It’s Easier to Buy a Gun Than Get a Drivers License



(As an aside, it was interesting that the weekend after 10 people were killed on October 1st in Utah, Vero Beach had a gun show.)

Excerpts from the two reader’s emails are as follows:

“Banning guns is not the solution.  Pulling guns off the street is not practical.  How would you get them and how much would it cost?  People in Texas are certainly not going to give up their guns. Even if you pulled them off the street those who want them will still get them, just like crystal meth and heroine. The staff at schools should be armed. Guns don’t kill people. People do.”

“All 50 states have stringent requirements for getting a drivers license.  But to buy a gun you just buy it and wait three days for a positive background check.  In many cases the background check doesn’t arrive in the the three days and the gun shop sells the gun anyway, just to make a sale. Does the background check even report mental disorders? I respect the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution where people have the right to keep and bear arms, but perhaps that amendment should be amended.  Do people need an AK-47 to protect their home?  That gun is used for evil.”


Russian President Vladimir shows off an AK-47

Note: As reported in on July 17, 2014, “The Executive Order signed on Wednesday by President Barack Obama is being called ‘evil’ by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and bans, among other things, the sale of all Russian-made AK-47 semi-automatic rifles, Saiga-12 shotguns, and all other firearms and parts manufactured by Kalishnikov Concern.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Americans will still be able to purchase AK-47’s in the secondary market, as long as Kalishnikov Concern does not have a direct financial interest in the transaction.

The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control released a statement advising concerned U.S. gun owners that, while they can still sell existing stocks of AK-47’s and other firearms on the importation ban list, new purchases from the Russian-based manufacturers by private or commercial gun interests have been outlawed.

Kalashnikov manufactures a series of assault rifles, along with a host of other Russian arms, including medium cannons, missiles, and guided shells.

This seem to have a loophole.

So you go to a gun store and buy a gun and wait three days for a positive background check. That’s it.

But if you apply for a drivers license, although each state has its own specific diver laws, your news driver’s license restrictions will likely include:

  • Completing a classroom Driver’s Ed program.
  • Behind-the-wheel driving practice with a driving instructor.
  • If a teenager, parental consent or sponsorship.
  • Passing the DMV written test.
  • Supervised driving with a licensed adult during a learner’s permit phase.
  • Restricted driving hours.

Here’s another angle regarding the background check for buying a gun:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enhanced in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act, which enhanced the Gun Control Act of 1968, created a background check system which required licensed sellers to inspect the criminal history background of prospective gun purchasers and the Brady. It created a list of categories of individuals to whom the sale of firearms is prohibited, as follows:


  1. Who is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
  2. Who is a fugitive from justice.
  3. Who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
  4. Who has been adjudicated as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution
  5. Who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
  6. Who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
  7. Who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship.
  8. Who is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child.

While there are several exceptions to these categories, there are none for anyone who has been adjudicated as mentally defective.  Here’s what appears to be another loop hole.

How can a background check determine if someone has been adjudicated as medically defective?  If someone has been seeing a psychiatrist, those sessions should be governed by HIPPA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects the confidentiality and security of healthcare information.


According to the LawCenter to Prevent Gun Violence, “Although federal law prohibits the purchase of a firearm by any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, many states do not collect information about persons who fit these criteria or provide law enforcement access to this information.

There are many Americans who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions and are barred by federal law from possessing firearms, but, as of November 30, 1999, the FBI had received from all states a total of only 41 records of mentally ill persons.

Although the number of mental health records provided to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has increased – in 2007 there were approximately 400,000 – mental illness remains significantly underreported.

As a result of the FBI’s lack of information about mentally ill persons, a FBI background check is unlikely to find that a person is ineligible to possess a firearm due to mental illness. Because of these reporting deficiencies, mentally ill persons in this country are easily able to buy guns in violation of federal law.”

Where does this leave us?

In an article on August 27, 2015 by Chris Henson, publisher of Idlehands Workshop, here’s what he thinks in a “nutshell.”

Chris Henson

Chris Henson

  1. I think it should be much harder to own a firearm, whether a purchase, gift or inheritance.
  2. There should be a permanent national registry of every firearm in the country. Just like there is for cars.
  3. There should be far deeper background checks before anyone purchases a firearm, and these background checks should be kept on file. Anyone wanting to purchase a firearm should forfeit any privacy regarding diagnosis and treatment of any mental illness, history of domestic or workplace violence, etc.
  4. There should be stricter limits on the type and capacity of firearms an individual can possess.
  5. There should be stricter limitations on open and concealed carrying of firearms.
  6. Everyone who owns a firearm should be licensed to do so, just like car ownership is. That license should require training and a qualifying exam.
  7. Basically, potential gun owners should have to prove they are not dangerous to themselves or others before they are allowed to purchase a gun. Not the other way around.
  8. There should be a single, robust federal agency dedicated to guns, gun sales, and gun safety. They shouldn’t have to spend their time worrying about tobacco or alcohol.

While our government officials are fussing around with this whole gun control situation, here’s a fellow with some bright ideas. Someone in government should heed his advice.

5 thoughts on “It’s Easier to Buy a Gun Than Get a Drivers License

  1. A national registry is a great idea. However, the NRA would attack such a plan by screaming, “The government wants to take away your guns!” and other such ludicrous claims. The brutal fact is that the NRA owns Congress and any legislation that looks like gun control will be “shot down” by the gun lobby. Its argument is that the best cure for gun violence is more guns. Funny, but the logic escapes me; more guns means more bullets which means more holes in people. The Second Amendment phrase, “A well regulated Militia,” has been twisted and essentially ignored by the right-wing that sees regulation of any stripe as anathema to individual rights. The common good has been abandoned in favor of campaign money from special interests.


  2. So let me get this straight…the Feds who created Fast & Furious – selling guns to drug runners from south of the border in order to have them use them and the Feds be able to claim a need for greater gun control; the Fed IRS targetted conservative organizations and denied them non-profit status and leaked their information; the Secret Service who deliberately leaked a congressman’s personal information as retribution; a host of fed agencies that targeted True the Vote’s owner for her work against voter fraud; the EPA who stopped a private business from opening a mine without evidence or due process; the Justice Department who targets states with constitutional voter ID laws; the fed who blamed the deaths of 4 Americans including an ambassador on a video and knowingly left them without proper security because of a political narrative…These are the people you want to create an entire new, massive organization that will know where every freakin’ gun is in the country and will wield greater power over who gets what kind of guns?
    Why not use a common sense profiling technique rather than increase the reach and cost of big government? If we profiled terrorists in this country, we wouldn’t have an over-reaching TSA (a massive employment project) costing millions in personnel and equipment. Instead we search/frisk, thousands of grandmothers and children while the only people to terrorize the country fit a narrow profile. “Stop and Frisk” used profiling and reduced violent crime in NYC until the new Socialist mayor came on board.
    Take a look at the hand full or people who have killed people in public (no gun zone) locations and see if you had all of these suggestions in place if you really would have stopped the violence. In fact, if all of the existing laws were enforced, much of what you suggest would be accomplished and there would still be problems.
    Why punish 99% of the law abiding population, create a new, expensive government program, and take away peoples’ constitutional rights (something not mentioned at all in your article) for less than 1% of the population.
    Typical progressive reaction – take away people’s rights and create more big government to solve the problem….no creativity here.


  3. Pingback: Gun Control: Reader Responses from Vero Beach to Vancouver, Washington | Vero Communiqué

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s