Defensive Carry banner

21 - 40 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
My revolvers are my revolvers and my semi automatics are my pistols, but that's just me.

Apples and oranges, but they are both fruit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,099 Posts
Semantics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Any of you old enough to remember the old Saturday Cowboy flicks with the banditos on horse back and their guns of well before the semi automatic handgun?

They were called Pistoleros.

I know the current days distinction of a pistol is a semi auto and a revolver is a revolver, but I still believe that a pistol is a revolver......child hood indoctrination.LOL!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
Sounds like Washington could be in violation of ATF regs and, as some folks think, the ATF is in violation of anything that makes sense.
How do you see that? Federal law is supreme. Then state laws apply. I see states not aligning with federal law (like outright ban on certain NFA items), but I don't see how Washington violates federal law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,795 Posts
This is my rifle, this is my gun.
This is for fighting, this is for fun.


RIP, Gunny!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
How do you see that? Federal law is supreme. Then state laws apply. I see states not aligning with federal law (like outright ban on certain NFA items), but I don't see how Washington violates federal law.
I said could be and referred to ATF regulations, not any federal law legislated by Congress. I concede that it is a dubious distinction at best, and made in jest, but it does exist. Please tell me that you don't take issue with my proposition that the ATF REGS often miss sensible by a country mile!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
I said could be and referred to ATF regulations, not any federal law legislated by Congress. I concede that it is a dubious distinction at best, and made in jest, but it does exist.
Ok. Explain how it could be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
Thanks for your interest. I used could intentionally to leave open the possibility of or could not while making the point that ATF regulations can sometimes seem nonsensical and thus might be easily violated whether the violation is intentional or not. I intended no slur or accusation toward the state of Washington or toward anyone's perception of the Supremacy Clause or any other legal principle of any sort or in any particular matter. I was simply poking the ATF. And with that I rest my case, throw myself upon the mercy of the court and wish Washington, ATF and you a good day.

Ok. Explain how it could be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
If you were to put gasoline in a perfectly sealed container, get absolutely all the oxygen out of the container, and then introduce a spark, nothing would happen.
Without oxygen it won't burn, your point is invalid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
There were pistols already in existence before Sam Colt patented his revolving pistols, in the Eighteen-Thirties. The Bureau of ATF, which has evolved into the BATFE, was not established until 1972.

In the Texas of my younger days, during the Sixties and Seventies of the 20th Century, everyone seemed to use “pistol” to describe every type of handgun. A revolver was a specific type of pistol. During that time, of course, most pistols were revolvers, so, unless one was referring to something other than a revolver, there was no need to specify the type of operating mechanism. Not until the Nineties did auto-loading pistols become common, and that is when I started noticing debates, such as this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,195 Posts
There were pistols already in existence before Sam Colt patented his revolving pistols, in the Eighteen-Thirties. The Bureau of ATF, which has evolved into the BATFE, was not established until 1972.

In the Texas of my younger days, during the Sixties and Seventies of the 20th Century, everyone seemed to use “pistol” to describe every type of handgun. A revolver was a specific type of pistol. During that time, of course, most pistols were revolvers, so, unless one was referring to something other than a revolver, there was no need to specify the type of operating mechanism. Not until the Nineties did auto-loading pistols become common, and that is when I started noticing debates, such as this one.
Exactly. Some of us were generally familiar with the terms "semi-automatic" and "auto-loading", but the common parlance of the 1970's and earlier included "pistols", "revolvers", and "automatics". Today there seems to be a lot more confusion. Simply put, a pistol is any firearm designed to be used with one hand. Everything else is some degree of hair-splitting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,327 Posts
Well, since all the earliest firearms were single shot, single barrel affairs the shortened handgun versions were called pistols or handguns. The earliest revolvers were not produced until later in the same century aaccording to Wikipedia:

The English word was introduced in ca. 1570 — when early handguns were produced in Europe and is derived from the Middle French pistolet (ca. 1550), meaning a small gun/knife. In colloquial usage, the word "pistol" is often used to describe any types of handgun, inclusive of revolvers (which have a single barrel and a separate cylinder housing multiple chambers) and the pocket-sized derringers (which are often multi-barrelled).

I suppose it depends on how accurate one wants, or pehaps needs, to be. So, it's knid of a clip/magazine sort of thing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
Well, since all the earliest firearms were single shot, single barrel affairs the shortened handgun versions were called pistols or handguns. The earliest revolvers were not produced until later in the same century aaccording to Wikipedia:
Those aren't even firearms by US law today. Honestly, I like the history lesson. But what really matters in Washington is the Washington state law definition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,327 Posts
Those aren't even firearms by US law today. Honestly, I like the history lesson. But what really matters in Washington is the Washington state law definition.

I agree that what matters ( for me ) is the WA state definition, since that is where I live. Here, muzzle loading firearms fall into the sub-category of "Antique Firearms", which is pretty much the same as the Federal definition. However, while the US code does not consider them a "firearm", they do fall under the definition of "firearm" n WA.

As previously mentioned, WA state considers both pistols and revolvers (with bbls under 16" ) to be pistols.

RCW 9.41.010
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
62 Posts
RWC 9.41.010
(11) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
(22) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
@JustCuz exactly. Already cited in post #6
Hoganbeg also cited what had already been cited. But he probably didn't realize he was citing my citation back to me. lol
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
62 Posts
From Washington Firearm Laws, Summary 2018


This is a Washington license. Check Washington laws.

It does appear that an SBR fits Washington pistol definition. Therefore, it could be carried concealed under the Washington pistol license. Also, an AR with a pistol brace and 20" barrel could qualify as a pistol.
RWC 9.41.010
(11) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
(22) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
Currency is of course a factor vice your info cited from 2018 and my cite which unequivocally impacted by WA voter passed initiative(s) but the legislative link stating: * CHANGE IN 2020 * (SEE 2473-S.SL) ***
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,011 Posts
There were pistols already in existence before Sam Colt patented his revolving pistols, in the Eighteen-Thirties. The Bureau of ATF, which has evolved into the BATFE, was not established until 1972.

In the Texas of my younger days, during the Sixties and Seventies of the 20th Century, everyone seemed to use “pistol” to describe every type of handgun. A revolver was a specific type of pistol. During that time, of course, most pistols were revolvers, so, unless one was referring to something other than a revolver, there was no need to specify the type of operating mechanism. Not until the Nineties did auto-loading pistols become common, and that is when I started noticing debates, such as this one.
And magazine and clip were used interchangeably. Everyone knew what you were talking about and if someone knew the difference they were too polite to correct you.
 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
Top