Senate Parliamentarian Blocks Republican Gun Deregulation Attempt

On June 27, 2025, a Republican-led initiative in the U.S. Senate to ease federal regulations on firearms as part of President Donald Trump’s legacy tax package faced a procedural setback. The dispute centered around an attempt to deregulate short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearm silencers, which were proposed to be included in broader spending legislation originally passed under Trump.

The Senate parliamentarian, the nonpartisan official responsible for interpreting the Senate's rules, ruled that the provision could not be included in the budget reconciliation process. This decision effectively scuttled the plan, resulting in a significant defeat for conservative lawmakers and gun rights advocates who saw this as an opportunity to roll back gun control policies with minimal obstruction.

Republicans aimed to leverage the reconciliation process, a legislative shortcut that bypasses filibusters and requires only a simple majority, to push through controversial changes in gun laws. This tactic was inspired by Trump's 2017 tax reform, where similar measures were successfully implemented. The strategy involved injecting the gun deregulation provision into a budget-related bill to avoid regular debate and opposition. However, the Senate parliamentarian determined that the proposed changes did not directly affect federal spending or revenue, thereby violating the Byrd Rule, which governs what provisions can be included in reconciliation bills.

The blocked proposal targeted specific areas of current federal gun control policy, namely short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and silencers, which are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. This act requires purchasers to undergo extensive background checks and register their firearms. Republicans argued that the NFA, while conceptually valuable, unfairly burdens law-abiding gun owners and that the regulated firearms do not pose a greater risk than those that are not. Had the measure passed, it would have removed these firearms from the NFA while still allowing for purchase and federal oversight waiting periods. Supporters, including gun rights organizations, viewed the proposal as a necessary correction to outdated laws. Critics, however, argued that removing federal oversight would compromise public safety.

The Senate parliamentarian's ruling reaffirmed the systemic barriers that prevent policy riders from circumventing budgets. This outcome underscores the broader limits on changing gun control policy, highlighting the need for bipartisan support. The failure of this initiative indicates that significant changes to federal firearm laws will require standalone legislation, which necessitates broader support and follows the standard process of debate and voting. Republicans have assured their constituents that they will continue to pursue less restrictive firearm laws, but their tactics will likely need to be reevaluated.

Given the heightened scrutiny on gun violence across the U.S., proposals to deregulate short-barreled guns will face increased opposition from lawmakers and constituents. For now, the regulations of the NFA remain in effect, and there is little hope of deregulating these types of firearms through tax legislation or policy, even under more favorable conditions in the future. The future of gun rights legislation remains uncertain, with time revealing whether any course of action will be viewed as politically feasible.