Carlos

Correct. They were small pistol.

I thought that Alan had tried this w/ success. I am sure he will be along shortly to confirm/deny.

Hope this thread stays open. Alan, our A8 director elect, pointed out to me an interesting fact about one of the better sources of discussion on this case: scotusblog.com. That blog is actually hosted by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP. That firm is assisting D.C. in this case. BUT, the blog (in my view anyway) seems to have relatively balanced content for people on both sides of the debate. I located part of an exchange on the SCOTUSblog.com that I thought might help explain both sides of the controvery (I left in the credit to those who posted over there): “In drafting the Constitutional Second Amendment the Founding Fathers had no idea about today’s modern automatic…weapons” : by Kenneth John Bemis on October 5, 2007 @ 2:05 pm. RESPONSE (from scotusblog participant) "The same argument could apply as well to the First Amendment with the unseen developments of film, video, pornography, and the Internet. If technological advancements can render a “fundamental right” obsolete, then just what is the real issue here? Rights or technology? Or is clouding the rights issue with a technology argument an honest strategy regarding “rights”? I think not. This ploy has a whiff of “separate but equal” to it. At this time in our history the Second Amendment issue is not about maximum technology, but about the minimum standards of the fundamental right of personal and national defense. Or “Minimum Code” in the parlance of architecture. Just what is the minimum “arm” (weapon) that a person can “bear” (carry) and not infringe upon the rights of others to be able to “bear” similar “arms”? The “nuclear weapons” argument is a red herring and an emotional appeal to the ignorant. The issue before the court is both one of intent and degree. Is the Second Amendment an individual right, as are all other rights, enumerated or not, in the Bill of Rights? If it is then, a fundamental right, what are the “minimums”? Archaic or modern. If “archaic” then is this a form of infringement? Would a return to the printing press be constitutional? If “modern” to the point of fully automatic weapons, is this beyond “original intent”? It is time for the Supreme Court to define the 2nd. Amendment as an individual right without the Orwellian, “collective rights” oxymoron, and to decide upon the “minimums”. <edit due to inaccurate statements RE: firearms types & capabilities> These are the minimums, not the maximums, for those who’s right to “keep and bear arms” should be protected. Beyond that, there is room for the addition or proscription of certain equipment in the learned discussions of Congress or state legislatures. America is too important to consider any less. Comment by Charles Norris — October 6, 2007 @ 1:05 pm (no idea if this is our favorite Karate hero Chuck Norris - though somehow I doubt it). d.

The rules make no logical sense. Once an after-market slide is put on the pistol, it's no longer a "Production" gun. I agree with you.

There are photos of that phenomenon somewhere around here. Just search on "Frontier" in the .40 forum and you should find them. I discovered there are TWO (2) types of Frontier: -cast core and -swaged core. The Swirl patterns happen only with the CAST Frontiers. I think the TMJ on the cast is a little more thin - but the bullets are EXCELLENT. I used them at the 2005 Nationals and they never let me down. The 124s I am using now are the swaged core (says so on the box). The TMJ on these is as thik as the TMJ on GoldDot speer and Speer TMJ (also used in LawMan ammo and Blazer ammo). Out of my SP-01, the work GREAT!

Another vote for the weaver. Have not shot 3gun in over a year, but was able to take 2nd at a local 3gun match yesterday - thanks to the Weaver. It does what EVERY variable should do: it holds its zero over the entire range from 0 to 3X. Armalite 1 piece mount is OK (better than riser + rings). No argument that LaRue is the best. It will likely cost as much as the scope (if not more). What ever mount you choose, try to mount it AS FAR FORWARD as you can.

Hi Bob. Slightly off topic: did you have a chance to test out those Wolf small pistol primers I gave you over the summer? Did they work in a revolver? So far, so good in my tuned glock and CZs, but I've not tried them in a revolver yet.

Good point on them being electroplated. Is that bad? NO! Fact is, the Speer Gold Dot is an electroplated design. Speer's plating is either thicker or more uniform than some other brands of electroplated bullets. Speer's bullets simply WORK. But it is funny how they go to such great lengths to hide the fact that their product is electroplated. Won't find the "E" word anywhere on their website.

Sounds like a good plan to me. Fan of the CZ blot guns here. Also, I thought Mossberg made a bolt gun (Model 3000??) that was intended for biathalon & they have "summer biathalon" in many places where you run a woodland course instead of skiing, then shoot. Might be a fun sport for kids & could even lead to the olympics some day - who knows? The 10/22 is the reward for being safe.

A correction - I think I was slightly off in saying that all 3 provisions are limited to the home. Rather, I located to following: (here again is the question as the S.Ct. chose to formulate it:) “Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?” The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating." So actually, only the 3rd D.C. code section is specifically limited to the home. I looked up DC Code section 22-4504(a) (the second code section in the S.Ct.s question) regarding carrying a handgun in D.C. and D.C.'s "may issue" concealed carry permit section. This is good news, since it appears that D.C.'s CCW law is on the table when the S.Ct addresses the case. It reads: § 22-4504. Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty. (a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that: (1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or (2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

This is in reference to the law being challenged. I think you are correct. If you look at the 3 code sections that are challenged, these code sections are limited to the home. Specifically, they only address/prohibit D.C. residents' firearms rights as to their homes. Since those were the only 3 code-sections that were challenged below, the S.Ct.'s formulation of the question stays within the bounds of the laws at issue (note that the S.Ct can go, and sometimes has gone, beyond the bounds of the question below to address an issue of national importance or for other limited reasons). <trivia section> But what about concealed carry and defense outside the home? Surprisingly, D.C. supposedly still has some sort of concealed handgun carry permit scheme on its books (I have not checked the statute). But, since there have been no new handgun ownership permits issued since (I believe) 1976, and D.C.'s population has a high rate of turn over, there are virtually no concealed carry permits in existance as far as I know (might be an interesting FOIA project). I am going from memory here, but I thought there was a "re-registration" in 1978 due to some problem, and at that time there were only 70,000 firearms of all types registered for a city of about 500,000 people (the population here is relativelty steady due to a ban on any building taller than the capitol or Washington monument). Of the 70,000 registered in 1978, I would guess that few of them were handguns and fewer still remain in D.C. as the owners likely moved on during the past 29 years.

I believe it will be a 5/4 split in favor of an individual right. Why? Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer would tend to view the constitution as a "living document" which "evolves over time;" thier viewpoint is justified by legal questions such as: "Should cameras be permitted in the courtroom?" The plain answer could not exist in the Constitution due to the new technology that cameras represent. These Justices will tend to be swayed by the arguments of D.C. (et al.) suggesting that even if there were an original right of individuals to own guns, modern public safety should trump that right. Their views in prior decisions would not conflict with the "collectivist" interpretation put forth by D.C. In contrast, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts reject many of the "living document" theories and interpret the Constitution literaly whenever possible. More importantly, their past opinions indicate that they believe the 2nd Amendment (like all the Amendments) conveys an individual right. That makes 8. The 9th Justice is: Kennedy. He is the key. At times, Kennedy's opinions (in my view) reflect libertarian sympathies (nevertheless, there was Kelo - but lets not revisit that issue please). I believe Kennedy will vote with the individual right block because 1) his sympathies and 2) a libertarian attorney (Levy) will couch the case in fundamental libertarian principles which should sway Kennedy. I am also influenced by what I believe was the Court giving us a glimpse of it's view: I think they showed their hand by the way they chose to present the question. Here is the question they will address (see if you can guess why): "Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?” Keep in mind the old legal truism: "No right is absolute." While a ruling in favor of an individual right would be a bed-rock foundation for our right to own a firearm (apparently to include a handgun), there would likely be some limits on that right - including (in my view) state registration schemes, limits on ownership by felons, minors/infants, mental deficients, aliens, drug users, regulatory limits/bans on imports, and I think the NFA would be likely to be upheld under the decision. Regards, Douglas

Thanks for your visit! (I take a class on Sat mornings in D.C. & have seen these tours - looks like fun). Too many things to be thankful for this year; short list includes: -my marriage to the Tuetonic Princess June 1, 2007 -my continued friendships through the SHOOTERS PARADISE CREW despite the loss of Shooters to a fire -our good health -my job @ .gov -our (new to us Toyota Matrix -our 2 recue cats (though they can be a PITA at times) -the exceptionaly long life & peaceful passing of my grandmother @ age 99

Not nit-picking at all; AND you are right! Colt's gun was made for them by CZ; about 800 were imported before Colt backed out & had severe money issues (they sold off a lot of stuff cheap at that time). Colt's gun had a 1911 grip angle, alloy frame, chromed mags, and was DAO only for the LEO market: here is a picture of the Colt: AND Tanfoglio is the actual maker of all the guns EAA sells as "witness" in the US. Trivia: they also manufacture the raw slide and frame for the Israel Military Industries (IMI) Jericho 941/baby desert eagle though the final machining is done in the holy land by IMI. The Springfield was also a Tanfoglio product, and the Armalite is made by Huglu - so there is duplication in my list as you note. Good catch on your part! Regards, C.

In the hopes that more people vote "NO!" I thought I might post a link to a forum that already has an airsoft sub-forum: www.ipsc.org

Like the "Colt" 1911, the design of the old CZ-75 is now in the public domain, meaning anyone can copy it. Great gun designs are often copied; lesser designs are relegated to the scrap heap of history. Here is yet another copy of the venerable CZ-75: LINK TO ARMSCOR CZ COPY Among the copies of the CZ - 75 have been: -Bren 10 -Springfield Armory P9 -Armalite AR-24 -Colt Z-40 -Tanfoglio -Sphynx -ITM 84S -IMI Jericho 941/baby desert eagle -Huglu -EAA Witness -Norinco NZ 40 -Star M30 And I am sure there are many other copies. As for the Armscor, I have not read any reports on its performance. But, like the Philippine copies of the 1911, you can rest assured that the design is perfectly sound, even if the exection might leave something to be desired. -

That looks like a great project to me - fine looking rifle you have. Nice work & thanks for posting!

Hi Gabe - I shoot your exact same setup as far as gun and holster. Good choices. Now the solution to your problem: during the draw, you need to first get to the gun, and THEN, push DOWN on the gun before lifting UP and out of the holster. That initial push DOWN will seat your hand into the exact same position each time. As for speed, the reall speed in the draw comes primarily from 2 places: 1) being smooth- this is what you learn in dry fire and 2) the "rip" upwards out of the holster (again, be smooth); this is the only part of the draw that needs to be forceful. But always smooth. Regards, C.

The following link to a blog is based on the facts that lead up to Parker/Heller, expalins possible outcomes, and provides and analysis of this case by law professors. I found it useful: LINK TO BLOG or try: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2...happened-1.html C.

IT looks as if Hollywood has seen fit to spend its time and dollars on yet ANOTHER America-bashing piece: "Redacted" I will not comment further; here is the link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6942.html LINK

As far as the stats at the end of the post, those are USA, as indicated. Bill - thanks for putting that in perspective. $131 million is a lot of $$$ in my book; and just WHY the heck would they cut up Cal. .22 Rifles ?!?! As far as the photos, from what I read, the first two photos are from Greece; the last one is from Africa someplace; dunno if that MG42 is a German made gun, or a Yugo Zastava; I think the Spanish made a version too.

And finally, consider these sad numbers (particularly the 1911s): SMALL ARMS DESTROYED AS OF MARCH 15, 1994 M1911A1 Pistols--110,000 M14 Rifles Cal. 7.62 NATO--50,000 M1 Carbines--45,000 M1903A3 Drill Rifles--40,000 M1 Garands--30,000 M3.45 Cal. Submachine Guns--20,000 M1903-A3 Rifles--6,000 M12 (H&R 5200) Cal. .22 Rifles--6,000 Total destroyed--307,000 Total cost--$1,079,873 Source: Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region East

Everyone - let's work to keep this thread open. I located some additional factual explanation of our current Supreme Court in an article I was reading over lunchtime. I will post the link to the newspaper (The Washington Post) at the end of this post, but I had to log-in to see the whole article (I live around here & that paper has the most info on D.C.). Moderators: I have tried - REALLY tried, to make this post as nuetral & factual as humanly possible and I think I accomplished the goal of making it non-partisan/political. As the article points out, the group profiled in the article does not bring lawsuits, lobby, take positions or endorse nominees. The group on which the article focuses is not really relevant to the Supreme Court case. But, I found the article's factual analysis compliments the one I tried to provide above; here is the portion of the articel (linked below) that sums up the thinking of some of our current Justices, and might give a clue to how this case might play out: "Central to the [non-partisan group that is associated with one faction among the Justices] is the concept of originalism, the view that the Constitution is a document with a fixed and knowable meaning, rather than one whose principles adjust to contemporary times. Scalia and Thomas are the idea's most prominent adherents, but Scalia wrote in a new book the organization published this year that while he and Thomas have put originalism "in the game," it "would be foolish to pretend that that philosophy has become (as it once was) the dominant mode of interpretation in the courts, or even that it is the irresistible wave of the future." Scalia said courts and law schools embrace the alternate view of a "living Constitution" and so too does the ordinary citizen, "who has come to believe that what he violently abhors must be unconstitutional." "It is no easy task to wean the public, the professoriate and (especially) the judiciary away from such a seductive and judge-empowering philosophy," he said. There was no argument from the president, however. "In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean," Bush said. "They forgot that our Constitution lives because we respect it enough to adhere to its words." Such a view is the group's "mission," Calabresi said, and he and Leo point out that the group does not bring lawsuits, lobby, take positions or endorse nominees. But some of the society's most prominent members are part of a growing network of conservative legal groups that do all those things. And Leo took a leave from the group to work with the White House on judicial nominees. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) has been a particular critic of the society, saying that for the Bush administration, knowing the "secret handshake" is the most important qualification a judicial hopeful can have. Other liberals are more than grudging admirers of the group's success. Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she has probably spoken at Federalist Society events more than at any other organization's except her own. She enjoys "not just preaching to the choir," she said, and finds the debates open and serious. " LINK TO ARTICLE IN WASHINGTON POST C.

The guy who does the gun kote in my area parkerizes the gun first. So the finish should hold up well on the slide and frame rails and keep the gun from wearing in these areas? I'm more worried about wear resistance than appearance. It sounds like it may be the way to go. Parkerizing is an outstanding substrate (surface) on which to apply GunKote. Parkerizing is easy to do and inexpensive. It is far less toxic than blueing. I have posted pics of my work but my ISP seems to have mangled them; I suggest you take a look at Chris Blindhogg's 1911 site: search on "Blindhogg 1911" on google. click finish

you'll need the large frame to fit the 9x23.. Hi EERW. In the past, there were generally 2 frame sizes for the Tanfoglio/TZ/Springfield Armory guns: 1) Small for 9mm & 40 2) Large to accomodate the OAL of the .38 sup 45 ACP and 10mm. Fairly certain Henning stated ALL current tanfoglios are now based on the large frame - even the 9mm guns. Henning - is that correct?