Dick Heller, Get Your Gun

Dick Heller showed up at the District of Columbia Courts with his gun in his hand. Sort of. Yesterday the victorious plaintiff in Heller vs. D.C. showed up downtown to register his gun but hesititated to bring it with him; cops told him to show up packing. So this morning at 9 a.m. Heller rendezvoused with advisors Dane von Breichenruchardt and Brad Jansen carrying his 1911 single-action Colt .22 revolver in a cherry-red vinyl case. "Concealed carry!" Heller said. "It doesn't look so bad, does it?"

The three men walked over to the courts to greet a small throng of libertarian activists and reporters from local news amd NRANews.com. "There were more cameras yesterday," mused von Breichenruchardt. "There were vans outside"—he waved his hand and pointed to the curb—"just more reporters, generally." There were just enough reporters to pack the room when Heller entered and handed the gun over to police to start what became a 90-minute registration process.

Heller emerged from the courts with a thumbs up: He'd met with partial success. The city had taken finger prints, administered a 20-question exam, and subjected the gun to a ballistics. He could take the gun home as long as it was empty and trigger-locked. But he'd have to come back in a week with two passport photos, and wait for the city to process the rest of his information with a background check. Part of the reason for the delay is the city's law defining "machine guns"—anything that loads from the bottom or can hold more than 12 rounds at a time qualifies. "It's in the city's hands now," Jansen said.

Heller milled around with reporters for about 30 minutes, taking questions about whether he'd join a hypothetical lawsuit to roll back the rest of the gun restrictions. He would, but, in the words of Jansen, he hopes "the city gets it right this time" without that. On why he registered the colt: "I bought it because it was the gun they used in Gunsmoke," Heller said. "That used to be our culture."

I asked Heller about the petitions circulating his name as a Libertarian Party candidate for delegate against incumbent Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton. (Heller is the treasurer of the D.C. LP.) He was coy about it.

Comments

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 1:31pm | #

anything that loads from the bottom or can hold more than 12 rounds at a time qualifies

I don't believe this is true. I believe it's 12 rounds, but "capable" of 12 rounds, which DC police have included everything loading from the bottom. I'll check.

Dylboz | July 18, 2008, 1:31pm | #

Uh, a 1911 revolver? What is that? A "bottom loading" Colt 1911 is a semi-auto, single action 7+1 pistol. A Colt revolver from Gunsmoke? Like a Single action cowboy six gun for the Wild West version of the SCA? What the hell kind of gun did he actually have? I'm curious because I want to know how these regulations are being applied. Why is it that no one who knows a goddamn thing about guns ever reports on them? WHY!?!

Warty | July 18, 2008, 1:36pm | #

I was hoping to get before the gun pedants to gently correct David. Oh well.

As you now know, David, a 1911 is not a revolver. Carry this knowledge with you unto the grave.

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 1:37pm | #

Dave-

The Colt 1911 is a semi-automatic handgun. See here.

A revolver is a pistol that holds each round of ammunition in a separate chamber that rotates a chamber to line up with the barrel each time the hammer is cocked or the trigger is pulled.

See here.

In short, it could be said that all revolvers are pistols, but not all pistols are revolvers.

David Weigel | July 18, 2008, 1:39pm | #

1911 refers to the year, not the make of the gun. It's a single-action revolver.

Warty | July 18, 2008, 1:39pm | #

I should note that I am also an insufferable gun pedant, though I try to be less insufferable these days.

Stretch | July 18, 2008, 1:40pm | #

On why he registered the colt: "I bought it because it was the gun they used in Gunsmoke," Heller said. "That used to be our culture."

Easily one of the dumbest pro-gun arguments out there. First, does he mean the show "Gunsmoke" used to be our culture? Or, does he mean the fictionalized account of the old west portrayed in the show "Gunsmoke" used to be our culture?

Second, how does, "used to be our culture" make a compelling argument for gun rights today? It doesn't. It's a romantic argument used to tug the heartstrings of people who love the western genre.

Stupid arguments like that make me ashamed to be a gun advocate.

Warty | July 18, 2008, 1:40pm | #

1911 refers to the year, not the make of the gun. It's a single-action revolver.

Yeah...reading is fundamental. Off the nearest cliff I go.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 1:40pm | #

From here.

"(c) "Machine gun," as used in this chapter, means any firearm which shoots automatically or semiautomatically more than 12 shots without reloading."

The bottom loading thing isn't in the law, it's in the interpretation of the law.

Dyl-Suspend your concepts of reality.

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 1:41pm | #

The thing I don't get is this:

The 1911's that are available generally have a standard magazine capacity of seven or eight rounds.

Ten round magazines are available for the 1911's, but they stick out of the bottom of the gun by quite a bit.

So, I would presume that even Dick Heller's 1911 should be legal under DC law since there aren't any commonly available magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 1:43pm | #

On why he registered the colt: "I bought it because it was the gun they used in Gunsmoke," Heller said. "That used to be our culture."

Obviously Mr Heller has been paying way too much attention to those 1911 "If it don't start with .4 and end in 5 it ain't worth a shit" types.

There shouldn't be anything preventing him from having this almost 100 yr old technology, though.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 1:45pm | #

So, I would presume that even Dick Heller's 1911 should be legal under DC law since there aren't any commonly available magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

There are two types of people in the world, my friend, those whose standard is is "commonly available" and those who go by "capable". Since it's theoretically possible to make a 1911 mag holding 13 rounds, there you go.

Admittedly, the weight would probably cause it to misfeed and be useless, but we're in DC here.

joe | July 18, 2008, 1:48pm | #

Anything that was built in 1911 and still works is pretty cool.

You think anything you own that was built in 2007 is going to work in 2094?

Zeb | July 18, 2008, 1:49pm | #

Why not just include all guns in the definition of "machine gun" then? Or even things that aren't guns at all as long as they are completely inventing definitions? Just include foie gras and trans fats in the definition of machine gun and kill three birds with one stone.

Zeb | July 18, 2008, 1:50pm | #

I bet many of the revolvers made in 2007 will still work in 2094.

kevrob | July 18, 2008, 1:51pm | #

For those too lazy to RTFrellingA:

The adviser, Dane von Breichenruchardt, president of the Bill of Rights Foundation, a public-interest group, said that Heller owns at least two handguns -- a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol and a .22-caliber revolver -- and that the weapons have been stored for years with a friend in Maryland. -WaPo

Mystery solved.

Kevin

Guy Montag | July 18, 2008, 1:52pm | #

1911 refers to the year, not the make of the gun. It's a single-action revolver.

I paused for a second when you wrote 1911 single-action Colt .22 revolver and realized it must have been the year of manufacture.

Some may misread that because the famous Colt model M1911 (named after its year of release too, I think) is pretty popular and a lot of folks may not realize that Colt made more than one model per year, or that you mention that it is a .22 cal.

joe | July 18, 2008, 1:54pm | #

Zeb,

If gun makers are like appliance makers or plumbers, the materials they're using today are cheap and flimsy compared to the early 20th century.

Dylboz | July 18, 2008, 1:55pm | #

It is quite common, in the parlance of our times to refer to the pistol used to threaten Smokey as a "1911." You know, in the parlance of our times...

Sorry for the pedantery.

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 1:56pm | #

There are two types of people in the world, my friend, those whose standard is is "commonly available" and those who go by "capable". Since it's theoretically possible to make a 1911 mag holding 13 rounds, there you go.

Well, I know that in WWII they messed around with creating a drum magazine for the 1911's, but those are so vanishingly rare as to be utterly nonexistent outside of a few collectors.

And even if there are people making modern-day ones, they would be so large an unwieldy as to be nothing more than a novelty.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 1:58pm | #

I bet many of the revolvers made in 2007 will still work in 2094.

Undoubtably, if taken care of. In this case, however, 1911 refers to the year the pistol was designed. There are a number of more recent variants where people have tweaked this or that, but the basic structure remains the same.

There are people that make the 1911 in different calibers also, but the "manly man" .45 seems to be the one that people are hung up on.

The point is that the technology is almost 100 years old, but not necessarily the actual firearm.

Guy Montag | July 18, 2008, 1:59pm | #

mediageek,

Check out the ParaOrdnance collection of semi-auto pistols. I like their double-stack .45 models.

Oh, and they must be safe because they are from Canada ;)

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 2:00pm | #

And even if there are people making modern-day ones, they would be so large an unwieldy as to be nothing more than a novelty.

I fully agree, but we're in DC where logic is not applicable. The fact that it is "capable" of holding a 13 round magazine, despite the fact that it wont' function well with it, is grounds enough for them.

As I've posted previously, we haven't even started with ammo yet, btw.

Warty | July 18, 2008, 2:00pm | #

Anything that was built in 1911 and still works is pretty cool.

My favorite gun of mine (and I don't know why I like it more than my Garand, for instance) is a Finnish rifle whose action was looted from a Russian armory in 1917, then rebarreled and put in a new stock in 1943. Shoots like a charm too, and leaves a nice bruise on your shoulder if you shoot 50 rounds or more at a time.

Steel lasts a long time if you take care of it even a little bit. If someone oils it every once in a while and keeps it dry, my M43 will still work like a dream in 2094.

Warty | July 18, 2008, 2:03pm | #

we haven't even started with ammo yet, btw.

There's a thought. Look for DC to use Chris Rock's retarded "bullet control" bit as inspiration very soon.

willis | July 18, 2008, 2:04pm | #

"Admittedly, the weight would probably cause it to misfeed and be useless, but we're in DC here."

Part 2 of the DC Anti-HandGun Code:
No handgun will be allowed that is overweight, misfeeds and is useless.

There. Screwed again.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 2:07pm | #

Check out this wonderful example of a machine guy per DC regs. Even with the big boy Long Rifle cartridges, it holds 19.

There. Screwed again.

Exactly, Obama-esque "reasonable restrictions" are great.

There's a thought. Look for DC to use Chris Rock's retarded "bullet control" bit as inspiration very soon.

You must think I'm joking. Seriously, anything that even looks like a bullet can get you arrested, including dummy rounds of solid metal and no powder. You can't have any rounds unless you have a firearm registered in DC which takes those rounds, and you can't register a firearm (until now, at least kinda) that takes handgun rounds. It's ridiculous, I still worry about being pulled over and them finding a spare 9mm round or something which fell out of my range bag and rolled under the seat.

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 2:07pm | #

If gun makers are like appliance makers or plumbers, the materials they're using today are cheap and flimsy compared to the early 20th century.

It's kind of hard to build in obsolescence with a machine where failure basically means that it would blow up.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 2:08pm | #

"guy"="gun"

Obviously my fingers are telling me to shut up now.

peachy | July 18, 2008, 2:10pm | #

Any law or regulation that redefines a term with a commonly accepted definition ought to be automatically invalidated. And the author publicly horsewhipped...

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 2:10pm | #

mediageek,

Check out the ParaOrdnance collection of semi-auto pistols. I like their double-stack .45 models.

Oh, and they must be safe because they are from Canada ;)

Para Ord makes some decent stuff.

But I'm really stoked to get my STI EDGE. I've had it on order for a couple of months.

Guy Montag | July 18, 2008, 2:10pm | #

Other Matt,

Are you saying/agreeing that over 13 rd. cap. is impractical or something? Maybe I lost something between the quote and your 2:00pm comment.

Jerry | July 18, 2008, 2:11pm | #

Washington D.C. has a LP branch? You learn something every day!

Guy Montag | July 18, 2008, 2:13pm | #

mediageek,

Wow, those STI guys are onto something!

Integrating patented 2011 technology . . .

On a pistol designed in 1997 even!

Are they keeping time travel to themselves and just selling pistols as a hobby? :)

Fred | July 18, 2008, 2:14pm | #

Now I feel old. Looking at Mr. Heller trying to register his handgun I have flashbacks to blacks trying to register to vote fifty years ago.

RAH | July 18, 2008, 2:17pm | #

That is a Colt single action revolver. It may have been designed in 1911 but that is not what it is called. Most are the 1873 single action design.

1911 refers mostly to the Colt M1911 45 ACP semi auto pistol. This is sloppy reporting. Gun rights people want accuracy when describing the weapon. Plus I heard before abou a 9 shot revolver which is absurd.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 2:19pm | #

Just in case you thought I was joking:

No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:

(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;

(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;

(3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; or

(4) He holds an ammunition collector's certificate on September 24, 1976.

Thus speaks DC code on ammo.

Guy-What I'm saying is that a 13 round mag for a 1911 variant pistol is impractical, as the weight would most definitely cause feed ramp issues and it would function suboptimally. However, the fact that it would not function well does not preculde DC from saying that it is possible to use, and therefore the Colt 1911 is a machine gun per DC law.

Hopefully that clarifies. BTW, I do have the 33 round (9mm) and 29 round (40 SW) mags for my Glocks, and my CZ SP-01 which I use for competition I have 18 rnd mags stock, so don't think I believe 13 round mags to be some kind of practical limit. What I carry most is a 7 round Kahr, though, so I don't particularly see a huge advantage in capacity in street issues, but even my little Kahr is a "machine gun" to them.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 2:20pm | #

dammit "preclude"...fingers still telling me to shut up, so don't ask me any questions Guy ;)

RAh | July 18, 2008, 2:22pm | #

Also the confusion was from the statement that part of the delay is from bottom loading guns. That refers to semi auto that have a magazine

Guy Montag | July 18, 2008, 2:22pm | #

OM,

Thank you. Figured it had to be something like that.

BTW, I was considering the 9 rd. magazine for my Saiga-12 shotgun, but they are so freaking expensive that it is going to have to wait.

Have you ever built or thought of building a custom mag for anything? I have not researched it yet.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 2:26pm | #

One more, though, because anyone who owns firearms needs to understand how bad DC really is:

(13a) "Restricted pistol bullet" means any bullet designed for use in a pistol which, when fired from a pistol with a barrel of 5 inches or less in length, is capable of penetrating commercially available body armor with a penetration resistance equal to or greater than that of 18 layers of kevlar.

That's a Level 1 vest for 18 layers, I believe Level 2 has 24. Practical meaning, anything above a 22 or .380, you can't have ammo in DC even if you have a registered pistol, so Heller is screwed regardless. I'm surprised nobody has brought this up.

Have you ever built or thought of building a custom mag for anything?

ACK!! QUESTIONS!!

I've played around with some things, but nothing serious. Never had a reason to, and all my shotguns have 9 round extensions on them (except the break action clay guns).

T | July 18, 2008, 2:27pm | #

So, I would presume that even Dick Heller's 1911 should be legal under DC law since there aren't any commonly available magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

My definition of "commonly available" includes Midway and Brownells. I can get a 15 round magazine for a 1911 for a mere $24.50. CTD sells a 40 round drum for $69.97. As much as I think the definition is retarded, it's not a stretch to say a 1911 meets it.

Jimmie | July 18, 2008, 2:27pm | #

The DC Code defines a semiautomatic "machine gun" as one "which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot...more than 12 shots "without manual reloading".

Heller's .45 is the Colt 1911 model, which can not be "readily converted" to do that. he could buy a .45 that's made to do that, but the extended clipt that fits that gun only goes up to 10.

DC is being dishonest and I think they'll end up in court again over it.

Douglas Fletcher | July 18, 2008, 2:29pm | #

Bang bang shoot shoot it works.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 2:32pm | #

ammo regs here

"restricted bullet" definition here

body armor levels here

Weigel-Please feel free to expound on the above.

but the extended clipt that fits that gun only goes up to 10.


(pointing up to the post immediately above yours)

It is "capable". You could fabricate one. It's "capable". You're in DC, again, suspend any concept of them trying to be logical or functional.

Shutting up now.

tom swift | July 18, 2008, 2:36pm | #

Colt made the SAA without interruption until WW2. A specimen made in 1911 is hardly beyond imagination.

Neither is a 9-shot .22 revolver. They're very common.

The "automatic," the Model of 1911, was accepted by the U.S. Army in 1911. The designation has nothing to do with when it was designed or any particular specimen was manufactured.

As pedants, some of you guys need a lot of work.

T | July 18, 2008, 2:38pm | #

Plus I heard before abou a 9 shot revolver which is absurd.

Not so much. I'd have to check, but somewhere in my collection of obsolete revolvers (long story) I have a .22 revolver which holds about that many. I know it's more than 6, but how much more I don't recall.

A general rule of thumb for people not intimately acquainted with firearms: avoid making blanket statements about what has or hasn't been done. Someone has tried nearly every conceivable variation at some point. It may not have worked very well and it may have been impractical, but that never stopped anyone. In a world which spawned the Mateba, everything's been done.

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 2:39pm | #

Wow, those STI guys are onto something!

Integrating patented 2011 technology . . .

On a pistol designed in 1997 even!

Are they keeping time travel to themselves and just selling pistols as a hobby? :)

It's marketing. Updating the 1911 for the 21st Century or somesuch equals 2011.

But the pistols STI make are extremely well-built dedicated competition guns.

Matthew | July 18, 2008, 2:43pm | #

A general rule of thumb for people not intimately acquainted with firearms: avoid making blanket statements about what has or hasn't been done. Someone has tried nearly every conceivable variation at some point.

Word.
This is also the problem with gun control legislation--no matter how tightly they think they have defined something, there is nearly always an exception to be exploited.

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 2:44pm | #

...my CZ SP-01 which I use for competition I have 18 rnd mags stock, so don't think I believe 13 round mags to be some kind of practical limit.

Angus Hobdell's company, Ghost Holster, sells 26 round 9mm CZ magazines. I bought one a couple months back and have been using it for our local steel matches with no problems.

However, the size of the magazine renders it impractical for anything but competitive use.

Russ from Winterset | July 18, 2008, 2:49pm | #

European American Armoury currently makes a single action .22 revolver with a 9-shot cylinder. Harrington & Richardson & High Standard made them in the past as well. I have an 8-shot revolver that I think was made in Germany in the 60's. It's a cheapo, but it does do the job when you're attacked by a swarm of empty beer cans.

I think what everyone's saying is that when you use "Colt" and "1911" in the same sentence, the logical conclusion is that you're referring to the 1911 or 1911A1 semi-automatic in .45 ACP. Plus the fact that yesterday's story about his permit denial mentioned the fact that "his gun loaded from the bottom, so it's a machine gun in DC" and this story didn't mention that he's got multiple guns (isn't that illegal under even the new DC ordinances?).

So, in summary, the original article should have been more clear with the description of Mr. Heller's firearm, BUT some of my fellow gun enthusiasts need to "Lighten up, Francis". So there, plenty of blame to go around.

John | July 18, 2008, 2:50pm | #

What always amazed me about the concern over semiautomatic pistols is that if you really want to kill a lot of people at close range, the alledged fear of people owning semi-automatic pistols, you wouldn't use a 1911 or a glock, you would use a semiautomatic or pump action shotgun. Shotguns are a hell of a lot more effective in short range self defense or offense than any handgun.

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 2:51pm | #

This is also the problem with gun control legislation--no matter how tightly they think they have defined something, there is nearly always an exception to be exploited.

Indeed. Per DC's law, this is a machine gun.

LarryA | July 18, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Obviously Mr Heller has been paying way too much attention to those 1911 "If it don't start with .4 and end in 5 it ain't worth a shit" types.

He registered a .22LR.

Gun geek alert:

There shouldn't be anything preventing him from having this almost 100 yr old technology, though.

His revolver was manufactured in 1911. The single-action Colt revolver technology dates back more than 175 years, to 1831.

Colt model M1911 (named after its year of release too, I think)

Actually the “Model of 1911” came from being adopted by the U.S. military in 1911.

Have you ever built or thought of building a custom mag for anything? I have not researched it yet.

Not so much for firearms. However, there have been times when I was down at the 200-yard target and needed just one more staple.

mediageek | July 18, 2008, 3:01pm | #

Not so much for firearms. However, there have been times when I was down at the 200-yard target and needed just one more staple.

I've been swearing up and down for years that one of these days I'll get around to inventing a little plastic holder that would clasp onto the side of a staple gun meant specifically for holding a spare strip of staples. I bet you could make them for fifty cents and sell them for $5.99 and make a killing.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 3:06pm | #

MG-I'd be very interested as to the triggering mechanism for that thing, looks like an over/under but I wonder if you get two rounds simultaneously or over then under then revolve.

Guy Montag | July 18, 2008, 3:06pm | #

LarryA,

Do you ignore proper qualifiers all of the time?

R C Dean | July 18, 2008, 3:20pm | #

I think Mr. Heller is setting up a very clever challenge to licensing laws.

First, he gets .22 pistol licensed. So, obviously, he is qualified to be a license holder.

Then, he tries to get his .45 licensed, and is turned down. The legal attack on firearms restrictions is now very nicely set up. The only possible issue can be the .45.

And any law that prohibits a a license holder from also having a 1911 .45 should be prima facie unconsitutitional under Heller.

He's preparing the battlespace for Heller II. You watch.

Guy Montag | July 18, 2008, 3:24pm | #

RCD,

Wasn't the order the opposite? He got turned down for the .45 first, then he got licensed for the .22.

Well, yea, I think I see your point, because he got turned down for the .45 for not having it with him. That is another stupid portion of the law.

So, I wonder what happens if he tries to bring his "machine gun" to the station for registration?

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 4:20pm | #

So, I wonder what happens if he tries to bring his "machine gun" to the station for registration?

Quotes in the article they'll confiscate it, though they'll be good and not arrest the person outright.

I agree he's approaching it in a way to set up the challenges.

Rob K | July 18, 2008, 4:23pm | #

Heller tried to register both guns on the first day, but with out bringing either.

He has two guns, a .22 caliber, 9 shot revolver made by High Standard and a .45ACP semi-auto pistol, I believe a Colt Government Model 1911A1. The revolver is the one he registered today.

jp | July 18, 2008, 4:36pm | #

Why was Wilford Brimley there?

Jimmie | July 18, 2008, 4:39pm | #

It is "capable". You could fabricate one. It's "capable". You're in DC, again, suspend any concept of them trying to be logical or functional.

From where does "capable" come? I quoted the definition and it says "readily converted" which is different from capable. That gun is not "readily converted" into anything that would violate the law. DC's going to lose this one, too. Again. At a cost of millions of bucks.

Other Matt | July 18, 2008, 4:53pm | #

That gun is not "readily converted" into anything that would violate the law. DC's going to lose this one, too. Again. At a cost of millions of bucks.

No disagreement, no doubt, they're trying a war of attrition costing the other guys millions of bucks, and hoping someone will just give up out of frustration at some point.

As for capable, again, the wording says:

"(c) "Machine gun," as used in this chapter, means any firearm which shoots automatically or semiautomatically more than 12 shots without reloading."

Since the firearm is capable of shooting automatically 12 shots, simply by putting in a magazine carrying that (not commonly avail, agreed, but possible). Erego, it's capable of shooting "12 shots without reloading". Where does "readily converted" come from? There's nothing in the above which says that, and the above is pulled from current DC code, not a blog site anywhere.

joshua corning | July 18, 2008, 5:12pm | #

You think anything you own that was built in 2007 is going to work in 2094?

A 1911 replica I am sure, with good maintenance, will work just fine.

Along with just about any gun you can buy today.

chris | July 18, 2008, 5:23pm | #

so far as i can see it, DC has already directly violated the Heller ruling... in the ruling they specifically stated "the district must allow Heller to register his gun"

they didnt specify any exceptions as to what kind of gun, just that it was his...

Dylan Boswell | July 18, 2008, 5:50pm | #

So, he got his Colt Model 1873 style .22LR revolver registered, and set up the legal challenge to "machine gun" status for his Colt M1911 .45ACP pistol, and the ammo that goes in it.

Now we have the guns and ammo straight, as well as the legal tactics for future challenges to D.C. gun laws. I hope the blog post gets updated to reflect the hashing out of details from the comments above, or at least the next one gets the gun stuff better from the start.

fred | July 18, 2008, 6:06pm | #

Everyone is forgetting to mention the gross violation of Heller that DC established with there "regulations" :

They said that it was OK to possess the gun IF it was unloaded and had a trigger lock and/or was locked up. Heller specifically mentioned that having such regulations negated the right to self defense and weren't allowed.

DC is thumbing their nose at the USSC.

joe | July 18, 2008, 6:14pm | #

I'm being serious here... Can someone explain to me if a "legal definition" established by passing a law/regulation makes it so?

What i'm getting at here is that the DC ?statute? defines a "machine gun" as mentioned so many times above -- automatic OR semi-automatic that can fire 12 or more rounds without reloading. And then they "ban" machine guns.

I understand that DC "defines" my Glock 357 Sig as a "machine gun" (simply because they say it is). But that doesn't 'make' it a machine gun, because by normal definitions it is not.

Anybody think the same way? They ban 'machine guns' -- that makes sense, right? nobody should possess machine guns i suppose -- but then define machine guns to so broadly as to include such firearms and thus ban/exclude them that are by no means machine guns....

Jim | July 18, 2008, 6:46pm | #

Heller's original application: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/SJExhibitA.pdf

h/t:http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/07/17/heller-bleg/

anon | July 18, 2008, 7:15pm | #

joe (not our regular joe, I assume),

That's how laws usually work. Under rules of statutory construction, a word in a statute is given its ordinary meaning unless the legislature specifically intends another meaning.

For instance, Title VII states that "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . ."

Elswhere, the statute defines "employer" as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year . . . ."

So, even if in common lingo "employer" simply means "one who employs," the statute has specifically changed the definition.

It's just a time-saver, really.

Jimmie | July 18, 2008, 10:31pm | #

Where does "readily converted" come from? There's nothing in the above which says that, and the above is pulled from current DC code, not a blog site anywhere.

I pulled it directly off the link to the searchable DC code given on the city government's web site. In my linked post, I even gave the specific section of the code. I'm just not sure where you got yours.

fred - I mentioned that at length elsewhere, just not here. I wanted to limit myself to the police department's professed "interpretation" of the machine gun definition. By the by, the department's spokesman also said that by their interpretation, that definition banned any bottom-loading firearm, period.

juris imprudent | July 18, 2008, 10:48pm | #

You only have to hit a smart person over the head once, if that. You can hit a stupid person over the head until your arms give out.

DC is run by VERY stupid people.

Mica | July 19, 2008, 2:02am | #

1911 refers to the year, not the make of the gun. It's a single-action revolver.????

I believe that Colt did NOT make a 22 caliber single action revolver in 1911. Even if they did, it would be as you satate, a REVOLVER. Revolvers do NOT bottom load, but the 1911 Colt (a model designation by the way--not year of mfg) does load with a magazine from the bottom of the grip.

Other Matt | July 19, 2008, 7:10am | #

I pulled it directly off the link to the searchable DC code given on the city government's web site. In my linked post, I even gave the specific section of the code. I'm just not sure where you got yours.

Didn't see the link, but I pulled mine from the same.

What I gave you is from DC ST § 22-4501, my point is that the "capable" is not in the law, it's the DC Govt interpretation.

John C. Randolph | July 19, 2008, 11:13am | #

DC is run by VERY stupid people.

I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be stupider than Marion Barry and still get elected, but the voters of DC have proven me wrong time and time again.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | July 19, 2008, 11:15am | #

in the ruling they specifically stated "the district must allow Heller to register his gun"

One thing I find very unfortunate in the ruling, is that the court still let the DC government require registration of firearms. That itself is an unreasonable infringement of our right to self-defense.

-jcr

juris imprudent | July 19, 2008, 1:20pm | #

jcr-

Registration itself isn't an infringement, any more then registering to vote or registering your car. The infringement comes in that unlike those other registrations, this one serves as the thin end of the wedge. It's what comes after registration that is the real problem. Such as refusing or register some guns, or making registration so onerous as to no longer be registration per se.

Californio | July 19, 2008, 4:27pm | #

So is age of weapon relevant or just mechanism (i.e. "bottom loading")? Does this mean I can be in public with a family heirloom - like a loaded Colt Model 1860 cap and ball blackpowder revolver? What about a brace of flintlock pistols? Saber? [Ok - so I guess the M1929 Thompson with the drum magazine is out as well...]

Jose Ortega y Gasset | July 19, 2008, 5:39pm | #

I'm not a firearms pedant, just a hunter who happens to own a few firearms. The numbers "1911" and "Colt" in the same sentence almost always refer to the M1911A1, single-action, semi-automatic pistol most commonly chambered for the .45 ACP.

The "Gunsmoke" reference suggests to me that Mr. Heller has a single action revolver (apparently chambered for the .22 rimfire). If it looks "Marshall Dillon" to Mr. Heller and it is a bona fide Colt, it may be a "Frontier Scout," "New Frontier," or a "Peacemaker .22." These are "Old West"-looking .22 caliber revolver that Colt has manufactured since the middle of the last century. Is is possible Mr. Heller has a Colt manufactured in 1911 and chambered for a .22 rimfire...? I would say possible but highly unlikely. I would guess he's just heard "1911" and "Colt" together often enough that he made a simple mistake.

Defending one's home with a .22 rimfire... I consider that a much more serious mistake.

Dick | July 28, 2008, 1:28pm | #

All of the arguing over 1911 versus revolver seems to be missing the larger issue, which is DC trying to say that a semi-auto is a machine gun.

The morons that rule DC don't realize that they may be setting themselves up for more than they bargained for by thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court. I'm sure the mayor and his cronies realize that the courts will rule against them again.

What they may not be realizing is that if this case makes it to the Supreme Court, the high court may wind up incorporating the 2nd Amendment. And that means goodbye to gun bans in CA, MA, and other states.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.