Revolvers, AWBs, and variations thereof

Micahweeks · June 24, 2009, 01:58 AM

I was just wondering something. The assault weapons ban really only applied to autos, rifles, and shotguns. Has there ever been any language of any legal document, other than an all out ban, trying to restrict the use or purchase of a revolver as a carry weapon? I mean, the most poweful handgun rounds are revolver rounds (.500 Mag!!! Woohoo!), so why haven't any of these AWB bills ever considered the sheer power of the common wheelgun? What are there priorities, really?

SteelJM1 · June 24, 2009, 04:58 AM

Because they haven't gotten to them yet. For most non gun owning people, revolvers either died in aobut 1880, or since they only hold 6 shots, they are much less deadly than semi autos.

Despite that, if they were to successfully ban semi auto handgun/rifle/shotguns, believe you me that the revolvers would not be far behind. Britian and Australia being perfect examples, once they passed their ban, their citizens were pretty much relegated to break action shotguns for hunting and sport ONLY. Anything above and beyond that is an insane hassle to get, and there's no guarantees on those.

And don't even think about pistols. :barf:

BlueTrain · June 24, 2009, 06:03 AM

On top of everything else in the U.K., there is an outcry against "blood sports," which includes fox hunting with hounds. All of the traditional country types are on the defensive at the moment. That is, of those who haven't already moved to Northern Virginia.

Now, regarding revolvers, a double action revolver can easily be defined as an automatic firearm since all you have to do is pull the trigger. All laws can be written so they cannot be obeyed.

buzz_knox · June 24, 2009, 07:22 AM

The "cop killing bullet" ban the Dems tried to push through in 2004 (?) was so sweeping that it would have banned ammunition used by many revolvers.

Bartholomew Roberts · June 24, 2009, 07:30 AM

There are several bans proposed in the past that would have banned at least some revolvers. Initially, anti-gun groups tried to ban the .500 S&W Mag on principal alone; but got no traction.

Apparently, expensive 3lb revolvers that are the size of a small carbine and fire a massive cartridge with a lot of recoil are not popular with the criminal set.

jfrey123 · June 24, 2009, 09:14 AM

I'd be worried that any new ban simply lists "pistols" and takes them all away in one fell swoop.

Although it'd be challenged by the NRA as a violation of the Heller Decision and intimately our Second Amendment of these United States.

rantingredneck · June 24, 2009, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Apparently, expensive 3lb revolvers that are the size of a small carbine and fire a massive cartridge with a lot of recoil are not popular with the criminal set.

I have this mental image of one of these stuck out a car window sideways and fired..........

CowTowner · June 24, 2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

I have this mental image of one of these stuck out a car window sideways and fired..........

I get the same one. Only the shooter forgot to stick the entire gun out the window. The cylinder was in the car when he pulled the trigger.

**Mike Irwin** · June 24, 2009, 10:36 AM

"I get the same one. Only the shooter forgot to stick the entire gun out the window. The cylinder was in the car when he pulled the trigger"

WHAT? CAN YOU SPEAK UP? I'M HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE HEARING YOU RIGHT NOW!

vranasaurus · June 24, 2009, 10:49 AM

Does California's .50 caliber ban affect the .500 S&W?

Brian Pfleuger · June 24, 2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

I have this mental image of one of these stuck out a car window sideways and fired..........

...with the other hand under the cylinder to support the gun... owwee.

This here's a 500 Smith and Wesson magnum. Blow the shooters own hand clean off!

Glenn E. Meyer · June 24, 2009, 11:19 AM

Is that a rule of thumb?

Personally, I think the SW tac revolver like I saw in the American Rifleman this month is a gun no law abiding citizen would want to have.

Better call Chuck and Diane. Keeping them out of NY and CA will make those places safe.

rantingredneck · June 24, 2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

...with the other hand under the cylinder to support the gun... owwee.

That's the kind of mistake you only make once.........

Brian Pfleuger · June 24, 2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

That's the kind of mistake you only make once.........

Indeed! I should think that the second time would be using the remaining stump to support the gun!

:barf:

**44 AMP** · June 24, 2009, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Has there ever been any language of any legal document, other than an all out ban, trying to restrict the use or purchase of a revolver

The language of the AWB (and possibly other laws, particularly state laws that did not sunset) includes the classification of the Striker 12 (Stryker?) and "Street Sweeper" shotguns as assault weapons, and therefore restricted. The language of the law includes the phrase "...substantially similar to" when referring to action types.

The Street Sweeper shotgun looks like it is drum magazine fed, but it is not. The "drum" is a cylinder, and it fuctions "substantially similar to" a DA revolver!

They have not chosen to make an issue of this...yet, but the language is there. Yes it is splitting hairs, and makes no sense, but then, that's what gun control laws are often all about.

June 24, 2009, 01:58 AM	#1
Micahweeks Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2009 Location: North Mississippi Posts: 854	Revolvers, AWBs, and variations thereof I was just wondering something. The assault weapons ban really only applied to autos, rifles, and shotguns. Has there ever been any language of any legal document, other than an all out ban, trying to restrict the use or purchase of a revolver as a carry weapon? I mean, the most poweful handgun rounds are revolver rounds (.500 Mag!!! Woohoo!), so why haven't any of these AWB bills ever considered the sheer power of the common wheelgun? What are there priorities, really?

June 24, 2009, 06:03 AM	#3
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	On top of everything else in the U.K., there is an outcry against "blood sports," which includes fox hunting with hounds. All of the traditional country types are on the defensive at the moment. That is, of those who haven't already moved to Northern Virginia. Now, regarding revolvers, a double action revolver can easily be defined as an automatic firearm since all you have to do is pull the trigger. All laws can be written so they cannot be obeyed. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

June 24, 2009, 09:14 AM	#6
jfrey123 Senior Member Join Date: July 7, 2006 Location: Reno, NV. Posts: 1,026	I'd be worried that any new ban simply lists "pistols" and takes them all away in one fell swoop. Although it'd be challenged by the NRA as a violation of the Heller Decision and intimately our Second Amendment of these United States. __________________ Rock out with your Glock out!

June 24, 2009, 10:36 AM	#9
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	"I get the same one. Only the shooter forgot to stick the entire gun out the window. The cylinder was in the car when he pulled the trigger" WHAT? CAN YOU SPEAK UP? I'M HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE HEARING YOU RIGHT NOW! __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

June 24, 2009, 11:19 AM	#12
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Is that a rule of thumb? Personally, I think the SW tac revolver like I saw in the American Rifleman this month is a gun no law abiding citizen would want to have. Better call Chuck and Diane. Keeping them out of NY and CA will make those places safe. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

June 24, 2009, 04:58 AM	#2
SteelJM1 Senior Member Join Date: April 1, 2007 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 496	Because they haven't gotten to them yet. For most non gun owning people, revolvers either died in aobut 1880, or since they only hold 6 shots, they are much less deadly than semi autos. Despite that, if they were to successfully ban semi auto handgun/rifle/shotguns, believe you me that the revolvers would not be far behind. Britian and Australia being perfect examples, once they passed their ban, their citizens were pretty much relegated to break action shotguns for hunting and sport ONLY. Anything above and beyond that is an insane hassle to get, and there's no guarantees on those. And don't even think about pistols. :barf:

June 24, 2009, 07:22 AM	#4
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	The "cop killing bullet" ban the Dems tried to push through in 2004 (?) was so sweeping that it would have banned ammunition used by many revolvers.

June 24, 2009, 07:30 AM	#5
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	There are several bans proposed in the past that would have banned at least some revolvers. Initially, anti-gun groups tried to ban the .500 S&W Mag on principal alone; but got no traction. Apparently, expensive 3lb revolvers that are the size of a small carbine and fire a massive cartridge with a lot of recoil are not popular with the criminal set.

June 24, 2009, 10:49 AM	#10
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	Does California's .50 caliber ban affect the .500 S&W?