• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

House Bill 1371

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
It is not. 'specially not a single-action. "Semi-automatic" really refers to the reloading mechanism. A semi-auto reloads the chamber semi-automatically. A revolver has multiple chambers that are loaded/reloaded by the user. It is, however, a repeating firearm.

They way the Fienstien bill was worded revolvers would be considered semi-auto.
 

Sparky508

Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
347
Location
Graham, , USA
Then please cite her bill language.

Revolvers:
are scary, have a pistol grip, can be fitted with a bayonet through the use of tape, can fire 1000's of rounds a minute, are easily converted to full auto with readily available plans on the interwebs, have features of military weapons such as the little hole in the end that does stuff. :banghead:


See below, of list of banned weapons based on verbiage of bill...........................

Screen-Shot-2012-04-14-at-9.17.05-PM.png
 

DamonK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
585
Location
Ft. Lewis, WA
They way the Fienstien bill was worded revolvers would be considered semi-auto.

It does not apply to revolvers. Specifically, how many COMMONLY USED revolvers carry 10 rounds? Quit being such a knucklehead, there are real issues to concern ourselves with, without you stirring the pot simply to muddy the waters.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
 

Flopsweat

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
165
Location
Slightly right of center
It does not apply to revolvers. Specifically, how many COMMONLY USED revolvers carry 10 rounds? Quit being such a knucklehead, there are real issues to concern ourselves with, without you stirring the pot simply to muddy the waters.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

Oh, now you've done it. You went and used logic. That's not going to work - it just going to make him angry. :lol:
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
It does not apply to revolvers. Specifically, how many COMMONLY USED revolvers carry 10 rounds? Quit being such a knucklehead, there are real issues to concern ourselves with, without you stirring the pot simply to muddy the waters.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

Sorry, I must have confused that bill for a different bill.

I thought I had read one that said something about being able to fire more than 1 round without re-loading.

Now I want to find that one again, I forget that these gun ban laws are all worded differently.

I stand corrected about the "Frankenstein" bill.
 

DamonK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
585
Location
Ft. Lewis, WA
Sorry, I must have confused that bill for a different bill.

I thought I had read one that said something about being able to fire more than 1 round without re-loading.

Now I want to find that one again, I forget that these gun ban laws are all worded differently.

I stand corrected about the "Frankenstein" bill.

Way to take one sentence out of context and confuse the issue.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
 

DamonK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
585
Location
Ft. Lewis, WA
The real issue is that they want us all disarmed.

If this gets through they will use it to pass worse ones.

Ok, are you talking about fienstien's bill? Or HB1371? The only purpose of HB 1371 is to limit any federal gun control measures. It is not restrictive to the legally armed population in anyway. If you want to be concerned about something, there's plenty of things to be concerned about. Let's not borrow or imagine trouble where there is none.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Ok, are you talking about fienstien's bill? Or HB1371? The only purpose of HB 1371 is to limit any federal gun control measures. It is not restrictive to the legally armed population in anyway. If you want to be concerned about something, there's plenty of things to be concerned about. Let's not borrow or imagine trouble where there is none.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

His motive is to post a conspiracy in every post.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Ok, are you talking about fienstien's bill? Or HB1371? The only purpose of HB 1371 is to limit any federal gun control measures. It is not restrictive to the legally armed population in anyway. If you want to be concerned about something, there's plenty of things to be concerned about. Let's not borrow or imagine trouble where there is none.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
That was about the Frankenstein bill.

HB1371 is a basically a good bill. I hope it passes.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
I am beginning to see a pattern...

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
There more than a couple on here that fit this pattern. You can, as I have done, with Freedom1man, Adam3176 and a couple others, just put them on your ignore list. I will also ignore their PMs.
 

DamonK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
585
Location
Ft. Lewis, WA
There more than a couple on here that fit this pattern. You can, as I have done, with Freedom1man, Adam3176 and a couple others, just put them on your ignore list. I will also ignore their PMs.

Good idea!

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Well no, but some are hand cranked and others are full auto electric, technically these can be considered revolvers. lol

View attachment 9964

General Electric, "We bring good things to life." :banana:

View attachment 9965

View attachment 9966

Actually those are all breeds of Gatling guns. A revolver is defined as having a single barrel with multiple revolving chambers. Gatling guns have multiple revolving barrels AND chambers that share a common FCS & loading system. Hand-cranked Gatling guns are technically legal in Washington since they only fire one round for one activation of the fire control mechanism. Kesselring's up in Burlington has one in 45-70 for about 50 grand. Yet that is not to be confused with an "assault weapon" :banghead:
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Actually those are all breeds of Gatling guns. A revolver is defined as having a single barrel with multiple revolving chambers. Gatling guns have multiple revolving barrels AND chambers that share a common FCS & loading system. Hand-cranked Gatling guns are technically legal in Washington since they only fire one round for one activation of the fire control mechanism. Kesselring's up in Burlington has one in 45-70 for about 50 grand. Yet that is not to be confused with an "assault weapon" :banghead:

But wait, that is a crew fired weapon! That could never have been protected by the constitution.....{/sarcasm}
 
Top