Short-Barrel Gun Deregulation Stalls in Senate Over Technical Rules Dispute

On June 27, 2025, a Republican initiative in the U.S. Senate to ease federal regulations on firearms in President Donald Trump’s legacy tax package stalled out as a matter of procedure. The clash was centered around an attempt to deregulate short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearm silencers that would be tacked onto the broader spending legislation which was originally passed under Trump. 

It was a bold move to leverage the clout of the Republican majority against the decades of regulations on firearms. But the Senate parliamentarian, the rules scribe for the body, ruled that the provision could not be offered as part of the budget reconciliation process and ended up scuttling the plan. The result was a sizable defeat for conservative lawmakers and gun rights advocates, who viewed the legislation as an opportune moment to rollback gun control policy without too much obstruction.

Why Republicans Used a Tax Bill for Gun Deregulation

Senate Republicans tried to exploit the reconciliation process, a legislative shortcut that is exempt from filibusters and requires only a simple majority, to facilitate controversial changes in gun laws. Since Trump had done it with his 2017 tax reform,  GOP lawmakers thought they could duplicate the move on a policy issue that was unrelated to taxes, such as short-barreled gun deregulation.

The logic behind this was tactical. By injecting the provision into a budget-related bill, Republicans could bypass regular debate and opposition. But there are rules governing reconciliation. Provisions must have a direct effect on federal spending or revenue, and the Senate parliamentarian determined that the proposed gun deregulation did not pass the test.

What the Blocked Proposal Sought to Change

The blocked proposal targeted an area of current federal gun control policy; short-barreled rifles and shotguns and firearm silencers. These are firearms that are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, which requires purchasers to undergo intense background checks and register their firearms. The Republicans claimed that the NFA might have some value conceptually, but ultimately punishes law abiding gun owners and that the firearms entitled to regulation do not carry any more risk than those that are not.

Essentially, had the measure passed, it would have removed these firearms from the NFA but still allowed for purchase and the waiting periods of federal oversight. Supporters of the decision, which included many gun rights organizations included lobbying organizations such as the NRA and Gun Owners of America, indicated that the proposal was an overdue correction to bad, antiquated laws. Gun rights critics and advocates for gun safety vehemently opposed the proposal and indicated that removal of federal oversight would jeopardize the safety of the public.

Why the Senate Ruleskeeper Rejected the Move

The Senate parliamentarian, who is a nonpartisan person who details legislative process, ruled firearms provisions of the bill violated the Byrd Rule which establishes what provisions may be included in reconciliation bills. The Byrd rules permit only provisions that directly affect the budget to be reconciled. Deregulating short-barreled guns was politically consequential but not budgetary enough to be legitimately included in a congressional act.

The ruling ultimately nullified the GOP’s plan and reaffirmed the systemic barriers that prevent policy riders from circumventing budgets. This consequence highlights more extensive limits on how the aspect of gun control policy can be changed; it is clear that bipartisan support is necessary for changes in policy. Not only does the failure show that large-scale ideological movements cannot be made in extraordinary political conditions, but there are systemic, procedural rules to slow them down as well.

What This Means for Gun Rights Legislation Moving Forward

The unsuccessful third attempt of this initiative indicates that significant changes to federal firearm laws will need to be made through standalone legislation, which requires broader support and follows the process of standing debate and voting requirements. The Republicans have assured their constituents they will continue to pursue less restrictive laws regarding firearms, but their tactics will more than likely need to be reevaluated.

Governmental scrutiny on gun violence across the U.S. will mean proposals such as the loss of restrictions on short-barreled guns will meet heightened opposition from lawmakers and constituents alike. For now, the regulations of the NFA remain in effect and there seems to be little hope of deregulating any of these class types of firearms through tax legislation or policy at this time, if even under more favorable terms in the future. Time will tell if some course of action will be viewed as politically possible.