The Parliamentarian’s Paradox: Why Killing the HPA May Also Kill the NFA

The Senate Parliamentarian (as expected) has ruled that the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and the SHORT Act do not meet the requirements of the Byrd Rule and must be removed from HR1, also dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). It was a blow to legislation that many in the 2A community had hoped would finally dismantle key portions of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). But the ruling may have done more than block pro-gun reforms—it may have weakened the very foundation of the NFA itself.

The Byrd Rule and the Parliamentarian’s Axe

Under Senate rules, reconciliation bills can bypass a filibuster but must stick to budget-related provisions. The Byrd Rule prohibits measures that are “extraneous” to the budget, and it’s up to the Senate Parliamentarian to interpret what stays and what goes. In this case, Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough deemed that repealing the $200 tax on suppressors and other NFA-regulated items wasn’t primarily budgetary in nature.

That decision didn’t stop with the HPA and SHORT Act. MacDonough went on to remove or revise multiple other provisions in the OBBB, leading us to say she carved the bill up like a Thanksgiving turkey. The surgical removal of Republican policy victories has sparked outrage, particularly within the 2A community.

Senator Thune: No Override, No Firing

Despite the outrage, Senate Republican leadership has shown little appetite for confrontation. Senator John Thune, currently serving as Majority Whip, has stated on multiple occasions that he will not seek to override the Parliamentarian’s ruling or push for her removal.

Can the Vice President Override?

Technically, yes. The Vice President, acting as President of the Senate, can override the Parliamentarian’s ruling. This was famously done by Nelson Rockefeller in the 1970s. But doing so is politically risky and would likely provoke procedural chaos.

Are There Any Other Options?

Possibly. Senate Republicans could attempt to rewrite the HPA and SHORT Act provisions to better fit reconciliation rules—perhaps by focusing solely on the $200 tax itself. That might satisfy the Parliamentarian, but any such revision could leave the rest of the NFA framework intact—maintaining the registration, transfer delays, and background check requirements—while removing only the financial component. In other words, Congress might repeal the tax but leave the red tape.

The NFA Was Always a Tax Law—Until Now?

Here’s where things get interesting. The NFA, enacted in 1934, was sold to the public and the courts as a tax measure—not a gun control law. That distinction was crucial in the Supreme Court case Sonzinsky v. United States, which upheld the NFA on the basis that it was a revenue-raising measure. The $200 tax stamp, the extensive paperwork, and the fingerprints were all wrapped in the language of taxation.

But now, in ruling that repealing this tax does not qualify for reconciliation, the Parliamentarian seems to be arguing that the NFA’s taxes are not primarily about revenue. If that’s the case, then the NFA isn’t a tax law at all—it’s a regulatory law masquerading as one.

A Legal Gift to NFA Lawsuits?

This paradox opens a new line of argument for gun rights attorneys challenging the NFA. If the tax is not really a tax, then the constitutional justification for the law may no longer hold water. In a post-Bruen legal world—where courts must apply text, history, and tradition rather than vague balancing tests—this could be a game-changer.

Gun owners and Second Amendment groups can now argue that even the U.S. Senate no longer views the $200 tax as a legitimate revenue tool. If it’s not budget-related, then what is it? A penalty? A deterrent? A regulatory trap? Any of those interpretations are far more constitutionally vulnerable under Bruen.

Further, if the tax is removed while the registration and transfer requirements remain, it could strengthen constitutional challenges even more. The tax was the linchpin of the NFA’s original legal justification. Without it, the law looks far less like a revenue measure—and far more like a regulatory regime, one that may not survive under Bruen‘s framework and increasingly resembles a clear infringement on Second Amendment rights.

Conclusion: The Parliamentarian’s Paradox

In trying to preserve Senate procedure and limit reconciliation to budgetary items, the Parliamentarian may have done something no gun rights advocate could: admit that the NFA is not really about taxes. That admission could have ripple effects in courtrooms across the country.

The irony is rich. In blocking the repeal of a tax, the Senate may have just undermined the legal foundation of the law that created it. In trying to save the NFA, they may have started its undoing.

It turns out the butcher’s knife cuts both ways.