Senator Introduces BiPartisan ‘No-Fly, No-Buy’ Bill

After the Senate failed to pass any of the four gun bills put forth by members on Monday, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduced a compromised bill on Tuesday in the hope that it will not suffer the same fate as its predecessors.

Known as the “Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016,” this bipartisan “No-Fly, No-Buy” bill would give the government the authority to suspend the sale of a firearm to a person on the No Fly List or the Selectee List, but would also standardize a system of redress for those affected.

It attempts to strike a balance between the No-Fly, No-Buy bill put forth by Democrats and the No-Fly, No-Buy bill put forth by Republicans Monday, both of which failed to clear the upper chamber.

More specifically, the bill creates the following:

  • Gives the AG the authority to deny firearms sales to individuals who appear on the No Fly List or the Selectee List.
  • Provides a process for Americans and green card holders to appeal a denial in U.S. Court of Appeals and to recover their reasonable attorneys fees if they prevail.
  • Sets forth a procedure for protecting classified information during the appeal.
  • Protects ongoing FBI counter-terrorism investigations by giving the AG the discretion to allow gun sales to go forward to individuals covered by this Act.
  • Includes a “look-back” provision that ensures prompt notification to the FBI if a person who has been on the broader Terrorism Screening Database (TSDB) within the past five years purchases a firearm.

At the press conference unveiling the measure Tuesday, Sen. Kaine was highly critical of the Senate’s inability to pass gun control in the past.

“This body has been impotent, weak, silent and a bystander to this carnage of gun violence that is going on in the United States,” Kaine said.

“There will be no meaningful gun safety reforms done in this body unless it is bipartisan,” he continued. “We’ve got to make progress, and to make progress we’ve got to do it in a bipartisan way.”

It’s unclear at this point how much “bipartisan” support Kanie’s bill will garner or if it will even come close to the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a  filibuster. It’s also unclear whether the Senate will take it up for a vote. We’ll keep you posted.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 15 comments… add one }
  • Tommie November 17, 2017, 10:44 am

    Remember that this guy was Killary’s vice presidential running mate. Slime is only comfortable with Slime. Two rotting peas in the same pod! All you had to do was listen to him talk when they were running for the Whitehouse to know what this douchbag is about.

  • Mark From Bristol July 4, 2016, 11:45 pm

    That’s Susan Collins (RINO – MAINE) standing behind former DNC Chairman, Kaine. Both are slime and need to be defeated. Just eliminate OUR Constitutional due process? ANYONE and everyone that goes along with this IS an enemy of these United States Of America and need to be defeated at all costs.

  • Patriot July 2, 2016, 4:01 pm

    Kaine is a rediculous liar and a very shortsighted person. How do people like him get elected? How do the idiot politicians, like Brown, Pelosi, Feinstein, etc. from California get elected? How does the damn fool Schumer from New York get re-elected? Maybe the people who vote for ludicrous Dems do so because, like from Obama, there are free gifts like $1000 in food stamps for those who voted to elect him. Obama and Bill Clinton have been the worst presidents in my lifetime but, rest assured, Hillary will go to the top of the list of worst presidents if she was to be elected. There is no doubt in my mind that it would be very good for the U.S. if most of the Dems with the deplorable mindset of those named above were voted OUT and this absolutely includes Hillary.

  • 2War Abn Vet July 1, 2016, 11:16 am

    Our founders established “due process” in the Constitution for a very good reason.
    There’s also a very good reason totalitarians want to destroy that right; it is a step in the destruction of the Rule of Law.

  • Leighton Cavendish July 1, 2016, 10:38 am

    Preventing KNOWN criminals and terrorists from any and all weapons…great…
    SUSPECTED ones…and you have positive ID information (name, sex, date of birth at LEAST)…yeah…OK
    Just a name on a list…unless it is a very unique name …NOPE

  • Winston July 1, 2016, 10:29 am

    The 2nd Amendment death by a thousand cuts continues. These legislators are enemies just as armed robbers and foreign mercenaries are also enemies. Their goal is public disarmament as the US police are continually militarized.. Those Americans who cannot see this are living in the Matrix.

  • Vic July 1, 2016, 10:27 am

    How is suspending a citizen’s Constitutional rights a compromise?

  • B.E. Stanley July 1, 2016, 10:21 am

    There are a flock of good comments here however, the common thread of all these “shooters” is MENTAL INSTABILITY! Bad as it may sound those of us that have knowledge of mentally deficient individuals that advocate harming a bunch of innocent folks should pass that knowledge on to a “trusted” person in local law enforcement. If you are found to be a confident of one of these looney tune folks and you do not alert someone of authority then, you too should be invited to spend a few years in the kook kook bin. Common sense tells anyone willing to listen that the firearms are not at fault. Unfortunately common sense is no longer so common.

  • gdogs July 1, 2016, 8:47 am

    Compromise… that wouldn’t imply that gun owners were getting something out of this right? I could go along with this worthless law a lot easier if included in it was a 50 state reciprocity clause, and a decrease of NFA fees from $200 to $5. It seems like our side has only learned to stonewall – and while I appreciate that, there are cases like this one where if Congress is going to break we should at least make them give us something for their cowardice.

    • Joe McHugh July 5, 2016, 6:02 am

      gdogs, no compromise ever! You are making the mistake that the anti-gun liberals will stop drafting anti-gun bills in the Congress just because they got one regulation passed. They will not! They will continue to propose anti-gun bills until the Second Amendment is a curious artifact from 1789.

      Here’s a suggestion. Every time the anti-gun Democrats propose a anti-gun law, the Republicans should amend it into something just the opposite. Example: the Democrats draft a “reasonable” gun bill, (you pick the details). The republicans amend it into something that reinforces the Second Amendment. The amended bill might look like this: “Every competent, law-abiding adult citizen has the immutable right to purchase, keep and carry any number and/or type of firearm without the knowledge of any level of the government.” Of course the Democrats wouldn’t compromise but that’s OK, just as long as the bill dies before getting to the floor for a vote.

      After a while the Democrats would stop introducing bills that amount to infringements on the Second Amendment.

  • Jim Poteet June 26, 2016, 2:18 pm

    Tim Kaine is one of the U.S. Constitution hating dishonorable senators from my native state (Commonwealth) Va. He has proven himself along with Mark Warner to be a liar by not staying true to his Constitutional oath of office which is IMO the same as perjury. Any communications to his “Public Office” expressing opinions that are not in agreement with his predetermined personal opinion are trashed immediately, after checking to be sure they don’t contain a contribution. Tim Kaine could not care any less about the voice of the people he solemnly promised to “faithfully represent”. The only way to get representative gov’t. is to keep voting liars out.

  • Will Drider June 23, 2016, 10:54 pm

    “■ Protects ongoing counter-terrorism investigations by giving the AG the discretion to allow gun sales to go forward to individuals covered by this Act.” Does anybody else think this LE supporting position stinks like FAST and FURIOUS?
    Here is what they want: GUN CONTROL using the all too familiar term “gun safety reforms!
    “There will be no meaningful gun safety reforms done in this body unless it is bipartisan,” he continued. “We’ve got to make progress, and to make progress we’ve got to do it in a bipartisan way.”

  • Mark N. June 23, 2016, 1:15 am

    This sounds like a slight improvement over the system that has been in place since 2004–that the democrats don’t want to acknowledge. Moreover, this bill will do absolutely nothing to stem “this carnage of gun violence that is going on in the United States,” since the fact of the matter is that terrorists (or terrorist wannabees) that have engaged in attacks have all been US citizens without criminal records, and none were on the terrorist watch list. Unless of course the gov. decides to redefine “terrorist.”

  • Boba Fett June 22, 2016, 11:08 pm

    Kaine added, “It is of the utmost importance that something, indeed, anything get passed while all these dipshit insects are still pulling their hair out in a panic and not thinking clearly. Mother Jones can only keep their fear at heightened levels for so long, and if this bipartisan measure doesn’t get crammed through in a careless, sloppy manner, then we may face difficulty getting the next chip taken off the block that is gun rights. Also, everyone should go on the Internet and accuse anyone who is against this of wanting children to die. True or not, it is crucial that we play on peoples’ emotions because God knows we can’t be reasonable. I’m going to my safe space with a bag of lollipops, and I’m not coming out until we vote on this.”

    Can’t believe he actually said that.

  • Cadeyrn June 22, 2016, 10:06 pm

    Beware of Kaine! He’s a disingenous tool. I mean, really, who’s going to front the money for a review at the US Court of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court of the US??? That is an appellate court used to hearing extremely high-value, complex, multistate or international disputes. They have very complex rules and requirements for procedure. Normal people will not be able to proceed there very easily, particularly if the government can simply claim national security for everything or hide exculpatory evidence under an umbrella of classified categories.

    The normal place of review if it has to be federal would be at the US District Court. Now this guy’s a former “civil rights” lawyer according to his bio page. There’s no way he doesn’t know how difficult proceedings are in the USCA or the federal courts in general. Whose civil rights is he protecting now?

    Every single word of the language he puts in an actual legislative proposal (as opposed to the press piece currently available) must be parsed carefully to see what he’s slipping in. He is not to be trusted.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend