Feasibility of pre-MIM S&W revolvers as working guns.

[deputyG23]

I am on two trains of thought while writing this. LSP 972, a short while back, mentioned something about the scarcity of pre-MIM S&W revolver parts. He also mentioned the possibility of magazine fed handguns becoming contraband if the Hildebeast comes to power.
It sounds like Nyeti is hedging his bets by purchasing lever guns and revolvers as well.
If this comes to pass, we would be legally forced to rely on revolvers, which would increase wear and possible parts replacement and fitting.
Questions:
How do we keep them running?
Is there a recommended service interval per so many trigger cycles?
Our retired S&W armorer still is working on guns for me when needed.
I am building my retirement carry battery which hopefully can comply with the patchwork of numbnuts laws that LEOSA retired carriers have to navigate. I figure that revolvers are probably the safest bet.
Comments?

[RevolverRob]

The easiest solution to keeping a pre-MIM S&W Revolver as a working gun is to keep it in the safe and use a GP100 instead. I know - not what you want to hear, but the truth is tough sometimes.

Actually, I would say pick up a 627 N-Frame .357 that is MIM'ed and use it. I haven't seen an issue with these guns. Seriously, some competitors are running 10-20k rounds a year through 627s without major issues.

[HCM]

The easiest solution to keeping a pre-MIM S&W Revolver as a working gun is to keep it in the safe and use a GP100 instead. I know - not what you want to hear, but the truth is tough sometimes.

Actually, I would say pick up a 627 N-Frame .357 that is MIM'ed and use it. I haven't seen an issue with these guns. Seriously, some competitors are running 10-20k rounds a year through 627s without major issues.

If you get a good one, that functions and is in spec, the current MIM S&W revolvers are great.

There is nothing wrong with the new design itself (other than the Hillary Hole) or the MIM parts, it is the inconsistent quality control which makes it a roll of the dice.

Going back to the OP's question, in the scenario you describe, there are millions of K frame revolvers out there. If demand were high enough someone would dero to make aftermarket replacement parts.

[deputyG23]

The easiest solution to keeping a pre-MIM S&W Revolver as a working gun is to keep it in the safe and use a GP100 instead. I know - not what you want to hear, but the truth is tough sometimes.

Actually, I would say pick up a 627 N-Frame .357 that is MIM'ed and use it. I haven't seen an issue with these guns. Seriously, some competitors are running 10-20k rounds a year through 627s without major issues.
The GP-100 idea is a sound one. I have an ex-security .38 half-lug 4" version I got cheap a couple of years ago. Ordered some new Lett compact grips from Ruger and missed the mailman today. Left a card that my Ruger order was in...

[LSP972]

DeputyG23, all good questions.

There is no real "drop-dead" maintenance schedule on the pre-MIM guns, and none that I know of on the post-MIM examples. Given a properly strapped-up new revolver, with no bogus parts, how long it will "last" is entirely a question of "how much shooting/with what" it sees.

The advice to keep your "good one" in the safe and shoot a Ruger instead; well, that statement assumes a lot of things. And you know what happens when we assume.

Let's look at some facts.

1. Ruger revolvers ARE "tougher" than most all S&W revolvers. ASSUMING the ammunition diet is hot magnums or handloads… POOMA loads or otherwise. When the ammo diet is more civilized, S&W revolvers will hang right in there with any brand. The big clue here is that in 20+ years of semi-professional PPC competition, I saw exactly TWO Rugers and perhaps a half-dozen Colts on the lines. The rest were S&W. And this wasn't all wadcutters, either; lots of 158RNL mid-range loads shot at leg matches, too.

2. The sheriff's office I worked at for a while after retiring from State Police, has close to two hundred M-64s in use, mainly by the jailers. I got a close look at most of these when I was there (2007-2008); most of those revolvers were pushing 40 years old (bought in the 70s), most still had their original pieces/parts and functioned fine. They were plenty worn, let me tell you… 40 years of 200+ rounds a year (more if the deputy gave a shit) showed clearly on these revolvers. Ten replacement M-64s, with the accursed lock, were purchased in 2008… and the lock on one of them self-engaged during test-firing prior to issue. That was the third self-induced lock engagement I've see; I love it when a nimrod snorts and says "That has never happened!" :rolleyes:

Keep in mind, if one wants to mainly shoot "hot loads", then an N frame or a Ruger is the better idea from the get-go. Very few people can hang with a steady run of "magnums" or +P .38s for long; keep that in mind as well.

Then you have other considerations… such as my cherry S&W M-12 2" RB snubby. These guns are delightful to carry, and will stand a bit of shooting… but not a whole lot, mainly due to the aluminum alloy frame. And Smith won't touch one these days, as a result of untold cracked frames from idiots who cannot read or threw the book away, and shot a lot of "hot loads, man!".

I was considering sending mine back in for a 3" heavy barrel installation (back when the factory would do that sort of thing), and was told by a friend in the know: "Don't do that; you'll never see it again. They'll say they broke it, and ask you "which one of our nice new MIM guns would like as a replacement"?"

It would seem they don't want these things out on the street, due to liability issues. Cannot say that I blame them.

Anyway… what I need is a near-identical practice piece; known as the M-10 2" RB with steel frame. That puppy will handle mid-range .38 practice loads forever; as will my 4" SB M-66 and M-19 revolvers, and 2.5" M-66. Those are heavy to carry, though.

Another thing to consider is that I have a parts stash. Apart from a cracked frame, burst barrel, or burst cylinder, if something goes tango uniform with my revolvers I have the parts/tools/smarts to repair it. I hope to pick up a 2" RB M-10 at the gunshow next month; if no joy there, I'll begin scouring the forums/auction sites, much as I hate to.

But for those without the tools nor inclination to DIY repair a wheel gun, my advice is to choose your favorite overall, and then buy THREE of them (plus a J frame or two, of course :cool: ). Test-fire all three, then put two away in storage (live or dead, your call). And start stock-piling .38 and/or .357 ammunition yesterday.

.

[Shumba]

Deputy,
LSP is spot on with his recommendations.
I have several N frame Smiths made in the 1950s. Shot a lot but carefully maintained. I was an S&W trained armorer and still have a few parts stashed.
The 2 1/2" 19s and 66s, and 3" 13s are lovely carry guns as well, especially when fed 135 +P Gold Dots.
I would add a Ruger Match Champion to the mix for a heavy duty .357.
Mine is about a year old and is splendid in every way. The action is very slick.
Sumba

[Nephrology]

I have a model 19-3 and a no-lock 442-2 currently. but if I was really concerned that semi-autos would be a no-gon in the near future, I would get a couple Ruger GP100s and a SP101 for carry.

[Totem Polar]

We're not there yet. But if the worst came to pass, and semi auto pistols were out, I'd wait and see what sort of wheelies the big makers came up with next, and rely on my stash of minty old Ks and Js in the interim.

[jh9]

Actually, I would say pick up a 627 N-Frame .357 that is MIM'ed and use it. I haven't seen an issue with these guns. Seriously, some competitors are running 10-20k rounds a year through 627s without major issues.

It is known.

[breakingtime91]

I am searching for a good carry gp100 as we speak...I think spending time with a double action revolver will improve my lack luster trigger control.

[Malamute]

Going back to the OP's question, in the scenario you describe, there are millions of K frame revolvers out there. If demand were high enough someone would dero to make aftermarket replacement parts.

Looking in the current Brownells catalog, they show Power Custom makes replacement Smith triggers, oversize hands in K, L and N sizes, oversize cylinder stops (cylinder locking bolts), and shims to snug up cylinder endshake and yoke play. Theres also replacement firing pins and DA sears, as well as springs and thumb latches for the cylinder. Some parts are still showing from Smith as well.

ETA: Dang. That was stupid. Looked at factory parts. Why do I now want to buy a 3" barrel for a 629?

[john c]

The one Smith part that was difficult to find are N frame hammers. Luckily, there's a gunsmith nearby who claims to have the largest stockpile of vintage S&W revolver parts west of the Mississippi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[john c]

The easiest solution to keeping a pre-MIM S&W Revolver as a working gun is to keep it in the safe and use a GP100 instead.

I agree completely. In fact, this is what I did. I've retired my K frame Smiths to .38 special loads only (4 model 66's, a -0, -1, -2, and -4; all pre-mim) and use GP100's for .357 use. I'm not opposed to shooting .357s through my 66's should the need arise, but not as a regular practice. I've picked up several 66's and 19's at low prices (even free) with severe end shake from old timer cops. They do shoot loose. I've only seen one GP100 with end shake, and the rifling was shot smooth (literally) for 90% of the tube. I can't imagine how many full house loads were fired through that gun to do that to it.

The great thing about the GP100 is that if it breaks, they'll fix it or send you a new one. Also, the soak up heavy recoil. The triggers of my 2 recent GPs (standard models) were excellent out of the box. My older 173 prefix gun has a pretty nasty trigger. I don't think you can go wrong with a GP.

If I were going to shoot a ton of rounds through a K frame, I would get a new mim gun. I'm okay with mim, and I think the two piece barrel is a technological advancement. There's less bore constriction where the barrel meets the frame.

[scott]

I kind of figure that I'm unlikely to shoot out all 5 model 15s in my life, so I'm not too worried about a lack of spare parts.

[oldtexan]

It is known.

I'm unclear as to what you're trying to say. What "is known"? Are you agreeing with RevolverBob's comments or are you saying something else? If it's the latter, what exactly are you trying to say?

[CCT125US]

I'm curious how an outright ban on semi autos would play out? It has been mentioned several times here. Perhaps begin with a thread split.

[jh9]

I'm unclear as to what you're trying to say. What "is known"? Are you agreeing with RevolverBob's comments or are you saying something else? If it's the latter, what exactly are you trying to say?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=It%20is%20known.

Yes, he's spot on. The 8 shot 627s tend to run great, the MIM parts will take and hold a good action and service is about as easy as it gets with a design this old. The factory clips suck, but TKC makes reasonably general purpose clips (no winchester on the blue .25s) and 5-star makes speedloaders if you want to go that route. The factory action isn't bad, either. (Wolff Type 2 spring + the longer 'square butt' strain screw knocks several pounds off the standard config.)

[BN]

I couldn't find K-Frame hammers a while ago. Ended up with a couple of used ones from a gun show.

[oldtexan]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=It%20is%20known.

Yes, he's spot on. The 8 shot 627s tend to run great, the MIM parts will take and hold a good action and service is about as easy as it gets with a design this old. The factory clips suck, but TKC makes reasonably general purpose clips (no winchester on the blue .25s) and 5-star makes speedloaders if you want to go that route. The factory action isn't bad, either. (Wolff Type 2 spring + the longer 'square butt' strain screw knocks several pounds off the standard config.)

Thanks. I understand now.

[FPS]

If the government tried to confiscate semi-autos, I would expect a civil war. I mean really, can you see Texas complying? ;)

[Malamute]

If the government tried to confiscate semi-autos, I would expect a civil war. I mean really, can you see Texas complying? ;)

They wouldn't need to confiscate them to make it a problem to carry or use them.

We know from Australia that only a minority percentage of known guns were turned in, but taking them out and using them becomes problematic.

[ssb]

Tag me for interest for a thread split re: government ban on semi-autos yet still allowing revolvers. I'm genuinely curious.

[HCM]

If the government tried to confiscate semi-autos, I would expect a civil war. I mean really, can you see Texas complying? ;)

We've discussed this before. There would be no door to door confiscations - that would be ridiculous. It would be an attrition strategy, As malamute mentioned, that would put a damper on using, shooting, carrying, hunting with your semi autos.

[HCM]

Tag me for interest for a thread split re: government ban on semi-autos yet still allowing revolvers. I'm genuinely curious.

Me too. Of course, if the antis can target scoped bolt action hunting rifles as "sniper rifles " they could target revolvers as "the choice of criminals "because they don't leave brass casings on crime scenes.

[BillSWPA]

The antis will try to divide and conquer with a series of small steps leading to their ultimate goal as they always have.

[Dagga Boy]

The antis will try to divide and conquer with a series of small steps leading to their ultimate goal as they always have.

Just got back from California. There at an LE shooting event with a bunch of gun guy and gal cops. They are fairly certain the ban on magazines and eventually the goal of a requirement for a DOJ permit to POSESS ammunition by the liberals there will pass.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/04/20/gunmeggedon-underway-gun-bans-mag-bans-ca/

[jh9]

Just got back from California. There at an LE shooting event with a bunch of gun guy and gal cops. They are fairly certain the ban on magazines and eventually the goal of a requirement for a DOJ permit to POSESS ammunition by the liberals there will pass.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/04/20/gunmeggedon-underway-gun-bans-mag-bans-ca/

Can someone clarify something for me: Is it not currently the case that possession (as opposed to buy/sell/import) is basically not a criminal offense? Which means if you don't get caught at the border and don't admit to moving them in to CA they're just confiscated as a nuisance or something. TBH I'm surprised a full mag ban with criminal penalties hasn't already happened. The whole "no legal business, but no meaningful effort to stop the sieve of the CA border" always seemed kind of half-assed even for the CA legislature.

The DOJ permit to possess ammo...people think that will pass? That seems like a long shot, even for CA. Hell, NY hasn't done that yet. Lately they're a better bellweather for dumbass gun law than CA...

[Dagga Boy]

Can someone clarify something for me: Is it not currently the case that possession (as opposed to buy/sell/import) is basically not a criminal offense? Which means if you don't get caught at the border and don't admit to moving them in to CA they're just confiscated as a nuisance or something. TBH I'm surprised a full mag ban with criminal penalties hasn't already happened. The whole "no legal business, but no meaningful effort to stop the sieve of the CA border" always seemed kind of half-assed even for the CA legislature.

The DOJ permit to possess ammo...people think that will pass? That seems like a long shot, even for CA. Hell, NY hasn't done that yet. Lately they're a better bellweather for dumbass gun law than CA...

Everyone I talked to thinks all the gun control that goes to a general election vote will pass. The problem in California is there are laws, and then there are rules and opinions. It is all very vague and most officers and others don't understand the technical side and prosecute based on wrong info.

[Duelist]

More and more, the idea of going back to California seems more like entering an unfriendly, not-very-safe foreign country than entering one of the most beautiful of the United States.

It kind of makes me mad. Some of the best memories of my youth were road trips to Cali to go to the Bay Area, LA, Disneyland, the beaches, the redwoods. And I had a great time when I was stationed at Ft Ord. Running on the beach every day for PT? Yes, please! Especially in the summers when the girls were out ...

[LSP972]

Just got back from California. There at an LE shooting event with a bunch of gun guy and gal cops. They are fairly certain the ban on magazines and eventually the goal of a requirement for a DOJ permit to POSESS ammunition by the liberals there will pass.



Nonsense; that will never happen, according to many forumites. How dare you spread fear and rumor???;)

.

[Dagga Boy]

Nonsense; that will never happen, according to many forumites. How dare you spread fear and rumor???;)

.

Yea, amazing when a whole bunch of cops are scared of the political temperature on this, it should be a clue. I forgot, every time I see something about California gun control, I keep hearing that the 2nd Amendment folks are winning......yet it doesn't feel that way. Place I was working at is a large Sig dealer. They have exactly one Sig gun in a full display case that can be sold to non-LE. Didn't feel like winning....

[HCM]

I don't know about possession of ammo, but don't both New Jersey and Illinois require presenting an firearms owner ID (FO ID) card in order to purchase over-the-counter?

I don't know if it has changed, but back in the late 70s and 80s New York required dealers to see a New York State handgun license before selling someone handgun ammunition over-the-counter.

[Dagga Boy]

I don't know about possession of ammo, but don't both New Jersey and Illinois require presenting an firearms owner ID (FO ID) card in order to purchase over-the-counter?

I don't know if it has changed, but back in the late 70s and 80s New York required dealers to see a New York State handgun license before selling someone handgun ammunition over-the-counter.

California politicians always likes being part of the competition with those places. They dominate the legislature in California and now have an AG who is an all in true believer in banning everything. And......these people keep getting elected so this crap will continue. They have a counter to everything. They are now pushing very hard on magazine bans and their stupid "list" that is the counter to any successes with CCW laws. At some point, someone may get a CCW, but with these ideologues, they will do what they can to limit you to a J frame......with a lock.

[Nephrology]

Honestly I am more worried about Republican incompetence than democrat maliciousness. Everyone knows Democrats want to enact more gun control legislation, but they can't do it without a majority in the house & senate. The problem is that at this rate the GOP is practically writing it for them and handing them a pen to sign it with.

Much more worried about the Senate/House elections (and the corresponding Colorado state elections) than I am the presidency. We've lived under an anti-gun president for the last 8 years with no big whoop at all at the federal level. Let's keep it that way.

[Dagga Boy]

Honestly I am more worried about Republican incompetence than democrat maliciousness. Everyone knows Democrats want to enact more gun control legislation, but they can't do it without a majority in the house & senate. The problem is that at this rate the GOP is practically writing it for them and handing them a pen to sign it with.

Much more worried about the Senate/House elections (and the corresponding Colorado state elections) than I am the presidency. We've lived under an anti-gun president for the last 8 years with no big whoop at all at the federal level. Let's keep it that way.

The problem is not really at the Federal level. The problem is really at the state and local level. The biggest issue, and the one that lands decent folks in jail, is complex laws, rules, and regulations in local areas that people who are legal in one area stumble into. In places like California you have an Attorney General turning a blind eye to local laws that are in conflict with State and Federal laws.

[oldtexan]

There's been little to no movement on gun control at the Federal level, minus some limited executive actions. I think this will continue. The Senate could flip back to Dem control after this year's elections, but if so, the GOP minority will still likely have more than 40 members and thus largely be able to successfully tie up the Majority party's agenda.

As long as the GOP continues to hold the House, I see little likelihood for any new legislative restrictions making it through that body. Speaker Ryan has a large number of very pro-2A, very vocal members in his caucus, and he must keep them at least somewhat happy to preserve his job. I'm sure Boehner's departure is very fresh in Ryan's mind. How the Congressional districts are drawn will probably insure the GOP keeps the House at least until after the 2020 elections, and maybe even well into the 2020s, especially since the GOP is so powerful in the state legislatures, which is where most states draw their district lines.

If Dems continue to hold the White House, which seems likely at least through 2020 and maybe longer, I doubt we'll see any loosening of existing Federal restrictions, but a President Clinton would likely be unable to move new restrictive legislation through the House, and maybe not even through the Senate. I do think she would seek ways to tighten restrictions through executive action, but these will, by nature, be largely symbolic and limited in scope and effect. So the current standoff would continue.

There is, however, significant movement in the States. In the blue states, what movement there is generally is toward greater restriction, except where courts act in specific instances to strike down restrictions. In the red states, the movement is in the opposite direction, toward greater freedom on 2A issues. It's a perfect example of how the bloc of red states and the bloc of blue states are drifting further and further apart.

[BillSWPA]

Honestly I am more worried about Republican incompetence than democrat maliciousness. Everyone knows Democrats want to enact more gun control legislation, but they can't do it without a majority in the house & senate. The problem is that at this rate the GOP is practically writing it for them and handing them a pen to sign it with.

Much more worried about the Senate/House elections (and the corresponding Colorado state elections) than I am the presidency. We've lived under an anti-gun president for the last 8 years with no big whoop at all at the federal level. Let's keep it that way.

Republicans are showing their incompetence at all levels in this election. I am absolutely dumbfounded that our choices for president started out including several really good people, and now we are down to the Hildebeast and the liberal who suddenly became a conservative after taking a phone call from the Hildebeast's husband. This also means that we cannot count on any more help from the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

I see our only feasible course of action as doing the best we can in the House and Senate.

[Drang]

There's been little to no movement on gun control at the Federal level, minus some limited executive actions. I think this will continue. The Senate could flip back to Dem control after this year's elections, but if so, the GOP minority will still likely have more than 40 members and thus largely be able to successfully tie up the Majority party's agenda.
You have a lot more faith in the Party of Stupid than I do.

[Whirlwind06]

I personally think the biggest long term issue on the federal level will be SCOTUS appointments. If Clinton wins there are potentially 3 seats she can fill. That could set up 10 to 20 years of SCOTUS judgments going against the the 2nd amendment. And if Trump wins it's anybody's guess who he would appoint.

On the state level I think it's going to be ballot initiatives, the moms found a working model 2 years ago in WA (universal back ground checks). And now they have moved on to Nevada. Ballot initiatives go around who has control of a state's legislative and executive branch. And they will just keep chipping away, first pass will be background checks, then mag caps, then "assault weapons", etc. The problem is I don't see that the NRA having a very strong response to this strategy.The NRA is geared toward lobbying and voter turn out, but they really don't have much of a ground game to counter these "common sense" ballot initiatives.

As I said this is just my own opinion, but I feel like winter is coming (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Winter_is_Coming_(motto)) and it's going to be a long one.

[Drang]

...the Billionaire Statist Hoplophobes found a working model 2 years ago in WA (universal back ground checks).

FIFY

[oldtexan]

You have a lot more faith in the Party of Stupid than I do.

I have faith that politicians, like just about everyone else, generally act in their perceived self-interest. It's in the perceived( and actual) self-interest of almost all GOP politicians, and some Dem ones too, to be very wary of getting on the bad side of the NRA. Remember a few years ago when the Dem controlled Senate couldn't find enough Dem Senators to vote for a bill that would have expanded requirements for background checks? I remember a very public warning from the NRA that it would use the vote on that bill as a marker in assigning its ratings, and then several Dem senators in swing states started to back away from supporting the bill.

While I am an NRA Endowment member and appreciate much of its hard work at the Federal level to prevent new gun control legislation, I think it's unwise to start to believe anyone's propaganda, even our own side's. Our side uses propaganda to motivate(manipulate) us, just like the other side does to its soldiers. We are wise to be wary of everyone's propaganda.

Answer these questions and then draw your own conclusions: how many states had "shall issue" 25 years ago? How many have it now? Twenty five years ago numerous states completely prohibited concealed carry of handguns by their residents; how many do so now? Twenty years ago we had a Federal standard cap mag ban in place and Federal restrictions on AR15s and other "assault weapons". Are those bans still in effect? How many states allowed concealed carry on college campuses ten years ago? How many do now? What about suppressors for hunting? How many states allowed their use 25 years ago? How many do now?

[deputyG23]

We're not there yet. But if the worst came to pass, and semi auto pistols were out, I'd wait and see what sort of wheelies the big makers came up with next, and rely on my stash of minty old Ks and Js in the interim.

I did not consider that the manufacturers would probably respond with increased production and possibly new models. Wish CZ/Dan Wesson would actually make the smaller frame Lil' Dan revolver that was announced just before the original company went Tom Union.

[Dagga Boy]

I have faith that politicians, like just about everyone else, generally act in their perceived self-interest. It's in the perceived( and actual) self-interest of almost all GOP politicians, and some Dem ones too, to be very wary of getting on the bad side of the NRA. Remember a few years ago when the Dem controlled Senate couldn't find enough Dem Senators to vote for a bill that would have expanded requirements for background checks? I remember a very public warning from the NRA that it would use the vote on that bill as a marker in assigning its ratings, and then several Dem senators in swing states started to back away from supporting the bill.

While I am an NRA Endowment member and appreciate much of its hard work at the Federal level to prevent new gun control legislation, I think it's unwise to start to believe anyone's propaganda, even our own side's. Our side uses propaganda to motivate(manipulate) us, just like the other side does to its soldiers. We are wise to be wary of everyone's propaganda.

Answer these questions and then draw your own conclusions: how many states had "shall issue" 25 years ago? How many have it now? Twenty five years ago numerous states completely prohibited concealed carry of handguns by their residents; how many do so now? Twenty years ago we had a Federal standard cap mag ban in place and Federal restrictions on AR15s and other "assault weapons". Are those bans still in effect? How many states allowed concealed carry on college campuses ten years ago? How many do now? What about suppressors for hunting? How many states allowed their use 25 years ago? How many do now?

So, have all of those big victories been extended to all states and local areas? Don't get to comfortable. I moved to Texas for a reason......but keep in mind, 30 years ago, California was fairly close to Texas in firearms freedoms. Not any longer. What is going on politically in Texas is how California started its road to doom. Big city democrats gaining traction through population. For all those neat things you listed, we also got gay marriage shoved down the States throats with no reciprocation of firearms rights shoved down the throats of liberal progressive states. With the current Supreme Court crisis, and what looks like a guarantee of two liberals progressives as our presidential choice, things will not be getting better.

[GardoneVT]

More and more, the idea of going back to California seems more like entering an unfriendly, not-very-safe foreign country than entering one of the most beautiful of the United States.

It kind of makes me mad. Some of the best memories of my youth were road trips to Cali to go to the Bay Area, LA, Disneyland, the beaches, the redwoods. And I had a great time when I was stationed at Ft Ord. Running on the beach every day for PT? Yes, please! Especially in the summers when the girls were out ...

If you don't go to California, rest assured California's laws will be coming to you.

Looking at the historical pattern of first world nations which went down this path, the first phase will be "regulate everything remotely dangerous. " Confiscation won't be on the menu- yet.
It'll be talked about and then conceded as a "gesture of goodwill". Trick of it is in America the cost to impound and inventory millions of banned guns would be astronomical.Not getting into payroll, vehicles, support personnel etc .
This is not Australia - and even they had to raise medical taxes to fund their confiscation.

So , they'll do it California style. Have it now? You can keep it if you file Form X.Otherwise it's verboten.

Fast forward five years. Now that those with lawfully owned "banned" hardware are now accounted for in some database or Federal registry, it's time to turn up the heat. This is the Bureaucracy Phase; anything and everything possible that can be used to DQ a lawful owner will be brought to bear.
Got a parking ticket? No moar Grandfathered Prohibited Gun Permit. So on and so forth.

Then when all of us are old and grey, that'll be when The Confiscation starts.

[BillSWPA]

Given the success of getting "shall issue" concealed carry licensing laws passed in 4/5 of the states, the popularity of AR-15 style rifles, the success in getting state pre-emotion of local regulation passed in most states, and the success in keeping the assault weapon ban from being re-enacted even after Sandy Hook, I don't see any likelihood of success with new registration schemes, etc. The antis can no longer vilify small handguns or modern sporting rifles with the same effectiveness that fhey used to have, so their ability to divide and conquer is lost on those issues. Even Illinois, which is very anti-gun, is now shall issue.

What does concern me is the targeting of "mental health" and other prohibited classes of people. NJ is now denying firearms purchaser ID cards to anyone who has ever seen a counselor or taken anti-anxiety medication. The NRA has surprisingly failed to see the ramifications of redirecting attention to mental illness, and seems to be falling into the trap of having an easy scapegoat to redirect blame after a tragedy.

[Dagga Boy]

Given the success of getting "shall issue" concealed carry licensing laws passed in 4/5 of the states, the popularity of AR-15 style rifles, the success in getting state pre-emotion of local regulation passed in most states, and the success in keeping the assault weapon ban from being re-enacted even after Sandy Hook, I don't see any likelihood of success with new registration schemes, etc. The antis can no longer vilify small handguns or modern sporting rifles with the same effectiveness that fhey used to have, so their ability to divide and conquer is lost on those issues. Even Illinois, which is very anti-gun, is now shall issue.

What does concern me is the targeting of "mental health" and other prohibited classes of people. NJ is now denying firearms purchaser ID cards to anyone who has ever seen a counselor or taken anti-anxiety medication. The NRA has surprisingly failed to see the ramifications of redirecting attention to mental illness, and seems to be falling into the trap of having an easy scapegoat to redirect blame after a tragedy.

We have a very split country on this. We have gotten some court decisions on concealed carry permits (plan on the end of those with future SCOTUS cases), yet many places are still making it nearly impossible to get them. Then we have huge changes coming on "mental health" as stated as being used as a new means to deny rights in many cases, while the medical community will continue to shelter the real problem children with privacy laws. Same with criminals where many are not ending up in the system. For all the advances, the shift is now going to Ammo and magazines hard. It will be interesting to see where California's latest Bill's go. Also, with various sanctuary cities coming up with their own rules should be a huge concern where law abiding folks can get in serious trouble by merely driving through or ending up in the wrong town.

[Tamara]

We have a very split country on this. ... yet many places are still making it nearly impossible to get them.

As of right now, there are as many states with some form of "Constitutional Carry*" as there are with strict "May Issue**". Hell, we added three more this year. There are several more that are poised to flip within the next legislative session or two, barring disastrous changes at the state legislature level.


(*Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.)
(**California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.)

[BillSWPA]

A timely email from the shooting range where I am a member and volunteer instructor included the quote, "The world is run by those who show up." It is the truth. While figuring out where we are and where we are going is helpful, it is more helpful to do as much as we can to make sure we are the ones steering the ship.

Vote.

Attend raliies.

Educate those around you. (Digressing, this is where I have a huge issue with open carry. If the first thing people see is your gun, they will prejudge you based on what they think they know about guns, and the opportunity for education is lost. If they first get to know you as a responsible person and then find out you are into guns, you just might get to persuade them or even take them shooting.)

Take people shooting for their first time.

If your shooting range does not have a basic shooting class such as NRA Basic Pistol or something similar, consider starting one. More shooters who have a proper safety education = less kids finding guns and shooting themselves or someone else and fewer adults putting holes in people or things that don't need holes.).

Write to your elected officials.

Boycott businesses that put up "no guns" signs, and give your business to those businesses that welcome gun owners (but don't show up for an "open carry" event, scare that business's other customers and employees, and turn a friend into an enemy).

Be familiar with the statistics developed by John Lott and many others.

The courts have unfortunately been a largely disappointing way to go, due in part to the EXTREME reluctance on the part of the Supreme Court to address the issue. Neither of the two cases finding an individual right that is effective against the states includes a standard of review, which is a huge departure from the vast majority - if not all - other court opinions, wherein determining the standard of review is always step 1. Still, we need to keep trying, in a carefully planned way. Simply saying "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" every time a criminal defense lawyer is defending a gun case only serves to create more precedent against us.

The gun control side has been working on their cause since at least the late 1800's. We have only been working on ours since the mid 1970's. Most of the progress on right to carry has been made under 100% hostile court opinions. This should be kept in perspective as we press on.

[Nephrology]

Then we have huge changes coming on "mental health" as stated as being used as a new means to deny rights in many cases, while the medical community will continue to shelter the real problem children with privacy laws.

To be fair, HIPAA mandated rules on patient privacy are kind of important. Really nearly an extension of the constitutional right to privacy. Physicians can (and often legally are obliged to, i.e. homicidal/suicidal ideation, DV, sexual assault, etc) to divulge certain information with law enforcement, patient family/designated guardians, etc, but by and large aside from the exceptions we keep anything you say a secret for good reason. I think a strong emphasis on patient privacy is just about one of the best things we do as an industry.

[BillSWPA]

If a person is taking any prescription drugs related to mental health (as well as pain killers and others), whatever you purchase is likely reported by the pharmacy. I cannot even purchase more over-the-counter Claritin-D (antihistamine for seasonal allergies) than the directions say to take from different pharmacies, because even those purchases go into a database.

[Dagga Boy]

To be fair, HIPAA mandated rules on patient privacy are kind of important. Really nearly an extension of the constitutional right to privacy. Physicians can (and often legally are obliged to, i.e. homicidal/suicidal ideation, DV, sexual assault, etc) to divulge certain information with law enforcement, patient family/designated guardians, etc, but by and large aside from the exceptions we keep anything you say a secret for good reason. I think a strong emphasis on patient privacy is just about one of the best things we do as an industry.

I would agree totally in principle....yet, how many of the large medical groups are on the fore front of pushing gun control. How many absolute bat shit crazy folks who do meet many criteria for being restricted from firearms purchase are not reported? Yet, when one goes on a killing spree......from that same community, guns are the problem. How many of these folks are not only on heavyweight prescription drugs that do not mix well with guns, but the patients are also mixing those drugs with street drugs. My big take away is the medical community may want to STFU on gun control and quit pointing fingers at a problem they are part of.



If a person is taking any prescription drugs related to mental health (as well as pain killers and others), whatever you purchase is likely reported by the pharmacy. I cannot even purchase more over-the-counter Claritin-D (antihistamine for seasonal allergies) than the directions say to take from different pharmacies, because even those purchases go into a database.

Yet.....smoke all the weed you want, fall into the "user" (thus a "medical" problem) class of drug offender and a vast majority of these folks are not entered into the system for restricting firearms ownership. If we look at how many of the mass shooters who legally purchased firearms had several situations or circumstances that should have gone into the background system.......yet, don't try to buy cold medicine.

[BillSWPA]

The reason I posted about medication purchases being reported is to show that privacy is not what people think it is.

The consequences of less confidentiality will be less people seeking help, which would actually cause more danger to society.

The fact that groups such as the AMA and AAP push gun control does not mean that doctors in general push it. In fact,!doctors along with lawyers are among the most likely professions to carry guns. Unfortunately those who run the organizations do a poor job of representing their membership, which is why I have never been a member of the ABA.

[Dagga Boy]

The reason I posted about medication purchases being reported is to show that privacy is not what people think it is.

The consequences of less confidentiality will be less people seeking help, which would actually cause more danger to society.

The fact that groups such as the AMA and AAP push gun control does not mean that doctors in general push it. In fact,!doctors along with lawyers are among the most likely professions to carry guns. Unfortunately those who run the organizations do a poor job of representing their membership, which is why I have never been a member of the ABA.

And why I quit the FOP. Which gets to the crux of the problem. Trust me, line cops, mental health people working with the real problem children all are very good at knowing what the problem is and how to remove the problems, or at least restrict the problems, yet they work in organizations who are more focused on protecting the organization than the public.

[Wondering Beard]

yet they work in organizations who are more focused on protecting the organization than the public.

One should think of any organization as an organic entity which like all the rest (including us individual humans) is naturally more interested in its survival and prosperity than the purpose for which it was created.

[Drang]

... yet they work in organizations who are more focused on protecting the organization than the public.


One should think of any organization as an organic entity which like all the rest (including us individual humans) is naturally more interested in its survival and prosperity than the purpose for which it was created.

Guess I'll post this again:
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron)

In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
Also, Robert Conquest's Three Laws of Politics: (http://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws-of-politics/)


Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

[Totem Polar]

^^^those are very good.

[Nephrology]

I would agree totally in principle....yet, how many of the large medical groups are on the fore front of pushing gun control. How many absolute bat shit crazy folks who do meet many criteria for being restricted from firearms purchase are not reported? Yet, when one goes on a killing spree......from that same community, guns are the problem. How many of these folks are not only on heavyweight prescription drugs that do not mix well with guns, but the patients are also mixing those drugs with street drugs. My big take away is the medical community may want to STFU on gun control and quit pointing fingers at a problem they are part of.

Just like BillSWPA pointed out, the leading bodies in medicine are no better than the leading bodies in most other professions, so I wouldn't take the stance of the AAP/AMA to reflect the stance of all physicians (there is actually very little the AMA endorses that I agree with myself), as membership in these professional societies is sort of quasi mandatory, especially your specialty/subspecialty society (i.e. American Society of Nephrology, etc) and especially if you're in academic medicine.

Secondly, as far as our ability to intervene on fulminant mental health problems like the Adam Lanzas of the world, we are mandatory reporters of suicidal and homicidal ideation. If you want a free 72 hour stay on a psych ward, all you have to do is wander into an emergency dept and say that you want to kill yourself and others. However, obviously, many if not most people with a psychiatric condition that might predispose them to kill are either 1) not getting help or 2) not saying anything to their shrink that would indicate they are a threat or 3) somewhere in between the two.

For example, Adam Lanza had been seen by Yale Peds Psychiatry before he went on his shooting; 6 years before he went on his shooting. According to a report issued by the state of CT, there were signs in his initial visit that he had serious psychiatric problems, but nothing that would have suggested homicidal ideation and his mother opted to stop seeking psychiatric help for her son after their initial visit at Yale. Barring something extreme and unconstitutional, there isn't really much that Yale Psych could've done to prevent Sandy Hook.

Also, as far as psych meds that don't do well with guns, most of the problems with those meds that I am aware of have to do with self-harm (i.e. teens and SSRIs). None as far as I know would increase an innate tendency towards homicidality. There are millions of Americans out there on psych meds (and on street drugs) who have 0 problems not shooting up elementary schools, so it's not fair to point the blame at psych medication given that there really isn't any evidence that they are the root cause of this phenomenon.



Yet.....smoke all the weed you want, fall into the "user" (thus a "medical" problem) class of drug offender and a vast majority of these folks are not entered into the system for restricting firearms ownership. If we look at how many of the mass shooters who legally purchased firearms had several situations or circumstances that should have gone into the background system.......yet, don't try to buy cold medicine.

Again, I think this is a correlation/causation thing. Pot is known to bring out latent psych problems in some people (it happened to my sister - she is now sober and about to finish her BSN) but again for most people it makes them giggly, hungry idiots. The problem with expanding the list of restricted buyers via either recreational drug use or mental health symptoms is that we really don't have a good understanding of who goes on to actually commit mass murder and why. Obviously someone in florid psychosis who requires adjudication to a state mental facility shouldn't be allowed to own guns, and nor should someone convicted for possession of a kilo of coke w/ intent to distribute. But should someone being treated for mild depression/anxiety or someone convicted of having a dime bag of weed really be considered that much of a threat that their constitutional right to bear arms is revoked? I am not sure if I could go that far myself.

[Nephrology]

oops, to clarify, I mixed up 2 separate things - mandatory reporting of child/elder abuse (related to HI/SI) and then HI/SI which we can use to temporarily remand you into the custody of psychiatric services for 72hrs.

[BillSWPA]

oops, to clarify, I mixed up 2 separate things - mandatory reporting of child/elder abuse (related to HI/SI) and then HI/SI which we can use to temporarily remand you into the custody of psychiatric services for 72hrs.

You did not mix it up too badly. There are a large number of court cases addressing the issue of when a Dr. can be held liable for negligence for failing to take some action (usually warn a likely victim or call the police, but also requesting an involuntary commitment) when it becomes clear that someone poses a danger. This needs to be counterbalanced with the duty of confidentiality, and the fact that taking such action will significantly change the Dr./patient relationship with that patient and likely make many patients think twice about seeking help in the future. Depending on exactly what the patient says or does and what the Dr. perceives, it may well become "mandatory" in a sense.

Lawyers are in a similar situation. Attorney/client privilege applies to past crimes but not future crimes, and a report may be required if significant harm could result, or if the lawyer's services were used to perpetrate a fraud.

[deputyG23]

I am searching for a good carry gp100 as we speak...I think spending time with a double action revolver will improve my lack luster trigger control.
I suspect some ex-security GPs still turn up from time to time. My son and I took my 4" fixed sight .38 GP to the range along with several bottom feeders and the GP was the most enjoyable gun for both of us. The LGS had about six of them left when I bought mine. Sure wish I would've bought at least one more..