correction for: “…and the Senate Majority Leader Thune was considering an over-rule at times but didn’t do it as it would have triggered a 2/3rds supermajority vote and there were no assurances that even though some democrats had indicated some smaller parts of the bill that they would actually vote for an over-rule because it wasn’t written the way the democrats liked so it was likely there would have been a fatal Democrat filibuster that would have killed the bill, …

should have been…

…and Senate Majority Leader Thune was considering an over-rule at times but didn’t do it as it would have triggered a 2/3rds supermajority vote and even though some democrats had indicated some smaller parts of the bill they liked there were no assurances they would actually vote for an over-rule because what they liked wasn’t written the way they wanted it so it was likely there would have been a fatal Democrat filibuster that would have killed the bill,

correction for: “…advise is neither applied or not-applied”

should have been…

…advise is neither considered to be applied or not-applied…

Enjoy what you can while you can and set up your descendents for success. Ultimately it’s all anyone of us can do and the only thing that works.

Now, as to dismissing/firing the parliamentarian from the ‘reconciliation’ procedure, yes its possible to do in some cases without a 2/3rds supermajority vote if there is a basis of some form of parliamentarian gross misconduct or dereliction of duty. This is a ‘nuclear option’. Doing this nukes the filibuster rule for ‘reconciliation’ and allows the majority party to pass what ever it wants with just a simple majority vote. But this is not ther only way the filibuster can be nuked.

Later in an interview, Thune explained that voting to reinstate sections that were scrapped would amount to nuking the legislative filibuster, which Senate Republicans had vowed to preserve. He was correct, and for us gun owners it would have been a disaster for the future if the democrats got majority again and a democrat president. It would have been the same with dismissing/firing the parliamentarian. Its a back door end run around the filibuster and lets the majority party in the senate pass what ever they want with a simple majority. If that precedent is set it means the democrats could do the same thing in the future then the republicans can do it then the democrats could do it etc…. This is why its euphemistically called the ‘Nuclear Option’, it ‘nukes’ (i.e. destroys) the filibuster (elimination of the filibuster in reconciliation bill proceedings). It would allow each party’s senate majority justification to use it and there would be this never ending thing of each party simply ignoring the Byrd rule and passing a bill with a simple majority. If the republicans would have voted to to reinstate sections that were scrapped (gun owners wanted the HPA and SHORT – the NFA stuff – to go back in) it would have been a disaster for gun owners in the future for the democrats to be able to pass something ‘gun’ with ‘reconciliation’ with a simple majority and you already know how that’s going to go.

So as much as people were screaming ‘over rule the parliamentarian’, ‘over rule the parliamentarian’, ‘fire the parliamentarian’, there is some very significant ‘fallout’ involved with doing it.

Everyone keeps thinking its easy to ignore or over-rule or fire the senate parliamentarian in a ‘reconciliation bill’ proceeding. Is it something that can be done? It is an option and authority, yes, but doing it officially is another matter. And its not really correct that “they have been overruled, fired, replaced, and flat-out ignored” without any significant fallout afterward.

To change the standing rules of the Senate, you need a 2/3rds supermajority. It is a standing rule of the senate to have a senate parliamentarian during ‘reconciliation’ to ‘advise’. The Byrd rule is not self-enforcing thus requires a sort of ‘umpire’ to advise on the rule provisions in relation to the bill (and there are several other procedures too where a senate parliamentarian is required by the rules). A point of order for something to do with the bill has to be raised for the senate parliamentarian to act and any senator can raise such a point of order, the VP as senior presiding officer rules on the point of order by letting it be heard, if it is heard the senate parliamentarian can then act to advise on the point of order but until then they can not act on something to do with the bill for inclusion or removal (or change) – the senate parliamentarian does not just go through the bill deciding what stays and goes or make the decision for removing stuff like people think. The senate parliamentarian does not actually make the decision as to what stays in the bill or what is removed from the bill, that decision comes down to the Senate Majority Leader and they make that decision by either allowing the advise of the parliamentarian to stand, be rejected, or ignored. If the advise is ignored it invokes a 2/3rds supermajority vote. Now, on ‘over-rule’ … technically, although called ‘over-rule’ its not actually ‘over ruling’ in a ‘sustain/deny’ way that people think, technically, the senate parliamentarian can’t be over-ruled in that manner as they are not a member of the senate – its actually just that the advise is neither applied or not-applied, essentially a ‘null’ effect but it can trigger a 2/3rds supermajority vote requirement because to let it happen would let the majority party do what ever it wanted so the procedure to keep that from happening is a 2/3rds supermajority vote, and the same for dismissing/firing the senate parliamentarian. Any 2/3rds supermajority vote would have been fatal to the bill, killing the bill entirely, unless all 60 of the votes agreed with the decision to ignore or over-rule or fire the senate parliamentarian. Although there were a few times when it would have been kinda possible for a 2/3rds supermajority vote to favor of an over-rule – there were a few smaller things some of the democrats actually wanted its just they were not pleased with the way it was worded – and the Senate Majority Leader Thune was considering an over-rule at times but didn’t do it as it would have triggered a 2/3rds supermajority vote and there were no assurances that even though some democrats had indicated some smaller parts of the bill that they would actually vote for an over-rule because it wasn’t written the way the democrats liked so it was likely there would have been a fatal Democrat filibuster that would have killed the bill, the senate parliamentarian advised of this happening which is what prompted Thune to not go for an over rule – but not doing the over rule its likely the bill was spared a fatal Democrat fillibuster. The republicans could not over come such a thing happening.

So as much as people were screaming ‘over rule the parliamentarian’, there is some very significant ‘fallout’ involved with doing it.

“In the relatively brief history of Senate parliamentarians, they have been overruled, fired, replaced, and flat-out ignored – and generally without any significant fallout afterward.”

There have been 6 senate parliamentarians officially as an office over the last 90 years, before that there were also ‘senate parliamentarians’ but not as an actual office – but rather someone would be selected to serve as a sort of ‘parliamentarian procedure monitor’ to advise when something was not according to ‘parliamentary procedure’ (i.e. ‘out of order’) but not with that title and not like we have today and basically it was the senate ‘self-policing’ its procedures when in session.

I don’t think they could successfully argue that short barrel rifles are exceptionally dangerous. We’ve had a zillion AR pistols in circulation for years without a consistent rise in violence. The bump in violence we experienced was due to Democrats begging for it in 2020.