Dick Heller's application for handgun registration denied

Here comes another lawsuit for the city to flush money down the drain by defending against. It looks like the Supreme Court is going to have to drag the Mayor and Council kicking and screaming to recognize this man's rights.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=74036&catid=158

where rule of law means nothing

where cops set up illegal roadblocks per order of the mayor and the administration

where unconstitutional gun ban remained in place for decades before being struck down.

they aint gonna go gently into that good night.

Am I not correct in believing that there are extended clips that could be used, thus putting that weapon in the category of having a larger than 11 round magazine?

(pretty much) that uses a clip... can use an extended clip


i can't think of one handgun that uses a clip that can't use an extended clip

this is more examples of DC ignoring the constitution and rule of law.

This smells like Jim Crow subterfuge by using a gerry-built definition ("machine gun," for heaven's sake) to prevent whole classes of firearms from being "registered."

Time to see the lawyer and keep banging away at 'em till the plates crack and the rivets pop.

Frankly, that would be just fine by me :D

I believe there is a compact .380 that loads with stripper clips.

By refusing any magazine-fed pistol, they are opening a can of worms. It's well-accepted that pistols capable of holding more than ten shots are useful and in general circulation as self-defense arms. Why should a lawful citizen who has the misfortune of living in D.C. be denied a right that the majority of citizens of the nation are permitted to freely exercise on a daily basis? What is it that makes citizens of D.C. so special that they cannot be trusted with a firearm in their homes? Just because you are poor or live in a violent urban area doesn't mean you should be denied your rights as a lawful citizen.

What a waste of taxpayer's money. If a lawful citizen has to fight these kinds of battles to exercise a right there is something seriously wrong with the government body that is the stumbling block. The kinds of people who are willing to jump through the bureaucratic hoops just to exercise a right are not the kinds of people who will commit crimes with the firearms. It is, however, easier to punish the law-abiding than it is to confront violent criminals in the streets and DC is taking the easy way out.

elegant and hittingmany ofthe core issues. +1

revolver, which could punch a hole through a concrete wall, THAT weapon would be approved.

They are not negating his right to own a weapon, even an extremely lethal weapon. But they have the right to reduce the amount of firepower that is on the streets.

If I were a cop facing an armed thug I would be much happier knowing that the stolen gun he is using can only fire a half-dozen times before he reloads, rather than letting him get off 15-20 shots.

Not all ammunition is created equal, and not all walls are created equal. Make the barrier (in this case a wall) thin enough and the aenemic .25 ACP could "punch through" it. And his 1911 can only hold seven or eight rounds, depending on the make and model of magazine that the pistol functions best with. There are .357 magnum revolvers that hold eight rounds, and they are quite popular.

"But they have the right to reduce the amount of firepower that is on the streets"

no, they don't

"If I were a cop facing an armed thug I would be much happier knowing that the stolen gun he is using can only fire a half-dozen times before he reloads, rather than letting him get off 15-20 shots"

i am a cop, and I've faced numerous armed thugs. i've been involved in uses of deadly force, i've had friends shot (NEVER by a CCW holder I might add), and I've also had a friend SAVED by a CCW holder.

I've also dealt with hundreds if not thousands of lawful firearms owners, many of whom carry concealed.

I disagree with your "logic"

and as a firearms instructor, I also disagree with your logic.

I said nothing about CCW.

You ignored my statement.

Do you want to face a bad guy who can shoot at you 6 times, or 15 times?

This is NOT about CCW. This is about the DC ownership of firearms in the home.

As a cop you must be aware that 90% of all illegal firearms started as legal firearms, which were subsequently stolen or illegally sold. The SC said that DC cannot keep people from owning firearms in their homes - they did not address the district's right for them to carry, or to restrict the types of available weapons.

You're insinuating that if the restriction on handgun magazine capacity remains in-place, that bad guys are going to obey that restriction for some reason, but still shoot at people. Can you elaborate?

Bad guys get guns by stealing them. If the guns available are revolvers, they will steal revolvers. If the guns available are semi-autos with high capacity magazines, they will stead semi-autos with high capacity magazines.

Look at the burglary stats. What gets stolen? Electronics, cash, guns. 1 out of 4 stolen cars has a handgun in the glove compartment.

It's not a matter of "obeying" anything but the law of supply and demand.

Is that so hard to grasp?

> Bad guys get guns by stealing them. If the guns available are revolvers, they will steal revolvers. If the guns available are semi-autos with high capacity magazines, they will stead semi-autos with high capacity magazines.

Bad guys get cars by stealing them. If the cars available are Ford Pintos, they will steal Ford Pintos. If the cars available are high-performance sports cars capable of eluding police pursuit, they will steal high-performance sports cars capable of eluding police pursuit.

> Look at the burglary stats. What gets stolen? Electronics, cash, guns.

Look at the burglary stats. What gets stolen? Small expensive items that are easily concealed and converted to cash.

Clearly then, to prevent criminals from having access to cash, we must ban all currency.

Do you honestly think that the only manner that "bad guys" acquire firearms is by stealing them from law abiding citizens?

You seem to think that if DC only allows the citizens to register 6-shot revolvers, that the "bad guys" will only have 6-shot revolvers. Do you honestly believe that?

"1 out of 4 stolen cars has a handgun in the glove compartment."

What you probably mean is that 1 out of 4 stolen guns COMES from a car.

That is entirely different.

I've taken scores of stolen vehicle reports. I can recall 2 off hand that had guns in them

Provide a cite for this claim, cause I am calling BULLSHIT on it

1 out of 4 stolen cars has a handgun in the glove compartment.

Utter bullshit, that there is. I have spent the better part of my life legally stealing cars (lost count somewhere north of 12,000 cars) complete with personal property, I inventoried the property and usually ended up returning it to the former car owner. I can count on both hands the number of guns I found in all those cars.

i've taken scores of stolen vehicle reports AND i live in an area that's shall issue for CCW's and lots of people own guns. it's WAY WAY WAY rarer than 1 in 4

the stat might be something like "1 in 4 stolen guns COMES from a stolen car" which is entirely different than saying 1 out of 4 stolen cars have a gun.

the 1 in 4 stolen guns coming from a car would be more likely but I don't really even buy that given how few cars actually have unattended guns in them. Contrary to claims sometimes made down here, relatively few guns used in crimes are stolen (10% +/-), most appear to be gained through straw purchases, borrowing, etc.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

> Do you want to face a bad guy who can shoot at you 6 times, or 15 times?

- I want to be a good guy who can choose the most popular and well-tested pistol in the world, a Browning model 1911, or derivative thereof.

- I want to be a good guy who can shoot at my target(s) 15 times, instead of 6 times, if that is what is needed to protect my health and home.

> As a cop you must be aware that 90% of all illegal firearms started as legal firearms, which were subsequently stolen or illegally sold.

That statistic seems completely made up. If you believe 90% of illegal firearms started as legal firearms, then you are saying that 10% of illegal firearms were illegal from the moment of conception. I think that is highly implausible.

In general, I want firearms policy to be determined by serious adults who understand the Second Amendment, firearms technology, defensive shooting, and the role of an armed populus. I don't want firearms policy to be determined by people who's extent of firearms knowledge is limited solely by what Hollywood movies and mystery novels has shown them. I particularly don't want firearms policy made by emotional children who's instinctive reaction is "guns are bad", no more than family planning policy should be made by people who's instinctive reaction is "contraception is bad".

Also, note that just by using the term "illegal firearms" he is missing the point. It's the USERS that are illegally using the firearms.

But you are right. We don't determine policy, let alone policy that is supported by CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENT by what CRIMINALS do.

We punish criminals, and we let LAW ABIDING CITIZENS have their rights.

A crimino-centric philosophy of law enforcement and arms regulation is what causes restrictions to be placed on lawful civilians.

what i want

i might want (personally) all kinds of stuff, at least in my career capacity, but I can't have it, nor should I because rights and due process matters. the issue is what is CONSTITUTIONAL and JUST.

Ceteris paribus, yes I would prefer a bad guy have less bullets.

Contrarily, I would prefer that a GOOD guy have more bullets. I know that the VAST majority of people who carry guns, and nearly all CCW holders are GOOD guys and I am totally kewl with them having 15 rd guns with multiple reloads

Bad guys, specifically convicted felons, etc. are legally prohibited, as a result of due process from possession ANY bullets, let alone a gun.

I would also much rather face a poor shooter with a 15 rd capacity vs. a good shooter with a 6 rd capacity.

I can also tell you that one of the unintended consequences of the (so called) AWBan was that guns became more powerful and concealable. For example, several very nice 45 single columns became popular cause if you (as a civilian) didn't have a grandfathered gun that could carry 15 rds, why not have a nice concealable higher caliber gun that carries 8

Most illegal firearms are illegal because of the PERSON carrying them. Iow, it is NOT (as gun grabbers repeatedly miss) a GUN thang. It's a CRIMINAL thang.

I also recognize that OFTEN my individual security is lessened because of constitutional rights. I can't pat down ANYbody, I have to abide by Terry v. Ohio. etc. etc.

Constitutional rights ALWAYS involve tradeoffs.

Always

...except that they're defining them as "machine guns". For Christ's sake, words either have meanings and definitions or they don't!





assuming the armed thug was following DC's gun laws, which is rather unlikely...

But that's one way to look at it. Except that if we base our laws entirely on what laws would make the police happy and their job easier, we'd get.... the warrant-free Bush Administration!

Alternately, if I was an armed thug I would be much happier knowing the clerk I'm robbing or the house I'm breaking into had a gun that could only fire a half-dozen times.


Bur regardless, the average magazine capacity of the common handgun has been going up for about 25 years now. Ever since reliable double-action 9mm autos with double-stack magazines came out, they have become very very common in America. Beretta, Glock, Ruger, Sig-Sauer, Keckler & Koch, Smith & Wesson, Taurus, Para-Ordanance, etc., sell handguns with standard magazine capacities of 15 rounds or more, depending on the caliber.



The the ruling that firearm ownership is an individual right, the burden is on DC to prove the restriction of that right is both in the interests of public safety AND effective.

;)

Your happiness has very little to do with it when you are facing an armed suspect. I can't think of a situation where everyone stood around munching doughnuts after the fact and said "Gee, we sure were lucky that dirtbag only had a six shooter!" Criminals are the problem in society, not lawful citizens going about their daily lives.

The police are not there to protect individuals. That's the way it is. You're on your own until they get there to fill out the paperwork. If you think it's their "duty" to protect you personally then you have watched far too much TV. The wealthy and powerful can afford to hire security, the rest of you guys are just on your own.

police are under, per case law, no constitutional mandate to protect any particular individual

they most definitely do, thousands of times a day across this land, protect citizens.

but many many many times, ESPECIALLY in deadly force situations, they are not going to be there in time to protect YOU from deadly force.

That's why, as well as the constitution, you empower yourself to do so.

I personally know two people who have taken bullets protecting individuals, and I had one miss my head by 3 feet and plow into a wall while I was protecting a bar full of citizens from a crazed gunman. It does happen.

Unfortunately, I couldn't shoot back because there were too many people in the way. WE have (rightly so) restrictions that they don't abide by

You tell me, is this a machinegun, as the District claims?



It is the most common centerfire target pistol in the United States, and has been for at least 80 years (it was designed in 1911); it is also in the top 5 among lawfully owned defensive handguns. It has a 7-shot, single-stack magazine, and fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. It fires no faster than a 7- or 8-shot .357 revolver.

I ask again, is this a machinegun, or is the District being disingenuous?

BTW, banning this gun fails the D.C. v. Heller "in common use for lawful purposes" test on its face. That is the most common centerfire pistol in U.S. homes.

anybody home?



They are not negating his right to own a weapon, even an extremely lethal weapon. But they have the right to reduce the amount of firepower that is on the streets.







Since when does a governmental body have "rights"?

Wow, the mindset that some have bought into......

"We, The People".

The people of DC approved of the gun ban. The people of DC want to keep high capacity magazine firearms out of their community.

This was not something dictated by an out-of-control bureaucracy. It was the will of the people, and reflected in the laws passed by the communtity.

The only mindset I bought into is called DEMOCRACY. Try it sometime.

Can you provide legal support for such a position?

horrible results. Consider that and perhaps you'll revise your statement. Bottom line, in a group of three, two may not vote to have the third for dinner.

We are a Constitutional Republic with Democratic processes and elections. If we were a Democratic Republic a vote of 50% +1 could legalize rape, murder, etc. The Constitution exists to protect against just such occurrences.

So if the people of a city outlaw abortion or to enforce Jim Crow is that OK? I am sure their are plenty of cities where the votes are there for both of those measures.

I'd prefer a guy with a gun that carried 15 rounds of a caliber that my vest will stop vs. a guy carrying 6 rounds of a caliber that will cut through my vest like a hot knife through butter.

Firepower is rated in many ways. Just cause you might have a lot of bullets doesn't make you more dangerous.

There is a very appropriate saying that applies here. "A man with many guns may not be proficient with any of them. A man with a single gun is a man to be feared."

Basically, the guy that has a bunch of rounds in a magazine will more likely shoot a lot with less concern about where the bullets go. A man with a revolver is more likely to realize that every shot counts.

Also, you are way off base by comparing an armed citizen to a criminal. The bad guys haven't and won't give a damn about these laws and they only hurt the people that have no criminal intent. Barring a gun that the criminals are more likely to use only hurts the law abiding public and I have to wonder what Fenty et al are thinking.

There is a detachable box magazine that does not fit flush with the bottom of a magazine well. Any weapon that uses a detachable box magazine can use pretty much any size of said magazine, so long as the part that actually fits into the weapon and interfaces with the magazine retention mechanism is correct for the weapon in question. Granted, weapons tend to have a standard magazine size. So I suppose you could use the term to refer to any which exceeds that capacity, though it is possible to increase the capacity of a magazine by methods other than increasing the size of box. A redesign of the follower (the bit the pushes up on the cartridges under spring pressure) is the most apparent and is often used.

Maybe this is superfluous, but the term "extended clip" just smacks of buzz-word type propaganda in the same realm as constantly parroting "AK-47."

but, yes, they are available, so DC is ruling on the "potential" of the capacity of the pistol.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MAG211-36.html

Of course, I have the "potential" to drive 100mph in a 25 zone. So write me a ticket.

:wtf:

Not exactly a super-high capacity weapon, there are seven and eight shot .357 magnum revolvers, and they are not only popular but increasingly common. There are 10 round extended magazines made for the 1911, but they are usually a little more expensive than the ordinary seven and eight round magazines and may be less reliable. Or they are Promag and definitely unreliable.

I hope he files another lawsuit immediately.

I can't believe the Chief of Police actually said that.

DC , like many jurisdictions has appointed police chiefs.

iow, cop-o-crats.

he's going to parrot whatever the powers-that-be tell him to

:wow:

He isn't pulling it out of his ass, that's really what the law says.

In DC, a Machine Gun is "any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger; or semi-automatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading."

For people who aren't familiar with firearm nomenclature, this is a definition of Machine Gun that isn't used anywhere else, and purposely confuses two unrelated classes of arms. By analogy to understand how fucked up this is, think of a law that read:

Infanticide consists of any killing any human child less than 12 months old; or of taking birth control pills to prevent conception."

I like your analogy, it is pretty on point, but I think a more accurate one would be,

Infanticide consists of killing any human child less than 12 months old; or possessing condoms capable of preventing conception

Legislation commonly uses a short expression to cover a wide range of things, and defines the expression for the purposes of the legislation and only for the purposes of the legislation as incuding those things.

The legislation in this case could call those things Happy Fun Balls, and it would have absolutely no effect on the dispositive provisions.

Some folks around here surely do get hung up on things that are of no consequence whatsoever.

This is every bit as dishonest and misleading as the current President deciding that the United States doesn't torture because he gets to decide what torture is.

Laws are passed in a public arena where public opinion matters. When people are asked if they support an idea, they apply the common meaning to the words used.

> Do you support common-sense prohibitions on infanticide?

When legislation takes words that have common sense meanings, and converts those meanings to twisted shadows of themselves, it makes public discourse and understanding of what is being legislated difficult.

What educated person would possible think that a Machine Gun ban included a ban on semi-automatic pistols? That makes as much sense as a marijuana ban outlawing roses or an abortion ban outlawing condoms.

As a rule of thumb in legal linguistics and construction, words are assumed to have their common meaning unless specifically defined otherwise. Fair enough. Normally specific legal definitions are then written for the purpose of removing ambiguity and for "the avoidance of doubt". This goes far beyond that, and creates a legal definition calling something that which it is not.

pistols?

How about, anybody who read the legislation? That is the definition of 'educated'.

As a rule of thumb in legal linguistics and construction, words are assumed to have their common meaning unless specifically defined otherwise.

And that is exactly what the legislation does - it specifically defines it otherwise. It seems pretty unambiguous to me, since it says what it says.

One of those "comon sense" gun regulations, is it?

To define a semi-automatic as a machine gun in the legislation in question, I mean.


I'd love to hear your opinion of that, and I'd imagine so would everyone else.


On edit: Is it in any way reasonable, to do such a thing?

Answer this: Is this, by ANY reasonable definition, a "machinegun"?



Classifying a NON-automatic civilian pistol that holds all of SEVEN rounds a "machinegun" is just absurd.

The discussion turns to whether or not it is "reasonable" to define a semi-auto handgun as a machinegun, and low and behold...The people that are so often stumping for "reasonable" regulation are just nowhere to be found.

Surprise surprise suprise. Not.

Seems a blow to their credibility...the regular suspects hereabouts, that in just about any other discussion of gun regulation use the word "reasonable" so frequently.


Telling, no?

In an attempt to restrict access to technology that's been in civilian hands for more than a hundred years. It's like a law that says terrorists captured in the US may be held indefinitely without a trial and expands the definition of "terrorist" to include anyone who criticizes the government.

If they want to ban semi-auto handguns, then they should ban them by the name in common usage, rather than twist language to make it sound like their ban only targets fully automatic weapons. There's a difference between refining or specifying what a word means in the context of a bill, and creating a completely new definition.

Hell, what if Dubya passed a "Ban on Torture", and people only noticed later that said ban defined "torture" as "making campaign contributions to Democrats"?

Machine guns have a very specific legal definition and are in a totally different class than ordinary firearms like Mr. Heller's pistol. It does have a consequence, a major consequence, and if it didn't than why wouldn't they have just called them happy fun balls instead of using a very specfic, loaded, legal AND technical term to describe an object that never will and can never fall under that category?

Machine guns have a very specific legal definition and are in a totally different class than ordinary firearms like Mr. Heller's pistol

-- for the purposes of completely DIFFERENT legislation that does NOT apply to the situations governed by the legislation in question.

An excellent illustration. Well done.

No offense, but I realize my blood pressure is going to be much healthier if I don't have to see your asinine comments on an otherwise generally logical forum.

I can't tell if you are serious or just trolling in most of what you write, but now I won't have to worry about it anymore.

I'm cut to the quick.

Now I'll just have to post my replies to your stuff for the entertainment of the rest of the assembled masses, as I do with dear jody. Ever noticed how moronic that makes the ignorer look to the reading public?

Than repeatedly refusing to address the laughable contradictions which exist in your "philosophy".

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is it acceptable to you that legislation can define a term however the legislators wish? If legislation defines my dog as a cat, does that make him so?

If legislation defines my dog as a cat, does that make him so?

That's just one of those stupid questions, isn't it?

Did someone say that if legislation defined something as something, it made it so?

I actually said pretty much the exact opposite, I think you'll find.

Go look up "deeming provision" someplace, if you're genuinely confused.


Is it acceptable to you that legislation can define a term however the legislators wish?

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION, which is what I said, absolutely.

Some US states define a fetus as a human being for the purposes of homicide legislation.

It is not the definition that bothers me. It is the legislative decision to punish the termination of a pregnancy as if it were homicide.

That help at all?

Question: Is it acceptable to you that legislation can define a term however the legislators wish?

Your answer: "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION, which is what I said, absolutely."

And what is the purpose of legislation?

"It is not the definition that bothers me. It is the legislative decision to punish the termination of a pregnancy as if it were homicide."

How can it not bother you? Is not the definition the justification (admittedly likely not the right term) for punitive action in your example?

how I just don't have time to spend nattering with people who don't have a clue.


Is not the definition the justification (admittedly likely not the right term) for punitive action in your example?

No. It isn't. And that isn't just not the right term; it's an illustration of complete failure to grasp the concept.

Here's one for you.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec2.html

Criminal Code (of Canada)
INTERPRETATION

... “cattle” means neat cattle or an animal of the bovine species by whatever technical or familiar name it is known, and includes any horse, mule, ass, pig, sheep or goat;

You see -- it is then a whole lot easier in the rest of the Code to refer to "cattle", without spelling all those out. Everybody in the world knows that horses are not cattle. This legislation treats horses, mules, etc., in the same way as it treats cattle, and just calls the whole lot of them cattle -- for those purposes. It doesn't change the nature of horses or mules, or cattle. It isn't meant to.

Consider this statute from closer to you:

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/car/ksag_2001-54.htm

In 1929 the Kansas Legislature passed a statute providing:

'That it should be unlawful for any neat cattle, horses, mules, asses, swine or sheep, to run at large.'

(Neat cattle does not refer to cattle that dress nicely, but rather to domesticated straight-backed animals of the bovine genus.)

If that 1929 statute had included a definitional provision like the one in the Criminal Code of Canada, that provision could then have read simply:

... it should be unlawful for any cattle to run at large.

Maybe some pig-lover (or pig-hater) would have objected that pigs aren't cattle ...


In the "fetal homicide" example I gave, the definitional provision REFLECTS and gives effect to the noxious decision already made by the legislature. It is the result, not the cause. It is the decision, not the justification. It really makes no difference whatsoever what legislative technique the legislature uses to give effect to that decision.

Justification for legislation is not found in legislation. It is external to legislation.


This part of your post I don't even know what to do with. Maybe I could make anagrams with it.

Question: Is it acceptable to you that legislation can define a term however the legislators wish?
Your answer: "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION, which is what I said, absolutely."
And what is the purpose of legislation?

IT DOESN'T MATTER what the purpose of the legislation is.

For one thing, I did not say PURPOSE of the legislation.

I said, really really clearly, "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION".

Here, try another one.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2200E/y2200e07.htm

For the purposes of the Codex Alimentarius:

Food means any substance, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, which is intended for human consumption, and includes drink, chewing gum and any substance which has been used in the manufacture, preparation or treatment of “food” but does not include cosmetics or tobacco or substances used only as drugs.

If you choose to eat paper or dog food, it would be food, by an everyday definition of food as being what someone or something eats. But when the paper was produced, it was not intended for human consumption, so it is not food for the purposes of the Codex Alimentarius. Neither would dog food be, for instance, despite the fact that it is plainly food.

It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this discussion, what the purposes of the legislation in question are. Not one whit.

The question of whether paper or dog food should be included in the definition of "food" in the CA, or something should not be included in the definition of "machine gun" in the legislation in question here, is a perfectly good question.

In neither case does it have anything to do with what term is being used to describe the things that are covered by the Codex Alimentrius or this legislation.

"IT DOESN'T MATTER what the purpose of the legislation is."


If the purpose is to deny enumerated rights or cause harm. Is that too erudite for you?


In the "fetal homicide" example I gave, the definitional provision REFLECTS and gives effect to the noxious decision already made by the legislature.

Than purpose DOES matter, doesn't it? The decision is made, now all that's left is to define terms as they choose.

If the purpose is to deny enumerated rights or cause harm. Is that too erudite for you?

THEN IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A BEEF.

***NOT*** THE LEGISLATIVE TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT PURPOSE.

For the love of fuck.

It is technique that transforms purpose into enforceable legislation.

you might not fully comprehend the gravity of specifics in U.S. firearms laws and the "consequences" they can have, especially if simple expressions.

Since you live in Canada, you might not fully comprehend the gravity of specifics in U.S. firearms laws and the "consequences" they can have, especially if simple expressions.

You could try to teach me. I'm fairly trainable.

Actually, since I have a law degree, over a decade of practice and about three decades altogether of work involving a great deal of statutory construction, I might comprehend it all a whole lot better than pretty much anybody hereabouts. In fact, I'm pretty sure I do.

that the definition of machine gun used by the city may be fount "vague" by the court. Vague laws are Unconstitutional on the face of it. It's one reason that many gun owners are targeting the "sporting purpose" clause in the 1968 GCA now that the Heller case has been decided.

Many of the gun control laws in the United States are worded to purposefully be vague to allow for inclusive interpretation. This is going to be part of the undoing of gun control in the United States.

Revolvers can use circlips, and e clips, and half moons, and all whatever you want to call them, to reload quickly.

The rest of these handguns feed Magazines.


So it sounds like D.C. is going to require 200+ year old technology huh? I'm sure that'll fly with the Supreme Court, next case that bubbles up.

The looks on the faces of the nation's collection of gun-ignorant, gun-hating politicians and bureaucrats watching somebody use a stripper to reload a fixed-mag weapon just as quick as the dreaded "clip" allows modern (read: pretty much perfected 110 years ago) weapons to be reloaded. In fact, maybe I could make a small fortune coming up with a really good system to convert modern autoloaders to use these wonderful, cheap, efficient firearms anachronisms from the not-so-distant past...

For those not familiar with the concept, here is a picture that is pretty much self-explanatory


Edit: Broken Picture Fixed

The Garand feeds from the top with an eight round clip, has no pistol grip, flash hider, it even has old-fashioned wooden stocks. It is also one of the most deadly firearms ever produced. It literally makes the AR15 look like a pop gun by comparison. I don't understand the fixation with detachable magazines and cosmetic features. Oh, and you can get a Garand through CMP for very little money.

Problem I have with it is chasing the strippers......but hey that's life. 10+lbs takes the sting out of the '06 and is particularly pleasant to shoot with properly adjusted military-style sling. Yup...I like it. Wish I could afford one, but for now I will have to be content shooting my friend's on occasion.

and the future court rulings will only hurt the anti-gun movement.

What is the rational basis for your suggestion?

Presently the powers that be in DC are trying to arrange it so that you can't own any semi-automatic handguns.

Heller attempted to register a 7-shot semi-automatic handgun.

Apparently, only revolvers can be registered.

This seems to me to be a pretty silly differentiator for banning firearms.

OK, I can buy a .40 Springfield Armoury XDM that holds 16 rounds of ammo. Revolvers usually hold 6 rounds. Either will kill you just as dead.

On one hand I'm not too upset about this, since I bet in most defensive uses of firearms probably less than 5 shots are discharged.

On the other hand, if I'm spending $500+ on a handgun why not get the biggest bang for my buck? If a gun with 6 shots costs as much as a gun that holds 16, why not get the one with a better capacity?

It's a stupid law. Semi-automatic pistols, no matter where the magazine is inserted from, are not machine guns.

Next thing you know someone is going to design a top-feeding semi-automatic pistol, like the P90 carbine.

A semi-auto pistol that is designed in such a way as to prevent the use of extended magazines, keeping it under the 11 round maximum, would be permitted. Revolvers that do not exceed 11 rounds are permitted. There is no restriction on long guns which are not federally restricted.

This is much ado about nothing. It's more like the law requiring a catalitic converter in your car, or mandating the use of motorcycle helmets. It doesn't prevent anyone from owning a firearm - it prevents certain firearms from being owned.

a semi-automatic pistol with a removable magazine that could possibly fit that requirement?

and that's the whole point.

Keep the high cap mags off the streets.

It would not, of course, keep them off the street, but it would serve to reduce the numbers.

You could buy a L&G California legal AR15 pistol lower and a 7.5 inch upper. The L&G has a fixed, internal ten round magazine. I'm sure D.C. would fabricate some excuse about why you couldn't do that based on the cosmetic appearance of the firearm.

Someone clever should start a business selling these under the name "DC Special". It would need to take stripper clips though, for fast reloads.

P.S. - If I lived in DC I think I would seriously bring one of these in for registration, just to watch the looks on their faces.

"P.S. - If I lived in DC I think I would seriously bring one of these in for registration, just to watch the looks on their faces."


I would pay big to see the reaction you speak of.

magazines, and this one does not, then there should be no problem.

They've always been on the cutting edge.

:toast:

That looks like it should be a movie prop on BSG or something :D

I changed your rules to meet my own ends.

My own state, Ohio, has a limit on magazine capacity. If it holds more than thirty rounds, it's too large. That's a reasonable restriction that doesn't impede the ability of a citizen from owning an arm that would be useful in the event of a general call to arms of the populace. The difference between that law and the DC regulations is that the Ohio law is not designed to limit the exercise of a Constitutional Right.

I know many lawful citizens who have such high-capacity firearms and they are pillars of the community. It is extremely rare to see one used in the commission of a crime.

No.... fair... Waitaminute..

That would be awesome to throw a bipod and 3-4x pistol scope on.

select-fire. :evilgrin:

Say DC had a law that no car could have a gas tank larger than two gallons, for public safety reasons.

So you go in to register a car that has a one gallon gas tank. But the police won't let you register your car, because some third party independent of either you or the car maker, has built a strap-on two gallon tank that could hypothetically extent your fuel capacity to three gallons.

Putting the onus on gun-makers to design a semi-automatic pistol that cannot be modified to accept greater than 11 rounds would be like putting the onus on car makers to design a car that is impossible for a trained mechanic to modify to hold more than two gallons.

What DC is doing clearly flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling. It is almost like DC is purposely thumbing its nose at the Supreme Court.

There is no way to have a semi auto with a detachable box magazine (all common pistols) that is self restricting to eleven rounds or less. The magazines are all of the same size as far as the pistol itself is concerned, to lower the capacity of a magazine either the internals must be changed or the magazine must be shortened if possible (it often isn't, especially with full size pistols). Any pistol can accept a magazine of extended length, and there is no way to change that. So a ban on anything "capable" of accepting a magazine of more than eleven rounds is an explicit ban on any weapon that uses detachable magazines.

Any pistol with a European style heal release would be prevented from accepting extended magazines. My Seacamp .32 and my HK PSP for instance can not accept extended mags due to this design characteristic.

Still, DC is obviously trying to restrict any and all semi-autos, which flys in the face of the Heller decision which granted that residents be granted access to hand guns as they are the most common self defense firearm. Semi-autos would be the most common handguns used for self defense, ergo...

Though they are sort of going the way of the dinosaur, relegated to pocket pistols and the odd police import like the PSP and Sig P6. And depending on how far the release extends, it isn't outside the realm of possibility to create an extended magazine with a slot for the release.

you'd just need an indentation in the back of the magazine for the catch to lock into. So it's still "convertible" to over-12-round capacity, hence a "machinegun." :crazy:

Given the dimensions of the magazine well and the release, the follower would not be able to travel beyond the indentation. Besides you likely wouldn't be able to get enough leverage on the release to release the mag.

You could certainly weld something up, but it wold involve a major redesign of the gun, the release and the magazines.

Indentation only in the outer wall.

Removing the magazine might be slow, but for the purposes of the law, the pistol would probably still be "convertible" to an over-12-round magazine (at least in the eyes of those zealots who call a 97-year-old, low-capacity civilian pistol a "machinegun"). :eyes:

of 2 rifle mags to conform to deer hunting regs in my state. I used pop rivets which lay flush against the outside of the mag and keep the follower from going below that point....

"There is no restriction on long guns which are not federally restricted."

I guess I'll just mosey on down to the local gun store and buy myself a Thompson SMG, an M-16, and AK-47,... a Galil,.... a FA-MAS.........a..........

And we all know what happens to people who play stupid games.

N/T

You win stupid prizes.

in DC to put a stop to this bullshit.

They will promptly be slapped down...again..

Their is NO WAY, this will stand, especially in light of the Heller Desicion...

It specifically mentioned "weapons in common use at the time"

And no measure of that line, can a semi-automatic pistol be considered "uncommon"...Heck, I even bet the DC Police carry semi-automatics.

They are messing with the bull, they will get the horns...again..

friends with deep pockets and the determination to see his cause through to the bitter end. I expect the battle to be joined by Heller and associates to fight this situation.

I might mention that if the local law enforcement is using semi-autos with high capacity magazines, keeping them when off duty as well as possibly keeping them when retired, Heller will have a LOT of ammo for part 2.

You can read Alan Gura's blog with the details of what is happening and some pretty clear implications on what the next steps may be.

Interesting reading for anyone that wants to hear about Heller from the ultimate insider on the case.

http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/

right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and property as PA (1776), VT (1777) and other states clearly stated in their constitutions and as recognized explicitly by both the majority in D.C. v. Heller and the two dissenting opinions written by Stevens and Breyer and joined in by the other dissenting justices.

Regardless of what differences the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court might have among themselves regarding individual versus collective right and the Second Amendment, they unanimously recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Those who won't fight for freedom, deserve slavery!

to be registered.

Of course they could require them to be disassembled or locked up unloaded. No way in hell any honest citizen could open his safe and load a black powder handgun in time to stop a break in. After all, It's becoming obvious that the local government feels that self defense should be impossible.

This should satisfy all the anti-gun liberals and I'm sure the criminals will love the new requirements.

is attribution of anti-gun with liberals. I believe that the anti-gun nuts are more regional than politically motivated. It happens that many of the anti-gun movement are members of both parties who live in urban areas (see Blooinidiot and Julieannie). I believe it is more attributable to self proclaimed urban intellectuals and elitists. There are many fine liberal thinkers who are not rabid anti-gun liars, most of whom live outside of urban centers.... Just sayin'.