Why the Senate Parliamentarian Might Kill the HPA and SHORT Acts — And Why It Matters

As HR1 moves through the Senate, gun rights advocates have pinned hopes on two key provisions buried within the larger legislative package: the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act. Both aim to remove suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns from the National Firearms Act (NFA) — effectively ending the $200 tax and long registration delays imposed on these items since 1934.

But before the Senate even gets to a floor vote, a powerful yet little-known figure may quietly decide their fate: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.

---

👩‍⚖️ Who Is the Parliamentarian — and Why Does She Matter?

The Parliamentarian is supposed to be the neutral referee of Senate rules, advising on what can and cannot be included in budget reconciliation bills. Under the Byrd Rule, any provision in a reconciliation bill must directly affect federal spending or revenue — and that effect must not be merely incidental to a broader policy goal.

The kicker? Reconciliation allows a bill to bypass the 60-vote filibuster threshold and pass with a simple majority. That’s why it’s such a strategic battlefield.

Elizabeth MacDonough, who has served as Parliamentarian since she was appointed by Harry Reid in 2012, has earned a reputation for rigid adherence to Senate precedent. And that might spell doom for the HPA and SHORT Act.

---

🔍 The Byrd Rule Test — Will the HPA and SHORT Act Survive?

Let’s break it down.

Requirement	HPA / SHORT Act Status
Direct budgetary impact?	✅ Yes — eliminates the $200 transfer tax and some ATF admin costs.
Not “merely incidental”?	❌ Problematic — primary goal may be viewed as deregulation, not revenue.

While both provisions clearly impact revenue — ending the $200 NFA tax — their main purpose may not be seen as fiscal. These aren’t seen by by the Parliamentarian as tax reforms. They are viewed as regulatory repeals masquerading as budget items to squeeze into reconciliation.

And that’s exactly the kind of thing MacDonough has ruled against in the past.

---

⚠️ A “Tax Law” That Isn’t Really About Taxes — Or Is It?

The NFA was passed in 1934 as a tax law, but in practice, it operates as a gun control statute. The $200 tax was designed to be prohibitive — a workaround to restrict access without running afoul of the Second Amendment (at least in the eyes of the courts at the time). Over time, the tax remained while the NFA evolved into a full-blown regulatory regime enforced by the ATF.

Supporters of the HPA and SHORT Act often argue that the National Firearms Act (NFA) is, at its core, a tax law — and they’re not wrong. In the 1937 Supreme Court case Sonzinsky v. United States, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the NFA by stating:

“Every tax is in some measure regulatory. The provisions of the NFA… are obviously supportable as a revenue measure.”

In other words, the NFA survived constitutional challenge because it was framed as a legitimate exercise of Congress’s taxing power, not as a direct gun control statute. That $200 transfer tax? It’s what justified the federal government’s ability to impose registration, fingerprinting, and transfer restrictions on NFA-regulated firearms like suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

So yes — legally, the NFA is a tax statute.

---

🧠 Precedent: IPAB Repeal in 2015

In 2015, Republicans attempted to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) — a cost-control mechanism in Medicare — through reconciliation. Though IPAB had a clear connection to spending, MacDonough ruled its repeal “extraneous” under the Byrd Rule, as its budget impact was not the primary intent. That single ruling derailed the entire package.

There’s no reason to think she would view the HPA or SHORT Act differently — in fact, she might view the case for disqualifying them as even stronger.

---

🎯 What Could Happen?

If MacDonough rules against the HPA and SHORT Act inclusion:

• The provisions would be stripped from the reconciliation package.
• They’d require 60 votes to pass separately — a near-impossibility in the current Senate.
• Gun rights groups would likely decry the ruling as politically biased, while Democrats would cite Senate norms.

But there are two theoretical options to keep the provisions alive:

1. The Presiding Officer Ignores the Ruling

Technically, the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or any other presiding officer could simply ignore the Parliamentarian’s advice and rule that the provisions stay in. That’s within their power.

However, this hasn’t happened in modern Senate history. Doing so would almost certainly trigger a procedural and political crisis, undermining the Senate’s reputation for following rules — even when they’re inconvenient.

2. The Parliamentarian Is Replaced

More quietly — but just as controversially — the Senate Majority Leader has the authority to remove and replace the Parliamentarian at any time. No vote is required. It’s a staff position that serves at the pleasure of the Majority Leader.

In fact, this has happened before:

In 2001, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott fired Parliamentarian Robert Dove after rulings that blocked Republican policy priorities from passing through reconciliation.

So if the Majority Leader feels strongly enough, they could appoint a new Parliamentarian who would interpret the Byrd Rule differently and allow the HPA and SHORT Act provisions to stay.

Either of these options would be seen as breaking long-standing Senate norms — but in a sharply divided political climate, it’s not out of the question.

---

🗣 Final Thoughts

Despite their growing popularity and sound policy arguments, the HPA and SHORT Acts face long odds — not because of the merits, but because of the mechanics of how reconciliation works and the gatekeeping power of the Parliamentarian.

If you’re watching HR1 closely, don’t just focus on the votes. Keep your eye on the Parliamentarian’s desk. That’s where the fate of these gun law reforms may be quietly sealed.