Try it again

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/senate-...ck&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Basically nothing changed on the registration and background check requirements, which are the 2A violation. Just dropped the requirent to pay the govt to get raped.

That works!

Thanks!!

They got what they could get, be thankful they're trying.

How long will they require it if there's no money in it for them?

There's still a shot to get the House to reinsert the full repeal as they now have the option to pass it as presented or add in their requirements and send it back. That's the reconciliation process.

So make the phones ring and keep up the pressure.

The risk now, without repeal, is that a later congress could reinstate the tax or even hike it to higher levels.

I don't understand anything you're posting.

The registration is still there just minus the tax. It's not permanent as in all things legislation. The dims or rogue rinos in a later congress could get a wild hair in a future reconciliation budget bill and could use the exact same process to restore the tax or even raise it.

The tax itself is based solely upon the fact these these are registered items. Remove the registration then you remove the basis.

Okay, a brief synopsis of the reconcilition process and Byrd rule as I understand it.

First, two things.

All tax bills must originate in the House period, the Senate, cannot per the Constitution, initiate any form of a tax.
The filibuster remains intact in the Senate and any legislation, such as an independent repeal of the NFA or any portion of it seperate from the tax implications, can be blocked by filibuster. It takes a two thirds vote to end a filibuster and proceed with any bill in the Senate. So in effect the Senate is functionally unable to pass any legislation on their own unless two thirds are in agreement.

Now for reconciliation.

This is a Senate slight of hand that allows the Senate to pass their own tax law piggybacked onto a House tax bill. IMO, this is unconstitutional as tax law must originate in the House not added in later by the Senate. I would argue that the Senate can only vote yea or nay on a House tax bill by a strict reading of the Constitution. But then you have the filibuster so we have the reconciliation process that is immune from being filibustered and only requires a straight up 50+1 vote. Under reconciliation the Senate can remove portions or add their own portions to the House bill then send it back to the House for approval or disapproval. If approved it goes on to the president. If disapproved, it's dead and back to square one. The House can make their own changes, taking out Senate changes or restoring items the Senate removed and sending it back to the Senate. This process can go back and forth until one bill they both agree on is passed.

Now for the Byrd rule.

The Byrd rule, applying to the Senate only, says that the tax reconciliation process can only be used for tax related purposes only. The person responsible for keeping bills on track and on topic is the Parlimentarian, an appointed position determined by the Senate majority leader. The Parliamentarian is a glorified secretary, nothing more or nothing less that serves as an umpire calling balls and strikes on what can or cannot be in a bill or how the voting process is conducted. In this case, it could be argued that the Parliamentarian overstepped her authority in removing the registration portions, though the case could also be made that she split the baby.

Even if completely repealed, which we know it can't be now, congress could just as easily reinstate it same as reinstating the tax. I don't see your point?

As soon as the senate gets it back, the parliamentarian is gonna throw it out again as its against the rules.

they can overrule the parliamentarian

True, but they would be starting over from scratch and the filibuster would apply in the Senate.

There's still folks trying to get it done so don't give up and keep the pressure on.

I suppose I should be excited they could exempt some overtime from taxes, lord knows I work enough of it.

I still don't support it. Not without bigger cuts

Am I the only one that thinks deducting interest on a vehicle is insanity?

I agree Steven, its not needed or necessary. And there definitely should have been more cuts in expenses. We have to quit spending more money.

Evidently the people won't stand for cuts.

The politicians raiding our pockets to buy votes.

There is much in the GOP bill that deserves criticism, but the $3.3 trillion deficit critique is phony—like Beltway accounting.

How have things been Ken?

I can agree with this last line of the article. I do believe though me and the author aren't in agreement though lol.

Time will tell. Hope I have to eat crow.

I hate it as well and wouldn't be upset at all if it all crashes and burns. We the people built the country and have been through worse over the last couple centuries and I suspect the ones that matter will be here long after this bunch of crooks are gone.