Only 'Revolvers and Derringers' Allowed in D.C.?

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty claims "semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal" in D.C. despite yesterday's Supreme Court decision overturning the city's handgun ban and "safe storage" requirements. The Violence Policy Center likewise argues that "the Court's ruling for the most part will only affect revolvers and derringers." It notes that D.C. bans "machine guns," which it idiosyncratically defines to include not only guns that fire "more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger" but also guns that fire just once per trigger pull and can fire "more than 12 shots without manual reloading." Even if Fenty is correct that the latter provision remains intact, there are plenty of semiautomatic handguns with ammunition capacities of 12 or fewer rounds. These, for example, or these.

A "news analysis" in today's New York Times also sows confusion about the legal status of semiautomatic guns, saying "six states, Puerto Rico and at least 14 municipalities ban assault weapons and semiautomatic weapons." A ban on "semiautomatic weapons" would permit possession only of revolvers and single-shot pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Neither Puerto Rico nor any state has such a law. Puerto Rico bans "semi-automatic long-barrelled weapon[s]," and according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence seven states ban "assault weapons," an arbitrarily defined category of firearms invented by gun control activists and distinguished mainly by a scary, militaristic appearance. 

As its source for the erroneous statement about gun bans, the Times cites Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion in D.C. v. Heller, where he says "at least six States and Puerto Rico impose general bans on certain types of weapons, in particular assault weapons or semiautomatic weapons," and "at least 14 municipalities do the same." This is a much vaguer statement than what the Times reported. It would encompass bans on handguns, inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials"), and machine guns as well as so-called assault weapons. The states cited by Breyer—California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York—have "assault weapon" bans, not blanket bans on semiautomatic guns. I don't know whether any of those 14 municipalities has a complete ban on semiautomatic firearms, but it's certainly not true that all of them do, as the Times reported. Breyer's list includes several cities that ban handguns but allow possession of semiautomatic long guns.

Right after inaccurately paraphrasing Breyer, the Times adds: "But Justice [Antonin] Scalia wrote [in the majority opinion] that the Second Amendment's protections apply only to weapons in common use, like rifles and pistols." The but makes no sense, because the weapons banned by the laws Breyer cited are "rifles and pistols." When it comes to figuring out which guns are "unusual and dangerous weapons" of the sort Scalia says may be prohibited without violating the Second Amendment, I hope the courts do a better job of drawing meaningful distinctions. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Scalia wrote [in the majority opinion] that the Second Amendment's protections apply only to weapons in common use, like rifles and pistols.



    Slightly off topic, but this is more shoddy reasoning from Scalia, whose judicial philosophy seems to be, "How to I make Rush Limbaugh say nice things about me."

    It's circular reasoning to say the Second Amendment protects only ownership of firearms in common use. The existing restrictions on guns help determine what is in common use.

  • ed||

    I'd like to know how Adrian Fenty managed to stumble off the short bus and into the D.C. mayor's diggs. Marion Barry is Aristotle by comparison. What a city.

  • Episiarch||

    Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty claims "semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal" in D.C. despite yesterday's Supreme Court decision

    It is astounding to me how desperate these people are to keep law-abiding people from having guns. Are they just power-hungry scumbags as I assume, or do they truly believe that crime will somehow explode if people can defend themselves?

    Also, his reasoning is 100% grade-A bullshit.

  • Salvius||

    I'm completely convinced that the overwhelming majority of people who use the term "semiautomatic" have no goddamn idea what it actually means. I think for most of them, it is actually synonymous with "automatic".

  • dhex||

    [quote]or do they truly believe that crime will somehow explode if people can defend themselves?[/quote]

    well, in places like chicago and nyc, where the cops and the people most likely to benefit from legal handgun ownership do not have what we might call a "good relationship" i think the fear is more about cries of "remember sean bell" than "this is a stickup!"

  • Paul||

    A "news analysis" in today's New York Times also sows confusion about the legal status of semiautomatic guns, saying "six states, Puerto Rico and at least 14 municipalities ban assault



    Shyeah, you should have heard NPR's 'story' on it yesterday.

  • ||

    I'll have you know- President Lincoln was killed (in Washington!) with a single shot muzzle-loading "derringer."

    I'm back in business, bro!

  • Paul||

    "How to I make Rush Limbaugh say nice things about me."

    Scalia was pissing off liberals when Rush Limbaugh was merely a glint in the milkman's eyes.

  • ||

    A ban on "semiautomatic weapons" would permit possession only of revolvers and single-shot pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

    Not even that. Any double-action revolver is "semi-automatic" under the common definition of "every time you pull the trigger it goes bang until it runs out of ammo".

    In a revolver, the cylinder revolves and puts a fresh round under the hammer every time the trigger is pulled. In a single-action revolver, you have to pull the hammer back manually. In a double-action, the hammer is recocked by the trigger pull.

    While there are certainly mechanical differences between a double action revolver and a semi-auto pistol, many definitions of semi-auto actually describe both.

  • ||

    Technically if you ban all "semiautomatic weapons", that really includes double action (or double action only) revolvers too. I know that they are not typically referred to as semiautomatic, but they do fire a round each time the trigger is pulled (without reloading in between shots).

  • Paul||

    Y'know, I came to my own zen conclusion about gun control many years ago: Pass all the laws you want, fuckers, I'm owning firearms.

  • Episiarch||

    i think the fear is more about cries of "remember sean bell" than "this is a stickup!"

    But, as always, anyone angry enough to drill a cop for that reason can get a gun anyway. The cops and mayor have to know this.

    I am pretty much convinced that the cops and politicians love the fact that they can have guns and the peasants cannot, and they are terrified of losing this powerful status symbol.

  • JLM||

    RC beat me to it.

  • Rimfax||

    I guess the Calico M-950 is right out then.

  • Russ 2000||

    the Times cites Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion in D.C. v. Heller, where he says "at least six States and Puerto Rico impose general bans on certain types of weapons, in particular assault weapons or semiautomatic weapons,"

    Let me get this straight. Breyer is saying the Second Amendment is not an individual right because six states say so?

    This guy should be removed from the bench for malpractice if that's what he was getting at.

  • Mister DNA||

    oops... damn blockquote tags... First sentence should have been blockquoted

  • ||

    I've come to realize that anti-gunners see all "gun violence" as negative, even when it's an 80 year old women shooing a career felon who's trying to beat her to death. They'd rather that women be beaten to death than a criminal get shot (even non-lethally). They believe shooting someone for any reason whatsoever is the highest crime imaginable - worse than rape or murder.

    They have an irrational fear fetish for guns.

  • ||

    They should ban stainless steel and nickel plated handguns as well. There's nothing in the Second Amendment protecting that.

  • ||

    When it comes to figuring out which guns are "unusual and dangerous weapons" of the sort Scalia says may be prohibited without violating the Second Amendment, I hope the courts do a better job of drawing meaningful distinctions.


    Bwahahahahahahha!
    *wipes tear from eye*
    Sullum you old joker; that was the funniest thing I have read all week.

    When the SCOTUS found that Miller's "sawed off shotgun" was not a valuable piece of militia hardware that hope got tossed out of the window.

  • Mister DNA||

    guess the Calico M-950 is right out then.



    That one might slip through the cracks based on its name. I mean, how dangerous can a gun be, if it's named after a cute breed of cat?

    Coming soon: The Cocker Spaniel chain gun...

  • Guy Montag||

    I submit that "unusual and dangerous weapons" should be defined as: guns without triggers, anything 9mm, shotguns with barrels longer that 14" (unless it is for squirrels or geese) and blingie finishes like chrome or nickle or gold.

  • lunchstealer||

    A ban on "semiautomatic weapons" would permit possession only of revolvers and single-shot pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

    Well, it would also allow pump shotguns and lever-action rifles. Which, if I recall my John Wayne correctly, can shoot pretty damn fast.

    But yeah, handguns would all be revolvers or single-shotters.

  • No Name Guy||

    Epi-

    These people really, honestly believe crime will magically disappear if they ban handguns. I wonder if they would support banning due process, trial by jury, prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure, etc, if that meant crime would go down? Its always fun to ask a liberal that question.

    Not that gun laws lower crime, it doesn't, but just sayin' even if it did thats not a great argument.

  • Guy Montag||

    They should ban stainless steel and nickel plated handguns as well. There's nothing in the Second Amendment protecting that.

    Beat me to it and that is an "ugly gun" ban that I can support.

  • ||

    heh2k,

    I think is more just part and parcel of their state-worship. If your house is broken into, the omni-benevolent police will use their magical violence-monopoly powers to sweep in and take care of it.

    Combine that with their nasty habit of blaming crime on everything except the people who actually commit it (poverty, culture, education, mental retardation, racism) and you have a formula where the "criminal" in a home defense shooting is the person who was just trying to get a good night's sleep.

  • ||

    Salvius, I think you're right.

    I think a lot of people believe "automatic" means it will keep firing as long as you hold the trigger, "single shot" meansd one bullet-one pull, and "semi-automatic" means something in between, like the three-shot setting on the M-16s used in the military.

  • Episiarch||

    These people really, honestly believe crime will magically disappear if they ban handguns.

    I don't buy it. Britain banned handguns, as did DC and Chicago (essentially). Crime went up.

    They have to know it's bullshit, which means it can only be a power thing.

  • No Name Guy||

    Its also weird that liberals, who are generally not trusting of the police (because of racial profiling, police brutality, militarization etc) all of a sudden become their biggest defenders when it comes to gun control.

  • Guy Montag||

    Well, it would also allow pump shotguns and lever-action rifles. Which, if I recall my John Wayne correctly, can shoot pretty damn fast.

    That is what I used to use for Skeet, but that range no longer allows barrels under 23" :( So now I have to use the SAIGA-12 semi-auto, which has a 19" barrel, but with the choke looks close enough to 23".

    Was shooting in the 20s with the pump, when I was in practice.

  • Other Matt||

    It's circular reasoning to say the Second Amendment protects only ownership of firearms in common use. The existing restrictions on guns help determine what is in common use.

    A statement which, in and of itself, is circular and shows the danger, as anything banned will be, by definition, not in common use any more.

    Not to be pedantic and dogmatic and all that, but Maryland only bans assault pistols. Assault weapons, while grammatically nonsensical, are name spec'd in the law but allowed under a seven day wait (which never seems to really be seven days under democratic administrations), three legal size page in triplicate background check, and written recommendations from seven dwarfs.

    Ok, perhaps not that last part, but an AR-15 you can still buy, and if it says "Colt Match Target" on it you can buy it over the counter because that's an exclusion. They put those and handguns, of any type, under "regulated firearms", but only "assault pistols" are banned.

  • No Name Guy||

    "I don't buy it. Britain banned handguns, as did DC and Chicago (essentially). Crime went up."

    They will tell you that the REAL problem is that the rest of the country is too permissive. I.e., if they banned guns EVERYWHERE then the gun ban would work.

    Thats what I'm always told. Every time.

    "The REAL problem with DCs guns is Virginia law!"

  • No Name Guy||

    They will tell you Britain has less "gun violence". Even though gun violence includes things like self defense and suicide...

  • ||

    I don't buy it. Britain banned handguns, as did DC and Chicago (essentially). Crime went up.

    And after "the largest tax increase in American history" in 1993, the economy improved. Did that change your opinion about tax cuts effect on the economy?

    It is possible for people to simply be mistaken, you know, and even subject to confirmation bias, without reading absurdly dark motives into their actions.

  • ||

    Its also weird that liberals, who are generally not trusting of the police (because of racial profiling, police brutality, militarization etc) all of a sudden become their biggest defenders when it comes to gun control.



    It's the "right people" problem. If the "right people" were the police, then they could have unlimited power because they would never abuse it.

    How hard is it to grasp human nature?

  • ||

    No Name Guy,

    Even if all domestic sale were abolished, as in Britain, the weapons would still be imported through the drug trade networks. As cocaine is illegal everywhere it also available everywhere. The truth is that the black market is simply more powerful than the law (heck, it even existed in the Soviet Union).

    Even Britain, an island nation could not stem the flow of weapons when it made a ban so total it almost derailed the Olympic shooting team.

  • Guy Montag||

    I don't buy it. Britain banned handguns, as did DC and Chicago (essentially). Crime went up.

    Yea, but the Leftists keep lieing about it and say it went down, then blame any evidence of it going up on surrounding areas.

    Rember the limo-Leftie lobbyist chick I mentioned who used to haul her parent's recycleables from Genneseo NY to Reston, VA in her Crown Vic? She swore that DC gun violence was because of VA and MD, mostly VA and we needed to ban guns everyplace.

    Anybody who follows this stuff has probably heard similar nonsense from people on TV, in real life and in print. Wild guess is that MSNBC will have 5 hours of it after 1600 today.

  • No Name Guy||

    Most gun control proponents fetishize guns. Guns are not tools, but evil, EVIL objects that the mere presence of turns a normal person into an aggressive maniac.

    Its like saying a guy carrying around matches will become a crazed arsonist.

    To be fair, the more extreme gun nuts fetishize guns in the other direction.

    Its just a tool, people. Its like matches, a knife, or a blow torch.

  • Naga Sadow||

    HA!!!! Everyone laughed at me when I started packing some Derringer heat but who's laughing now!!!

  • Guy Montag||

    NNG beat me to that one too. Sigh.

  • Episiarch||

    They will tell you Britain has less "gun violence". Even though gun violence includes things like self defense and suicide...

    Except that "gun violence" in Britain has increased.

    Anti-gun people fetishize guns about 1000 times more than the craziest gun-nut, as they practically attribute evil sentience to hunks of metal. It's very creepy watching one of these people around a gun; they're like a squirrel coming near a rattlesnake.

  • Guy Montag||

    Again I believe some are ignoring the racism factor too, with where these stupid laws are concentrated.

  • Episiarch||

    Damn you, No Name Guy, damn you to hell.

  • ||

    NNG,

    I think that even more common than fetishizing guns in fetishizing people. Passionate proponents on both sides of this issue seem to view the issue primarily as a proxy in a war against those bad, bad people.

    Look at some of the crap on this thread. Gun control advocates want to see women beaten to death. Cops who are concerned about "guns on the street" really just want to lord their power over the "peasants." And, GUY MONTAG.

    It's about the people.

  • No Name Guy||

    Montag, especially because the most stringent laws are minority-majority major cities, while the white suburbs and countryside have more permissive gun laws.

    So the effect is, basically, to disarm black people.

  • ||

    Joe, the best way to analyze that question is to consider the data on the aggregate effect of gun laws over the entire country. Those results are fairly decisive indicating either no effect or statistically significant positive correlation between gun law and gun crime. That is, it is fairly statistically reliable that gun laws increase gun crime.

    The mechanism is also quite intuitive. Criminals committing crimes such as robbery murder and hard drug dealing generally have already passed the threshold of being psychologically willing to break the law. Breaking a gun law is a very low marginal addition to their general lawbreaking. Law abiding citizens, however, have a much lower threshold and for them breaking a gun law is a very large marginal addition to their perceived danger from the law.

    Thus the criminals just don't care, because they are already criminals anyways, and the law abiding citizens who do care if they break the law give up their guns. Thus at the end of the day the criminals have increased their combat advantage.

    And this is why law abiding folk are the most vulnerable in gun control cities such as Chicago, DC, NYC ect... where people can't walk in the public parks for fear of rape and death.

  • No Name Guy||

    Joe, 95% of gun control advocates aren't evil, they're just either sorely mistaken and really want to lower crime, or never grew up with guns, never held one, and thus fear them as something foreign and dangerous.

  • ||

    When a majority-minority city passes a municipal law, guess what the majority of the people voting for that law are?

    C'mon, that doesn't come close to making sense. When Westchester County starts passing gun laws that only apply to the Bronx, then we can talk, but when majority-minority cities pass these laws to apply to themselves, that argument doesn't hold water.

  • No Name Guy||

    The same thing happens with drugs, btw. Instead of hunks of metal, its chemical compounds that gain an evil sentience.

  • Guy Montag||

    NNG,

    Yep. Coincidence? I like what Penn Gillette has to say about coincidences.

  • No Name Guy||

    Joe I was speaking more of intent than effect.

    The INTENT may not be to disarm law-abiding minorities, but thats the effect.

  • Episiarch the Pedant||

    The Bronx isn't in Westchester County, joe. It's in (and is) Bronx County.

  • ||

    Mick,

    The correlation between gun laws and gun crime begins before the laws are passed. Gun laws are generally passed in places experiencing high crime, shortly after it begins to rise.

    And, FYI, NYC is the safest large city in America, fare moreso than gun-friendly cities like Houston and New Orelans. So is San Francisco. There isn't really any correlation there, either.

  • Guy Montag||

    NNG,

    I am siding with intent being a major factor. Just like the folks of Georgetown keeping METRO from making a rail stop near their neighborhood.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I wonder if the Secret Service and the DC Metropolitan Police use revolvers and derringers when in DC.

  • No Name Guy||

    I don't care WHAT effect it has on crime. Personally I think gun control has zero effect one way or the other, but thats beside the point.

    We have an individual right to bear arms. Period.

    Wanting to ban them because it might lower crime is like trying to repeal the First Amendment so the Klan can't hold rallies.

  • Guy Montag||

    I wonder if the Secret Service and the DC Metropolitan Police use revolvers and derringers when in DC.

    If they are they are either the largest derringers I have ever seen, or revolvers desguised as semi-autos :)

  • ||

    NNG,

    No Name Guy | June 27, 2008, 1:22pm | #

    Joe, 95% of gun control advocates aren't evil, they're just either sorely mistaken and really want to lower crime, or never grew up with guns, never held one, and thus fear them as something foreign and dangerous.


    Exactly. This shit about "rather see old ladies beaten to death in the street" is the gun enthusiasts' "You want to sell crack to children." It feels good, but it's completely intellectually dishonest.

    The Bronx isn't in Westchester County, joe. It's in (and is) Bronx County. Which is probably why I used it as an example of one municipality passing a law that applies to another, while I was making an argument about cities passing laws that apply to themselves.

  • Guy Montag||

    Guessing that if you buy an extended magazine, over 12 rounds, for an autoloading pistol that comes stock with a 10 round magazine, you automagically win the DC machine gun ban award?

  • Nigel Watt||

    Houston and New Orelans



    Houston and New Orleans both have leftover issues from Katrina.

    Houston's up-and-coming right now, though, so hopefully those will be subsumed soon.

  • ||

    I don't care WHAT effect it has on crime.

    That's nice. And also really clear, and doesn't need to keep being repeated. Gotcha.

    Gun controllers, whatever you might like to hear to the contrary, do care about the effect it has on crime. They support gun laws because they think it will lower crime. That's why there are a lot fewer of them these days - lower crime means less motivation to do things about crime.

  • Episiarch the Pedant||

    Which is probably why I used it as an example of one municipality passing a law that applies to another, while I was making an argument about cities passing laws that apply to themselves.

    Hmm, it sounded like you meant to say something to the effect of "NYC passing laws that apply only to Queens". You'll need to be more clear in the future, and gain a better understanding of New York county structure and government.

  • ||

    Houston and New Orleans both have leftover issues from Katrina.

    True, but they were shooting galleries for two decades prior, too.

  • ||

    I guess I could have written that more clearly, Ep.

    My point was that "municipal gun laws are a consequence of racism, because they are more common in cities with lots of minorities" doesn't make sense, because it is those minority-majority populations that vote for them, and for politicians that support them.

    But since I didn't actually make the error you read into my statement, I don't actually have to gain a better understanding of New York government. Thanks.

  • ed||

    This debate will end at about the same time everyone agrees on religion.
    Round and round and round they go.

  • Episiarch the Pedant||

    But how will you know what borough Kings County Hospital is in without studying this stuff?

  • Guy Montag||

    NNG,

    You did hear what happened on the day that the California legeslature was voting to make very strict State-wide gun restrictions in the 1960s, didn't you?

    After the Black Panthers staged a legal, peaceful, demonstration in the Capitol and the measure was then passed by a great majority.

    So much for the "not racist" angle of the Left.

  • No Name Guy||

    GM, I'm just curious was Pat Brown or Reagan governor then?

  • ||

    But how will you know what borough Kings County Hospital is in without studying this stuff?

    I can't argue with that. And I'm joe!

  • Guy Montag||

    NNG,

    It was around 1968, so I am guessing Reagan.

  • ||

    They support gun laws because they think it will lower crime.

    And they go to church on Sunday, because they think, "if I don't, a big red guy with horns and a tail will GIT ME!!!

  • Guy Montag||

    Oh, the peaceful demonstration was a legal display of legal shotguns that the Panthers heald overhead as they marched through the chambers of the legislature.

  • ||

    "I'd like to know how Adrian Fenty managed to stumble off the short bus..."

    I think he took the T2, and that's one long route, especially in winter. Every 2-1/2 hours on Sunday, way back when.

  • ||

    When a majority-minority city passes a municipal law, guess what the majority of the people voting for that law are?

    Umm, City Councilman?

    There isn't really any correlation there, either.

    So, if there is, at best, no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime/violent crime, there is no reason for restrictive gun control laws, yes?

    The correlation between gun laws and gun crime begins before the laws are passed. Gun laws are generally passed in places experiencing high crime, shortly after it begins to rise.

    The real question is more longitudinal. Did those new laws result in reduced crime? If so, lets see the data. If not, then there is no reason to keep them, or pass new ones, yes?

  • Guy Montag||

    The Ancient Astronauts built the great pyramids without guns and a link can be made to global warming, so they probably do need to be banned.

    Along with that evil Easter "Bunny" creature.

  • ||

    I think a lot of people believe "automatic" means it will keep firing as long as you hold the trigger, "single shot" meansd one bullet-one pull, and "semi-automatic" means something in between, like the three-shot setting on the M-16s used in the military.



    Indeed.

    "The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

    - Josh Sugarmann, 1988, Violence Policy Center

  • Guy Montag||

    mediageek,

    Same thing happens with State Department security guards being called "paramilitary mercinaries" because, of course, they carry automatic rifles and drive SUVs.

  • ||

    RC,

    Umm, City Councilman? Nice dodge.

    So, if there is, at best, no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime/violent crime, there is no reason for restrictive gun control laws, yes? That's my take. The broad "more guns in circulation leads to more crime" thesis doesn't seem to hold up.

    Nor, my point was, does the opposite. Repealing gun laws doesn't seem to reduce crime. The same thing happens in reverse - when crime starts falling, gun control laws lose support.

  • ||

    Incidentally, have any DC-area Reason members called over to the Violence Policy Center to see if they can get their Executive Director, Josh Sugarmann, to transfer a gun for them?

    After all, Josh holds one of the vanishingly few gun dealer licenses in the DC area.

    This can be verified by going to the ATF FFL EZ Check website and entering the following:

    1-54-XXX-XX-XX-00725

    (The X's will be greyed out, so just enter the numbers.)

  • ||

    State. They're just the Security for State.

    You know, State Security.

    Imagine, someone thinking State Security carrying military hardware could be a paramilitary organization.

    Anyone speak German?

  • ||

    Incidentally, the VPC can be contacted by phone at (202) 822 8200

    I'd be curious to know what Josh has in stock and what he charges to do a transfer.

  • ||

    Ah, here we go:

    "Staatssicherheit"

    That's a funny word!

  • Guy Montag||

    mediageek,

    I think you should be saying DC proper residents. I can't use that guy from VA (with the extra complication that my domocile is TN). Same with MD folks. At least for a handgun.

  • ||

    "Violence Policy Center"

    What would P T Barnum say?

  • Guy Montag||

    Betcha Josh Sugarmann specializes in strawman sales.

    Yes, I will be here all month folks!

  • ||

    Guy-

    Surely you know some DC residents who would be interested in knowing current prices and such.

    Give ol' Josh a call and see what he says.

    ;)

  • Guy Montag||

    mediageek,

    I really don't hang on that side of the river much, unless it is a reasonoid gathering.

    What is stopping you from calling him? Your number in the wrong databases already? ;)

  • ||

    misterDNA, you don't make fun of my gun (M-950) and I won't make fun of yours. Deal? And I'll have you know its name is taken from CALifornia Instrument COmpany and not a cute kitten.

  • ||

    What would P T Barnum say?



    Given that the VPC receives the vast majority of their funding from one source (The Joyce Foundation) they can't even generally find enough suckers amongst the general public to stay afloat.

  • ||

    Not that there's anything wrong with a cute kitty.

  • ||

    What is stopping you from calling him?



    I'm nowhere near that side of the country. Though maybe I ought to just to see if Kristen Rand calls me dirty names (HOT!)

    Your number in the wrong databases already? ;)



    Hey, if your name's not on a list somewhere, you're doing something wrong.

  • Guy Montag||

    The Josh Sugarmann mission sounds like a job for Dave Weigel. Ron has a residenc in DC, but I am not sure if he uses his VA address for everything or not. Radley is in VA too.

  • ||

    Gun Nut Fun Fact:

    Calicos were used as the weapon of choice for the stormtroopers in the movie "Spaceballs."

  • ||

    Guy-

    That would be funny as hell.

  • Guy Montag||

    Is that what shot the Princess' hair?

  • ||

    Especially since VPC Headquarters isn't zoned to be a commercial business, let alone a gun store.

    One wonders if there is any legal malfeasance there.

  • ||

    Is that what shot the Princess' hair?



    Yes. Right before she disarms a stormtrooper and goes to town on the rest of them to great comedic effect.

  • Guy Montag||

    I might have picked the wrong staffer, since he was the main guy talking about candidate and Sen. Webb, but pretty much ignored the gun incident.

  • ||

    And, FYI, NYC is the safest large city in America, fare moreso than gun-friendly cities like Houston and New Orelans. So is San Francisco. There isn't really any correlation there, either.



    joe, as someone who lives in downtown Houston I can tell you the only dangerous are within walking distance of me is the guns-prohibited Section 8 housing project at 1900 Runnels.

    And NOLA is gun-friendly? This comes as news to the hundreds of its citizens who had their guns illegally confiscated in the Katrina aftermath, sued to get them back, won, and still haven't received them.

    NYC and San Fran are low-crime because they have in recent years transformed themselves into Disneyland for trust-fund kids. No poor people = no crime. It has nothing to do with guns, only economics.

  • M2||

    "...San Fran are low-crime..."

    Are you NUTS??? Do you read the San Francisco papers?

  • ||

    Kap,

    As interesting as your personal anecdotes might be, the numbers don't lie. Houston consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in American over the past two decades.

    And NOLA is gun-friendly? In the sense of having very weak or no gun control laws, yes, that's exactly what it had during the years that it led the country in murder rate.

    It has nothing to do with guns... I love it when people repeat my point back to me as if they've refuted me.

  • ||

    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a substantial body of evidence to suggest that the more stringent the gun control reigme, the greater the incidence of murder, like D.C.?

  • Dan||

    Most of the people writing or speaking about this - reporters, judges, lawyers, mayors - have no idea what the similarities and differences are between certain types of firearms. They don't understand how the categories overlap - that pistols, rifles, and shotguns can be semiautomatic, for instance.

    And the DC definition of a "machine gun" is absurd. "Manual reloading" generally means actually putting more ammunition into a gun, rather than simply chambering a round. So, unless they have some alternate definition of "manual reloading", a lever or pump action rifle that has more than 12 rounds (chambered for .22 or a pistol caliber) would be considered a "machine gun" under DC law.

  • Nigel Watt||

    Does Houston really have that much gun crime, joe? (As in, can you demonstrate it's out of line with the metropolitan population?) It's not something I hear about, certainly, nothing like Dallas.

  • Guy Montag||

    Dan,

    Not sure on that. Other Matt posted the particulars someplace around here.

    My Marlin-Glennfield .22 semi-auto rifle I got when I was a kid holds 18 rounds. Never knew I was so 'core man!

  • Other Matt||

    It has nothing to do with guns, only economics.

    And study after study after study shows this, even fuckwitted joe agrees, and yet his benevolent gun controllers keep knowingly lying or going to laughable lengths to avoid direct statments (but given Obama's aversion in general to such, I guess it's not surprising).

    It would make a thinking person perhaps not ascribe the same level of benevolent concern to them.

    It's really about power, and an attitude of "Sit down and shut up, we know what's good for you" based on an intellectual smugness which only adds insult to the injury of violating our individual rights. It started as a racist/class effort to keep arms away from blacks, then the irish, and generally continues to be the same. The only modern caveat is that somehow there's the class distinction with the legal gun owner being some tobacco chewing non showering redneck who is cute in a disgusting kinda way but we'll let them keep their hunting, I guess.

    The simple solution is to make crime illegal, since obviously making things illegal works, right?

  • Guy Montag||

    The only modern caveat is that somehow there's the class distinction with the legal gun owner being some tobacco chewing non showering redneck who is cute in a disgusting kinda way but we'll let them keep their hunting, I guess.

    Um, I did shower today and I am even wearing a tie, thank you very much!

  • ||


    Does Houston really have that much gun crime, joe?



    Decide for yourself.

    Note that El Paso, San Antonio, Austin, and Fort Worth rank in the top 10 safest 500,000+ cities, with no difference in gun control laws, culture, or ownership rate.

    The differentiation between these cities and Houston is less economic underclass.

    I meant it has nothing to do with gun laws, joe, but I'm sure you understood that.

    As interesting as your personal anecdotes might be...



    Lick 'em, joe.

  • ||

    Squirrels ate my link.

  • Dan||

    "My Marlin-Glennfield .22 semi-auto rifle I got when I was a kid holds 18 rounds. Never knew I was so 'core man!"

    That is certainly a "machine gun" under DC law. It's the lever & pump action guns that are more ambiguous. But I would really love it if DC considered a Henry rifle to be a machine gun.

  • Guy Montag||

    Dan,

    So, if I get those little shortie 12 GA shotgun shells and a magazine extention for the Benelli Nova Pump then I can have TWO machine guns!!!!!

    If I can cobble together a 13 shell box magazine for the SAIGA-12 I will have an 12 GA AK-47 style machine gun!

    Oh man, DC, I love your crazy word manipulation!

  • ||

    Guy Montag and Dan-

    Count me in as one who does not know much about guns, period. In my opinion, this distinguishes me from all of my friends and colleagues who are fellow vocal 2nd amendment supporters as they know so much more about guns than I do. Ditto for many of the posters here.

  • T||

    Houston consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in American over the past two decades.

    Where're you getting your numbers from? I'm looking at the FBI/DOJ numbers and I ain't seeing it.

    Link or GTFO.

  • Guy Montag||

    T,

    Are you actually bothering to argue with one of those Lefties who just make stuff up to support their preconcieved notions?

  • T||

    Are you actually bothering to argue with one of those Lefties who just make stuff up to support their preconcieved notions?

    Well, if you're going to assert facts I'd at least like to see them, especially when they don't accord with my personal experience. The plural of anecdote isn't data, but assertion fails at even being a datum.

  • Unspoken||

    no brown people = no crime

  • ||

    (3) "Antique firearm" means:

    (ii) Uses rim-fire or conventional ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.


    My great grandfather's Winchester Model 1907 .351 self loader is legal. Only 5 and 10 round magazines are available and the ammunition is hard to find, therefore it's an antique.

  • ||

    Guessing that if you buy an extended magazine, over 12 rounds, for an autoloading pistol that comes stock with a 10 round magazine, you automagically win the DC machine gun ban award?

    Actually, all you have to do is buy a pistol that can take a 12+ round mag, and you win the award.

    Repealing gun laws doesn't seem to reduce crime.

    Even if you grant this (and the experience with CCW may be contrary) it does increase liberty. The burden in on those passing restrictive laws, not those repealing them.

  • ||

    A ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons, including hand guns, is allowable according to Scalia, since they didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written.

  • JGR||

    Kwix wrote: "When the SCOTUS found that Miller's "sawed off shotgun" was not a valuable piece of militia hardware that hope got tossed out of the window."

    Uh, actually, the Supremes never made such a finding. What they said was that "no evidence had been offered," which left the door wide open for the cases which will soon come along.

  • Rimfax||

    Hey, Unspoken,

    Not sure what your point was, but another group that is statistically charged with violent crimes well above the average is Southern-born whites.

  • DJ Voton||

    Y'know, I came to my own zen conclusion about gun control many years ago: Pass all the laws you want, fuckers, I'm owning firearms.

    Agreed, but a ban on guns would make it a lot harder to stock up on ammo.

  • ||

    Agreed, but a ban on guns would make it a lot harder to stock up on ammo.

    They'd be giving the stuff away before the ban went into effect.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement