5], 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 2, United States Code (June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act,' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

[davel501]

On 6/27/2025 at 11:11 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'm not familiar with Miller.  

 

US v Miller was the case where the government used shenanigans to lock in the NFA with precedent. 

 

From Wikipedia:

 

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.

None of those arguments really hold up at this point, well I guess #2 does. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 6/27/2025 at 11:05 AM, davel501 said:

 

If it's regulatory then it undermines Miller. 

 

 

Okay, now that I know Miller.  (Thanks SG)

 

The problem is that the Senate Parliamentarian's decisions are not subject to judicial review, and carry no legal weight outside of the US Senate. 

 

The Senate leadership could boot her, I think JD Vance could boot her, but that won't happen because  Murky, Collins, etc won't go for it. 

 

[mab22]

So I hear the who bill is heading back to the house for a vote. 
I CERTAINLY HOPE that there is some sort of push back planned if they just accept the will of the Parliamentarian.

My congressman is a die hard commie democrat so I don't have any pull. 

Or I guess everyone can just shrug our shoulders and go awww shucks and kick some dirt.... 😞

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 7/1/2025 at 3:06 PM, mab22 said:

So I hear the who bill is heading back to the house for a vote. 
I CERTAINLY HOPE that there is some sort of push back planned if they just accept the will of the Parliamentarian.

My congressman is a die hard commie democrat so I don't have any pull. 

Or I guess everyone can just shrug our shoulders and go awww shucks and kick some dirt.... 😞

 

Sounds like Casten. 

[soundguy]

On 6/27/2025 at 11:44 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

The problem is that the Senate Parliamentarian's decisions are not subject to judicial review, and carry no legal weight outside of the US Senate. 

 

The Senate leadership could boot her, I think JD Vance could boot her, but that won't happen because  Murky, Collins, etc won't go for it. 

 

The BBB violated the rules of the Senate.

 

Assigning blame to the Senate Parliamentarian, as many folks across the country are doing, helps nothing. The BBB could have been voted on without changes by requiring a 60 vote majority and would never pass that way. The Senate could change their own rules... the Parliamentarian simply advises on how to proceed without changing the rules, which likely require that 60 vote majority.

 

Shopping for a new, more agreeable Parliamentarian probably is not wise, nor is not taking the given advisement.
 

Quote

 

The parliamentarian of the United States Senate is the official advisor to the United States Senate on the interpretation of Standing Rules of the United States Senate and parliamentary procedure. Incumbent parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has held the office since 2012, appointed by then-Senate majority leader Harry Reid.^[2]

As the presiding officer of the Senate may not be, and usually is not, aware of the parliamentary situation currently facing the Senate, a parliamentary staff sits second from the left on the Senate dais to advise the presiding officer on how to respond to inquiries and motions from senators (including "the Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the gallery"). The role of the parliamentary staff is advisory, and the presiding officer of the Senate may overrule the advice of the parliamentarian.

 

An important role of the parliamentarian is to decide what can and cannot be done under the Senate's budget reconciliation process under the provisions of the Byrd Rule.^[2] These rulings are important because they allow certain bills to be approved by a simple majority, instead of the sixty votes needed to end debate and overcome a filibuster.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

[John Q Public]

Moot, we can't buy or sell them, so who cares. Fed is one thing, but we have state bans. It does nothing for us.

[mab22]

Some people still suffering from TDS and now it RDS (Republican Derangement Syndrome). 

 

[davel501]

On 7/2/2025 at 2:01 PM, John Q Public said:

Moot, we can't buy or sell them, so who cares. Fed is one thing, but we have state bans. It does nothing for us.

 

Judicial notice is a powerful thing. Being able to say Congress has made clear the state has it wrong is a very good thing. 

[mauserme]

On 7/2/2025 at 2:01 PM, John Q Public said:

Moot, we can't buy or sell them, so who cares. Fed is one thing, but we have state bans. It does nothing for us.

 

It removes one layer of infringement.  Without removing them a piece at a time, we would never remove any of them (short of a ruling from SCOTUS, perhaps).

 

 

[Jeckler]

When does the tax get eliminated?  When does this become reality?  

[ealcala31]

On 7/2/2025 at 2:01 PM, John Q Public said:

Moot, we can't buy or sell them, so who cares. Fed is one thing, but we have state bans. It does nothing for us.

IL Citizens with a simple FOID Card can own AOWs. I paid for an SOT and sold them with the excellent advice of Benbow. With an ATF C&R License (that anyone can get), IL residents can own SBRs. I have an ATF C&R License and I sell SBRs as well.