He could have just registered a revolver and tried to play the Fenty denial of rights game. Instead he is resolving more issues.
No, this all started because he owned a 1911 (kept out-of-state) which he wanted to register and keep, unlocked & assembled & loaded, at home. He is NOT doing anything more than what he originally set out to.
He did not take it to the registration office precisely because, while he was assured he could
take it there, there was every reason to believe they would not let it
leave with him.
SCOTUS
never addressed a "revolver vs. semi-auto" distinction. They said, in undeniable fact, that DC MUST issue Mr. Heller a permit for "his handgun".
Mr. Heller is NOT screwing around, he is NOT trying to extend this in any direction - he is MERELY pursuing what he set out to when he joined the
Parker case.
The real perversion is that now DC is trying to turn the tables on Mr. Heller. The other
Parker plaintiffs were ejected for lack of standing, that is they did NOT attempt to register anything, choosing instead to file grievance as the law clearly prevented them from doing something legal. Only Mr. Heller actually tried to register - and was inevitably denied - therefore he had standing. This time, they've added a twist: "bring us the handgun, and then we'll see about registering it" which they know will result in confiscation of contraband, and the registration will not be denied (nor approved) because there was nothing to register (gun? there was no legal gun) and
thus Mr. Heller loses standing under the same principles which the other Parker plantiffs were shut up with.