One more time:

Byrd Amendment (i.e., then repeal of NFA provisions can’t be done via reconciliation): this simply cannot be the basis of a court challenge, because (1) nobody has standing to argue that the Senate didn’t follow its own procedural rules, and (2) district court’s don’t have jurisdiction over the Senate’s enforcement / nonenforcement of its internal parliamentary procedure rules. Such a challenge wold be akin to claiming Goresuch’s confirmation wasn’t valid because the Senate abrogated its prior filibuster rule on SCOTUS nominees.

Non-Byrd challenges: will some states try and make them? Of course. Will such challenges last very long, or meaningfully frustrate the rollback? I don’t think so, for the reasons I have articulated. The procedural posture of such cases puts those states in what I see as an incredibly weak legal position.

“Donald Trump has said he wants to see his One Big Beautiful Bill hit the Resolute desk in the Oval Office by July 4th, and though it remains to be seen whether Republicans in the House and Senate will be able to meet that deadline, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has set an aggressive schedule in the upper chamber, with a goal of having the full Senate cast its first procedural vote on the bill by the middle of next week.

For gun owners, the biggest question is whether the language removing the tax and registration requirement on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “any other weapons” will survive the Senate parliamentarian’s scrutiny of the bill. Politico reports the Byrd bath, as it’s colloquially known, will begin in earnest this weekend.
…

Punchbowl News reports that Democrats are planning on challenging about 60 provisions in the text offered by the Senate Finance Committee, and the language that would remove the taxation and registration requirements for most NFA items is among their their targets. Supporters of the language have expressed confidence that the measures will survive the Byrd Bath, with Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia telling Fox News that the ‘taxation and registration of firearms under the draconian NFA are inseparably linked,’ and therefore should easily fit within the reconciliation guidelines.

Over at The Reload, Stephen Gutowski isn’t quite as confident. Gutowski notes that while the Senate language is more expansive than what was approved by the House, which only dealt with suppressors, it’s likely more ‘vulnerable to an adverse ruling from the parliamentarian’ because the language from the Finance Committee doesn’t separate the elimination of the tax requirement from the provisions delisting the NFA items.
…”

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/06/20/end-to-taxes-registration-on-most-nfa-items-faces-a-weekend-byrd-bath-n1229008

“As far as the argument that the dereg was passed as part of reconciliation, I’ve already repeatedly explained why that doesn’t fly.”

Huh? I mean its right there in the ‘proverbal’ ‘black and white’. Without the reconciliation bill, there would have been no ‘dereg’ (which I think is the wrong term and concept to use here but ok, you use it so I will too).

ya know, I started replying with Geoff PR where the context was just what he asked about, the states. That was my original context too, and I stuck with that. You jumped in with Byrd Rule and went along those lines. I appreciate you engaging, and have enjoyed your comments a lot over time, and even the ones here now. But I think you are going into a different context here that I did not intend to get into which is why I stayed with actions of anti-gun states (and by related extension anti-gun in a broader sense as I’ve written) as they are the most ‘present’ threat to these 2A provisions being enjoyed by all unhindered or burdened as theses states have done to other 2A related stuff.

Are you saying for a fact (because it sure sounds like it), that anti-gun states will not try to stop or ‘impede/burden’ these provisions and can not stop or ‘impede/burden’ these provisions in their actions in court or in their own states action in the state?

“The “states’ rights” position went down in flames decades ago”

No it didn’t. Its alive and well today. If it wasn’t (for 2A), anti-gun states would not have been able to argue for what they wanted to do, and basically the biggest example of this is the Bruen decision which in one aspect said basically ‘Yes, you can have a permit thing in one aspect but not another aspect’ and today well call this ‘shall issue’ because a state has a right to have a permit available if they want – that’s states rights. And the arguments for a states rights still continue today in courts over things 2A related, for example, 18-20 year old carry for which a circuit split just happened, the anti-gun states basically argue its their right to deny 18-20 year old carry. The “states’ rights” position arguments are alive and well in the courts today, heck, just look at how often the 9th circuit sides with the state who at the foundation of their argument is basically saying ‘we have a right to do this, its in the states interest cause ‘ – that’s a states rights argument.

“As far as challenges to a repeal of the NFA as affecting cans, SBR’s, and SBS’s that is NOT bottomed on the Byrd Rule, none of the arguments you postulate would even survive a motion to dismiss. ”

Once again, I’m not talking about the Byrd Rule and I’m not talking about a ‘motion to dismiss’. And every argument I postulated has worked at one time or another to affect something to do with the 2A, and they are still active in courts and practice today.

As far as challenges to a repeal of the NFA as affecting cans, SBR’s, and SBS’s that is NOT bottomed on the Byrd Rule, none of the arguments you postulate would even survive a motion to dismiss.

The “states’ rights” position went down in flames decades ago . . . indeed, if it were accepted, then virtually ALL federal regulations of firearms (apart from regulation of interstate transactions) go away. See the State of Texas’ recent effort to argue the 100% “made in Texas, sold in Texas, possessed only in Texas” cans could not be regulated under the NFA because they were not in “interstate commerce” and thus solely the province of state power — it failed because of the awful Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS precedent (which essentially said everything ultimately affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated by the feds). Even the most diehard leftist judge isn’t going to want to undermine the precedent that is the foundation of the overreach in federal regulation of the economy that occurred in the wake of Wickard.

As far as the argument that the dereg was passed as part of reconciliation, I’ve already repeatedly explained why that doesn’t fly. District judges simply don’t have jurisdiction (and no party has standing) to challenge whether the Senate followed its own rules (which, BTW, the Senate can change or suspend — that’s basic parliamentary procedure (see Roberts’ Rules)).

Will the usual anti-gun state kick a fuss? Of course. But now we have a DoJ that has already served warning that attempts by state and local politicians to infringe 2A rights will be treated as attempts to infringe federal civil rights. Faced with potential personal liability (or even criminal charges), I suspect a more muted response that you posit.

Bottom line: if the BBB passes as it currently is posited in the Senate, the case to judicially overrule the dereg of cans, SBR’s, and SBS’s would be extremely weak. That’s not to say that you won’t see a whack job like Breyer try and enjoin it, but like Breyer’s effort to interfere in PDT’s calling out the California NG, those will swiftly be stayed and ultimately vacated.

There’s a much bigger picture here that’s being ignored, at some point its going to come back to bite us in the butt.

Everyone was screaming “We want suppressors and short barreled rifles and no NFA! Yeah…Big Beautiful Bill”.

That was fine, I did it too. I’m very happy congress did this. But I also see a much bigger picture here with a lot of moving parts that are being ignored, and overall, although seemingly monumental and is considering the context, these provisions in the BBB are just a very small portion of that picture. We need to put a ‘stake through the heart’ of the anti-gun movement ‘vampire’ that’s been slowly over time ‘sucking the blood’ out of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and it still continues today even with this BBB if it suceeds. We need to do that because they are not going to stop with just the 2A, that was just the warm up all these years, refining strategy and methods over time for what worked and what didn’t to affect a constitutional right, slowly ‘redefining’ and getting it accepted in courts and law to set precedence for what can be done to a constitutional right. They have already applied the same techniques in attempts to control other constitutional rights, and if they are successful in time eventually our children’s children will not have a country with constitutional rights but rather a country with ‘government controlled permissions’ or no constitutional rights at all. And that’s what these anti-gun group hierarchy and politicians are really working towards, the 2A was just the most ’emotionally exploitable’ by them into which they could ‘shoehorn’ their anti-constitution arguments to get precedence set.

We need to put a ‘stake through the heart’ of the anti-gun movement ‘vampire’ that’s been slowly over time ‘sucking the blood’ out of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, they will eventually want more ‘blood’ and go after the other constitutional rights and all Americans will suffer then.

and while I’m talking about the ‘safer communities act’ (SCA)…

Its got nothing to do with ‘safer communities’ in reality, sure, its got that name and the hype but in reality it was created to be one big permission-slip for the anti-gun democrats to do just what they wanted when they wanted under the guise of saying ‘its the law’ when in reality it will let them self-interpret under it to do anything they want for guns and not only that but to affect other constitutional rights as well. The democrats were so assured in their minds and dreamed they would get another democrat congress and president this time around, they believed their own false hype, and if they did get their dream they would have exploited the heck out of the SCA permission slip to basically muzzle and relegate to ‘permission status’ the 2A, 1A, 4th A, using the claims of “‘safer communities’ and ‘its the law so we just enforcing the law’.

Of course the anti-gun cheer it, and pro-2A/gun abhor it and for good reason too. That’s to be expected. But it should really be hated by any American citizen. It set a precedence that constitutional rights can be controlled or denied by being able to create a law that’s exploitable to allow government to do what it wants with a constitutional right and then claim ‘its the law’. It was already bad enough, but to create what is basically a ‘permission slip and do what ever you want’ for government with the SCA? What happens when the government decides they want more control over the 1st amendment, or the 5th, or the 10th, of any other constitutional right? Well, the SCA is the blueprint for it.

That abomination needs to go away. Its a threat to every American – gun owner or not, pro-2A or not, anti-gun or not.

Then there is the thing about it being done in a reconciliation bill. The procedure overrides the Senate’s filibuster rules, which may otherwise require a 60-vote super-majority for passage. So if the democrats get back to the point where they can do another reconciliation bill, they can undo all this in their reconciliation bill – and the republicans just showed it can be done, so the democrats are gonna say “Hey, you guys did it so we can do it too and we don’t need to worry about the filibuster rules.” Heck, the democrats already wanted to get rid of the filibuster rules so they could have their way when they had the majority these last 4 years, you think they would give up a chance to do something not having to worry about filibuster rules?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy the republicans did this. But doing this in a reconciliation bill makes these things very ‘fragile’ for the future.

And while talking about a reconciliation bill… why wasn’t the stupid ‘in the business’ thing from the ‘safer communities act’ (SCA) included? Its related to a tax AND fee as implemented. But its not defined clearly as to what ‘in the business’ means in the SCA, just a vague thing that even the creators of the bill says they did not intend to be interpreted the way it was by the ATF. That lack of being defined clearly gave ‘permission’ to a rouge tyrannical Biden ATF already out of control and emboldened by a tyrannical Biden with his rule-by-fiat via ‘executive order’ and a Biden-weaponized-against-the-American-people government and use of anti-gun orgs embedded in the deceptively titled “White House Office Of Gun Violence Prevention’ – to ‘self-interpret’ to create in effect unconstitutional ‘defacto law’. The ATF used that ‘self-interpret’ to, without actual evidence of a crime or probable cause, get a fishing expedition no-knock search warrant and send a fully armed hostile ATF para-military tactical team eager to pull the trigger to raid a home in darkness looking exactly like a criminal home invasion without actually identifying them selves and they proceeded to ‘murder’ an innocent peaceful man who had committed no crime at all trying to defend his home and wife from what was for all practical purposes in effect, and looked exactly like, a criminal home invasion, and then threaten to shoot his wife and proceeded to terrorize her.

Why wasn’t that addressed in the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ ?

You keep saying ‘congress passed’ (i.e. “…statute that Congress itself passed”) ….It doesn’t matter if congress passed it or not…these mentally ill left wingers and anti-gun do not care, they are willing to blatantly ignore that and try to stop in any way, or at the least make it as burdensome as possible to exercise or try to treat it as a ‘privilege’ they control, anything to do with the 2A and they would really prefer the 2A did not exist. These are fanatics that conduct this as though a religion. I’ve had an inside peek at what they really are from someone who herself was for years one of them and finally recovered after a horrifying incident made her realize the truth. These people want control and domination over constitutional rights. They pay lip service to it in public that they support the 2A but just want ‘common sense’ gun reform – its a lie, behind the scenes they are always plotting to in some way simply do away with the 2A or at the very least make it a privilege they control, not just the anti-gun groups but the anti-gun politicians too – they hate the constitution.

You seem to think that because its a “…statute that Congress itself passed”, these idiots are done. If it gets signed by Trump, we can shout “We won!”, but then we have to keep it and that means once again engaging the anti-gun who don’t like it and more years in court fighting every little thing and word in every law or ordinance or policy or just plain ’cause they want to’ in their ‘death by 1,000 cuts’ strategy. Its not over because its a “…statute that Congress itself passed” like people want to think, and we have seen the perverted novel ways these mentally ill constitution hating anti-gun have used to try to stop other things that were “…statute that Congress itself passed”. We are not at the top of the hill with a win like this until all can have the right unhindered, we still have a hill to climb to have our constitutional right in this for all and its shameful that in America we have to do that but its the reality so the next time an anti-gun politician screams ‘But our democracy!” you know damn well they are lying.