Oh, come on. You’re picking one part of the legal definition to cling to and ignoring the other (the ATF reg specifies the chamber(s) being an integral part of, or in a permanent alignment in a pistol). If the revolver’s chambers aren’t integral to its operation, what are they? Optional? Something that can be dispensed with entirely in favor of throwing the weapon at the target?
You’re also overlooking accepted definitions in the English language.
You were correct earlier about the “semi-automatic” definition in the news article, but you’re wrong in this instance.
My mate reckoned you should blame Romero and not Hollywood. If not for him the cops wouldn’t have freaked out and tried to shoot the wounded through the head to stop them for good.
Unfortunately, the ATF are not the be-all and end-all of Firearms Legalities And Pedantry, despite what they like to think (You know those other countries you sometimes hear about on the news? They have gun laws too, and people responsible for writing and enforcing them.)
The Weapons Act 1990 (QLD), and more specifically Section 7 (1) of the Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 defines a Handgun (“Category H Weapon”) as “A firearm, including an air pistol and a blank fire firearm, under 75cm in length”.
Later on, it makes reference to “Centrefire Pistols with a calibre not exceeding .45 inch” and “Rim-fire Pistols”.
As others have said though, it’s a regional terminology thing, but it still makes me laugh somewhat to hear fellow collectors in the US say they own X number of revolvers and X number of handguns…
Well, the vast majority of them here don’t. They’d say I own x revolvers and y pistols for a total of x+y handguns.
The mistake in your claim here is that the ATF regulation says “integral part of,” not “integral to its operation.” “Integral part of” means physically; it describes the manner of assembly - it is physically attached using a permanent method - such as a press-fit. Whe it says, “or in a permanent alignment,” is means the chamber doesn’t move during normal operation of the handgun, but it is not physically attached to the barrel/bore. Your claim, “integral to its operation,” isn’t part of the ATF definition at all. You might also note that in your own citation, there are several references to conditions which apply to “pistols and/or revolvers.” If the definition - according to the ATF - of pistol includes revolvers, then why the specificity? Here’s one of those instances:
None of which tells us squat about the physical characteristics of handguns which divide that class of firearm into the subgroups pistol and revolver. In common usage, despite what the friggin’ dictionary says, and according to our ATF, there is no overlap between the pistol and revolver subgroups. They are distinctly different in design, configuration, assembly & operation.
Your implication that the revolving chamber in a revolver is not an integral part of the gun is laughable. The accepted definition of “integral” is “essential or necessary for completeness”. No chamber, revolver doesn’t work. You dig?
No such phraseology appears in the ATF regulation. Your mistake here is substituting wishful thinking and semantic wriggling for fact.
If pistol = semi-automatic as you claim, and semi-automatic handgun is a valid descriptor, why doesn’t the ATF say “semi-automatic” anywhere in place of “pistol”?
From freedictionary.com (one of numerous online dictionaries available), here’s the definition of pistol: “A firearm designed to be held and fired with one hand.”
Beer, it’s time to tell your inner terrier to let go, and concede a valid point with a bit of grace.
If you ever find yourself a disgruntled postal worker:[ul][]All I have in this world is my balls, and my word, and I don’t break 'em for no one.[]I bury those cock-a-roaches![]Maybe you can handle yourself one of them First Class tickets to the resurrection[]I don’t need nobody[]Say goodnight to the bad guy[]You die, motherfucker![]Well jou stupid fuck, look at jou now![]How’d jou like that, eh? Jou fuckin’ maricon![]You fuck wit me, you fuckin’ wit da best![]Say 'ello to my little friend![/ul]
That may be true of where you live, but it is not the norm in Southwest Pennsylvania, where all handguns are called pistols and then one must further specify whether that is a revolver or a semi-automatic.
May I ask what state or region of the US you are from?
I think there may be different terminology used in different areas of the US on this one, as people around here consider ‘revolver’ to be a category of ‘pistol’ and the first time I ever heard otherwise was on the Ruger website.
I don’t mean to rekindle an argument, I’m just curious if this is a regional difference.
I’m from northwest Ohio - not too terribly far from you.
Browning, a company which makes no revolvers, calls their handguns Centerfire Pistols and Buckmark Pistols - the Buckmarks are distingushed from the centerfires because they are rimfire.
Smith & Wesson, similarly to Ruger rmakes a distinction between revolvers & pistols. Taurus revolvers & Taurus pistols.
Beretta, just like Browning makes no revolvers and calls all their handguns pistols.
Colt makes pistols & revolvers.
You sure about that? 'Cuz your link doesn’t support your claim. The word “pistol” appears nowhere on the patent application - not in the drawings, not in the narrative. The drawing title does, however, say “Samuel Colt’s First U.S. Revolver Patent.”
