I asked Grok two questions: Where do Republican senators stand on the effort to delist silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and other guns from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, and where does it go from here as of today, June 27, 2025?
The Senate Parliamentarian’s ruling on June 27, 2025, stripped the deregulation of suppressors, short-barrel rifles, and shotguns from the National Firearms Act (NFA) from the budget reconciliation bill due to the Byrd Rule, which requires provisions to primarily impact the budget. Announced by Senator Jeff Merkley (D.), this decision means the provision cannot pass with a simple majority via reconciliation and would instead require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a potential filibuster, effectively halting its immediate progress.
Republican Responses
Opposition or Non-Support:
Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming): Explicitly opposed the delisting of suppressors from the NFA, indicating she does not fully support the deregulation effort.
Senators Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska): Did not respond to inquiries about the suppressor provision and are not co-sponsors of the Hearing Protection Act, suggesting they are not actively fighting to preserve the deregulation. Their stance implies neutrality or lack of commitment to overriding the Parliamentarian’s decision.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.): Ruled out overruling or firing the Parliamentarian, prioritizing the broader budget bill’s passage. This indicates he is not fighting to reinstate the NFA deregulation provisions.
Supporters: Senators Budd, Ricketts, Daines, Schmitt, Sullivan, Crapo, Lee, Cassidy, Moran, Sheehy, Tuberville, and Cornyn supported both the tax cut and NFA delisting provisions, with many having backed the Hearing Protection Act. However, their efforts are constrained by the procedural barrier.
Ambiguous Stance: Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) called for the Parliamentarian’s ouster but focused on other issues like Medicaid cuts, not specifically the NFA provisions, making his position on suppressor deregulation unclear.
Where It Goes From Here
The deregulation’s removal from the reconciliation bill shifts its path forward, with the following possibilities:
Standalone Legislation: The deregulation could be reintroduced as a standalone bill, such as the Hearing Protection Act. However, securing 60 votes in the Senate is challenging given opposition from Lummis, likely Democratic resistance, and the silence of moderates like Collins and Murkowski. The lack of bipartisan support makes passage unlikely in the current Senate.
Alternative Legislative Vehicles: Proponents could attempt to attach the deregulation to another must-pass bill, like an appropriations package or future reconciliation bill. However, the Byrd Rule would apply again to reconciliation, and other bills risk similar procedural or political roadblocks, especially with Democratic Senate control and some Republican hesitancy.
Overriding the Parliamentarian: Senate Majority Leader Thune’s rejection of overruling or firing the Parliamentarian reduces the likelihood of reinstating the provision through procedural maneuvers, as he prioritizes the broader budget bill.
Political and Public Pressure: Gun rights groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America, along with vocal supporters on X, may push for public and political pressure to advance the deregulation. However, without significant momentum or a shift in Senate dynamics, this approach may not yield immediate results.
Future Congressional Sessions: Proponents could wait for a more favorable political climate, such as a Republican-controlled Senate post-2026 midterms. This delays action but may improve chances if the Senate’s composition shifts.
Outlook
Given the current Senate dynamics, opposition from at least one Republican (Lummis), the neutrality or non-engagement of moderates (Collins, Murkowski, Thune), and the need for 60 votes, the deregulation is unlikely to advance in the immediate term. The most probable short-term outcome is that the provision remains excluded from the budget bill. Any further progress would require a new legislative push, likely facing significant obstacles unless attached to a broader bill with stronger support or pursued in a future Congress with a more favorable political landscape.
