D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down

imported post

asforme wrote:

DopaVash wrote:

Pluff said the argument for allowing semiautomatic pistols might be overstated, at least when it comes to self-defense. Revolvers are more accurate, more reliable and easier to manage than higher-tech semiautomatic pistols in an emergency, he said.

Click to expand...

Wat?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a gunsmith, and I don't play one on tv, but I would think a gun where the front and rear sight are mounted directly on the non moving barrel would be more accurate than a gun where the front and rear sight are mounted on a slide that holds the barrel loosely enough to allow it to slide back and forth.

Personally I'm not sniping with my pistol and my Glock does the job just fine.

Click to expand...

Revolvers are more accurate/reliable? Wonder if they saw this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378142,00.html

POTTER VALLEY, Calif.— A Mendocino County woman who was trying to kill mice in her trailer with a gun ended up shooting herself and another person.

The 43-year-old woman pulled out her .44-caliber Magnum revolver after she saw the mice scurrying across the floor of her trailer on Highway 20 in Potter Valley, sheriff's officials said.

But she accidentally dropped the gun, which went off as it struck the floor. The bullet went through the woman's kneecap, bounced off the keys sitting on the belt loop of a 42-year-old man in the trailer and grazed the man's groin before ending up in his coin pocket.

Authorities did not release the shooting victims' names.

The mice escaped the shooting unharmed.

Edit: Formatting (again)

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

asforme wrote:

DopaVash wrote:

Pluff said the argument for allowing semiautomatic pistols might be overstated, at least when it comes to self-defense. Revolvers are more accurate, more reliable and easier to manage than higher-tech semiautomatic pistols in an emergency, he said.

Click to expand...

Wat?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a gunsmith, and I don't play one on tv, but I would think a gun where the front and rear sight are mounted directly on the non moving barrel would be more accurate than a gun where the front and rear sight are mounted on a slide that holds the barrel loosely enough to allow it to slide back and forth.

Personally I'm not sniping with my pistol and my Glock does the job just fine.

Click to expand...

Revolvers are more accurate/reliable? Wonder if they saw this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378142,00.html

POTTER VALLEY, Calif.— A Mendocino County woman who was trying to kill mice in her trailer with a gun ended up shooting herself and another person.

The 43-year-old woman pulled out her .44-caliber Magnum revolver after she saw the mice scurrying across the floor of her trailer on Highway 20 in Potter Valley, sheriff's officials said.

But she accidentally dropped the gun, which went off as it struck the floor. The bullet went through the woman's kneecap, bounced off the keys sitting on the belt loop of a 42-year-old man in the trailer and grazed the man's groin before ending up in his coin pocket.

Authorities did not release the shooting victims' names.

The mice escaped the shooting unharmed.

Edit: Formatting (again)

Click to expand...

Well, while that's hilarious because she was trying to shoot a mouse, IN HER HOME, with a .44 magnum, we don't want to prove that revolvers are dangerous, because they're not when handled properly. We want to show that autos and revolvers are BOTH good.

imported post

SQLtables wrote:

xd.40 wrote:

asforme wrote:

DopaVash wrote:

Pluff said the argument for allowing semiautomatic pistols might be overstated, at least when it comes to self-defense. Revolvers are more accurate, more reliable and easier to manage than higher-tech semiautomatic pistols in an emergency, he said.

Click to expand...

Wat?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a gunsmith, and I don't play one on tv, but I would think a gun where the front and rear sight are mounted directly on the non moving barrel would be more accurate than a gun where the front and rear sight are mounted on a slide that holds the barrel loosely enough to allow it to slide back and forth.

Personally I'm not sniping with my pistol and my Glock does the job just fine.

Click to expand...

Revolvers are more accurate/reliable? Wonder if they saw this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378142,00.html

POTTER VALLEY, Calif.— A Mendocino County woman who was trying to kill mice in her trailer with a gun ended up shooting herself and another person.

The 43-year-old woman pulled out her .44-caliber Magnum revolver after she saw the mice scurrying across the floor of her trailer on Highway 20 in Potter Valley, sheriff's officials said.

But she accidentally dropped the gun, which went off as it struck the floor. The bullet went through the woman's kneecap, bounced off the keys sitting on the belt loop of a 42-year-old man in the trailer and grazed the man's groin before ending up in his coin pocket.

Authorities did not release the shooting victims' names.

The mice escaped the shooting unharmed.

Edit: Formatting (again)

Click to expand...

Well, while that's hilarious because she was trying to shoot a mouse, IN HER HOME, with a .44 magnum, we don't want to prove that revolvers are dangerous, because they're not when handled properly. We want to show that autos and revolvers are BOTH good.

Click to expand...

As I remember it the DoD did a bunch of throw it on the ground and make sure it doesn't discharge tests on both the Sig 226 and the Baretta 92F. Probably these would be the pistols of choice for shooting mice in your trailer if you're likely to drop the weapon. Just remember to keep some keys on your belt loop and put on a shirt for when the EMT's come. Or maybe just buy a cat.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

xd.40 wrote:

According to Parsons, D.C. code already has an allowance for some semiautomatic handguns — pistols with a magazine holding fewer than 12 live rounds were grandfathered under the now-overturned 1976 ban.

"They are falsely claiming that all semiautomatic handguns are banned," Parsons said. She said the NRA will wait until the city sets its new rules to decide how to respond.

The District interprets its prohibition to encompass all semiautomatic handguns. Alan Gura, one of the lawyers who represented D.C. residents seeking gun rights
in District of Columbia v. Heller, said one line of D.C. code basically renders semiautomatic handguns as a machine gun, which would still be illegal.

Current city law defines a "machine gun" to mean "any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot: a) Automatically, more than one shot by a single function of the trigger; b) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading."

Click to expand...

Show me a semiautomatic handgun that cannot accept an extended magazine holding more than 12 rounds (other than the C96 Mauser; when was the last time that was a popularCC weapon?)and I will listen to whatMs. Parsons has to say. However, any Glock, Ruger, M&P/Sigma/S&W,XD, Sig, and Taurus can accept any length magazine made for it, and thelawdoes not consider whetherhigher-cap magsthat fit the gun exist (becauseif the design accepts mags of any length it is "designed" to take them), only whetherthe gunwould be illegalif they did, and duh, yes it would.

This is quite simply an attempt to use a law that was not at issue and therefore still stands to work around the SC ruling. If I were a majority judge I would feel more than slightly insulted that D.C. was doing everthing it could to ignore me.

Click to expand...

I have such a gun. It is a POS .25 but cannot accept an extended mag because the mag release is at the bottom of the grip.

imported post

BillMCyrus wrote:

I wish Gura could keep his mouth shut. Every time he refutes one of the antis' points he affirms two others. He should not repeat the stereotypes and misconceptions when refuting them--people will quote the reiteration, not the rebuttal. And he really needs to STOP ACKNOWLEDGING THE NFA!!! It needs to be tossed out just like DC's laws, but he's doing NOTHING to help us. What a classic example of a half friend half enemy. Can someone please gag him before he does more damage!? :banghead:

By the way, was there any posting of the city council's reaction to the OCDO presentation/testimony? The video clip only shows about 5 seconds of response and no discussion. Sure we know what our side said, but what about them?

Click to expand...

I think Gura acquited himself pretty well at the Supreme Court. Civil rights have to be won one step at a time. Can you imagine where Gura would have gotten had he attached the NFA instead of the handgun ban in the home. It would have been Miller all over again only the case would never have been won at the DC Circuit. It's handguns in the home for self defense, then semi-autos, then right to carry. Once we win all those, then someone might have a slight chance to take on the NFA.

imported post

I agree. Knocking down that whole "the people have the right to be in the Army" interpretation of the second amendment was a good thing to do. It's unfortunate that the opinion basically says that any registration scheme you want is Ok, but the way I read it, it should invalidate most assault rifle bans. It won't take many CMP shooters and hunters to show that most banned rifles are in common use for lawfull purposes.

imported post

asforme wrote:

DopaVash wrote:

Pluff said the argument for allowing semiautomatic pistols might be overstated, at least when it comes to self-defense. Revolvers are more accurate, more reliable and easier to manage than higher-tech semiautomatic pistols in an emergency, he said.

Click to expand...

Wat?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a gunsmith, and I don't play one on tv, but I would think a gun where the front and rear sight are mounted directly on the non moving barrel would be more accurate than a gun where the front and rear sight are mounted on a slide that holds the barrel loosely enough to allow it to slide back and forth.

Personally I'm not sniping with my pistol and my Glock does the job just fine.

Click to expand...

Yeah, a revolver is more accurate than a pistol. That's why its been decades since revolvers were serious contenders in bullseye matches. You may have the sights mounted in a rigid arrangement with the barrel but you are forgetting the fact that the chamber is invariably going to be ever so slightly differently aligned with the barrel for each shot with a revolver.

I used to shoot PPC back in the early eighties when my hometown's police department opened its new range and allowed ordinary citizens to compete with the cops in a yearly summer pistol tournament. It was great fun and I enjoyed a friendly competition with a local cop who with whom I was well matched. Police were armed with revolvers back then. They shot S&W 19s and I shot a Ruger Security-Six.

I moved away in '85 but came back to visit a few years late. I stopped in to see my old "nemesis" and we started talking guns. He told me that the department had switched to Glocks in '87 and that he'd shot his first ever perfect score in PPC the first day he fired his Glock.

That pretty well sums up the difference between revolvers and pistols. I don't know what the S&W rep has been smoking but I think just about anybody who's shot both styles of handgun has found that the pistol is the more accurate of the two.