Semi-auto ban affect Double-Action Revolvers?

[SullyVols]

Apparently a panel in the Senate is producing a bill seeking to ban semi-auto firearms.

A double action revolver is cycled by the user's muscle, not recoil - so is it semi-auto like a glock, or is it considered the same as say a bolt-action rifle?

I'm not worrying in this case as it won't pass - but there will be plenty of attempts at this in my lifetime.

 

[joeschmoe]

Congress does not have the power to ban arms. Enjoy your revolvers and semi's.

 

[SullyVols]

Congress does not have the power to ban arms. Enjoy your revolvers and semi's.

Unfortunately I think we all know that most of them don't care whether they have the power or not. All they want is more power. Look at how sad of a state Illinois is in - Chicago runs it and it isn't even the capital (or a majority of the population).

 

[joeschmoe]

It doesn't matter what they want. Their powers are limited.

 

[Landric]

It doesn't matter what they want. Their powers are limited.

By who? Unfortunately, the Constitution is just a piece of paper to many of them. Unless and until there are consequences for them personally for violating it, they will continue to pass unconstitutional laws, enforce them, and wait to see if the courts agree that they are unconstitutional. That takes time, money, and effort.

Saying that the cannot do something because of a legal document they have a long history of ignoring is the same as saying an abusive husband cannot assault his wife because she has a protective order.

 

[joeschmoe]

By who?

The Constitution, the other branches of the federal government, the courts, the states and ultimately the people themselves.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is just a piece of paper to many of them. Unless and until there are consequences for them personally for violating it, they will continue to pass unconstitutional laws, enforce them, and wait to see if the courts agree that they are unconstitutional. That takes time, money, and effort.

It has worked for over 200 years. They haven't even gotten a vote in the Senate, much less passed both houses, and you've already given up on our Republic?

Saying that the cannot do something because of a legal document they have a long history of ignoring is the same as saying an abusive husband cannot assault his wife because she has a protective order.

Not even close. The anti's have been proposing these same bills every year for decades. They have never passed. Even if they did pass they would be struck down. If they weren't struck down they would be ignored. If they weren't ignored they would be fought.

There is a long way to go and an impossible uphill climb for the anti's. They will fail.

 

[joeschmoe]

If you just want to wring your hands at alex jones stories, cry about the death of the Republic and justify your collection of air soft guns and archery gear; fine. Go ahead that is your right.
I will read the Constitution, Supreme Court case law and enjoy my rights to Arms. I know my rights and I do not fear Feinstein.

Anyone who would accept only being "allowed" revolvers does not understand their rights and the limits of government power.

 

[BearGriz]

Is anyone going to answer the actual question at hand?

I'll give it my best interpretation:

No, it is not a self-loading mechanism, and is therefore not semi-automatic. The round is not chambered before you pull the trigger.

 

[akv3g4n]

SullyVols-

I've never seen revolvers referred to as semi automatic and I think that your reasoning is pretty accurate as to why. Obviously, single action revolvers require manipulation of the hammer before the next round is fired so that's easy. With double action, taking up slack with the trigger cocks the hammer, rotates the cylinder and aligns the next round for it to be fired. Kind of splitting hairs but the next round isn't really automatically loaded when the previous shot is fired.

Just my best guess at a reason. I'm sure a revolver aficionado will come in soon and clarify this.

 

[SullyVols]

My thinking - Kind of frustrating because most of these looneys in D.C. and Illinois (and abroad) aren't aware of the grey areas.

 

[MedWheeler]

No, revolvers are not "self-loading" firearms. They have multiple firing chambers and each must be individually loaded for the gun to fire out its capacity.

Technically, any semi-automatic weapon has an ammunition capacity of one. It's the magazine, which is not part of the firearm, that holds more, and the weapon "feeds" off of it. It loads itself from it, and unloads itself of the empty cases. This allows, for most people, for a faster rate of fire, and longer strains of fire. These are what make it "evil" in the eyes of those who would want to see them eliminated.

If some of those twerps got some opportunities to see some competitive revolver-action shooters in competition, revolvers would be being pushed toward the chopping block, too.

 

[danez71]

I could see DA revolvers being next on the hit list.

They will say... or try to say,
'One pull of the trigger puts a round in the ready position and fires it until all the rounds are fired.'

They will start with trying to ban 'High capacity DA revolvers' and go from there.

They will try to get eveyone down to single shot firearms. And when gun deaths still happen they will try to say "See! There is no redeeming value and only cause deaths so they must be banned"

 

[MedWheeler]

They will say... or try to say,
'One pull of the trigger puts a round in the ready position and fires it until all the rounds are fired.'

One pull will "fire it until all the rounds are fired"? Well, yeah, Joe Biden might say that, I guess..

 

[dmckean44]

Revolvers aren't semi-automatic because you have to chamber each round and extract the cartridges manually. I think revolving carbines are actually one of the few fun things still legal in parts of Austrailia.

 

[Landric]

The Constitution, the other branches of the federal government, the courts, the states and ultimately the people themselves.

It has worked for over 200 years. They haven't even gotten a vote in the Senate, much less passed both houses, and you've already given up on our Republic?

Where did I say I had given up on the Republic?

Not even close. The anti's have been proposing these same bills every year for decades. They have never passed. Even if they did pass they would be struck down. If they weren't struck down they would be ignored. If they weren't ignored they would be fought.

Well, lets see, we have the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment, Brady I, and the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. With the exception of the AWB (which is only gone because of a sunset provision), the are all still on the books and being enforced. They passed, they have not been stricken down or ignored. The late 80's to early 90's really was the worst time in my lifetime for new gun control. They got their AWB, and if there had not been a sunset provision, we would still have it. It doesn't matter that gun control is likely unconstitutional (in our opinions anyway), it still passed, and it is still, for the most part, enforced.

There is a long way to go and an impossible uphill climb for the anti's. They will fail.

I'll do everything I can to make sure they do, but make no mistake, if they have the votes, they will pass what they want to pass, Constitution or not.

 

[MAKster]

There isn't going to be a federal ban on assault weapons or any semi-auto firearm. And now people are afraid of revolvers being banned. Come on people show some common sense and stop spreading false rumors.

 

[Old Fuff]

Semi-auto ban affect Double-Action Revolvers?

I don't think so, because they don't auto-feed or have detachable magazines.

But the only reason is because the gun-banners haven't got to them yet.

 

[itsa pain]

this sounds like a guy saying as long as my gun is not banned I could care less if yours is

 

[k_dawg]

Yea. They do not have the power. NFA 1934, CGA 68, 86 never happened.

Nothing to see folks, just ignore all attempts to attack our rights.

</sarcasm>