What make of gun is in this womans hand?

[CLT65]

Have any 7.7x59 laying around? I would be surprised. It's the round the Japanese used in their machine guns and the Type 99 bolt action rifle.

That's an easy one. I have plenty of Arisaka ammo, 7.7mm in rimless for rifles and semi-rimmed for MGs, ball and AP, and some 6.5mm, as well as a Type 99 and Type 38 to shoot them. I've got ammo you've never heard of, and once in a while I run across something I've never heard of.

I'm not enough of a real collector to spend much on truly collectible ammo, but I can't seem to resist picking up oddball old stuff whenever I can. I've accumulated a lot of odds and ends over the years.

 

[DeanMk]

I suppose it depends on the .25... if one is willing to pay for something outstanding (ie NOT a Raven, Phoenix, etc), there are .25's, .32's and .380's that no .38 snubby will approach in terms compactness.

Out of curiosity, juxtaposed my Seecamp with my .38, for example:

View attachment 718732

Not that the Seecamp is my go-to carry gun (though occasionally I do carry it), I just think there's a place for it depending on the circumstances because of the extreme compactness.

Yes, I suppose you have a point. Although, even your picture shows that there's really not too much difference in size between the two guns.
However, when you need the utmost in concealability, there are .25's out there that are the only choice.....and all of them were designed by John Browning. =)

Dean

P.S. I do believe that was a Raven I compared the Taurus snubbie to, in my previous story. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[sobo]

All these negative waves and dissin' of the Hi-Point line. Don't you guys know that everyone needs a burner pistol? Or two? HPs have their place in this world...

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

BRYCO 380
Attorney Al Watkins said the gun Patricia McCloskey was shown holding was not operable, and the inoperable nature of the weapon "significantly preceded" the date of the incident on June 28. He also said Patricia McCloskey knew the handgun was inoperable.

 

[raftman]

BRYCO 380
Attorney Al Watkins said the gun Patricia McCloskey was shown holding was not operable, and the inoperable nature of the weapon "significantly preceded" the date of the incident on June 28. He also said Patricia McCloskey knew the handgun was inoperable.
View attachment 725292

Interesting. Jennings/Bryco/Jimenez are actually all the same company at different points in time/different owners. I assumed Jimenez because this is the most recent iteration (I guess they went bankrupt just this year).

The "inoperable" part makes this pretty interesting especially since "ready to use" is apparently an important legal distinction in their state. The claim is the gun was assembled incorrectly, specifically that the striker and striker spring were installed in the wrong order. It may come down to whether this was known/deliberate or not.

 

[sobo]

The "inoperable" part makes this pretty interesting especially since "ready to use" is apparently an important legal distinction in their state. The claim is the gun was assembled incorrectly, specifically that the striker and striker spring were installed in the wrong order. It may come down to whether this was known/deliberate or not.

It was known, and it was deliberate. The McCloskeys used the inoperable pistol as a prop in another case. She knew it wouldn't work when she took it outside.

Start your reading right here, and then watch the video in the post right after it.

 

[Hueco]

It was known, and it was deliberate. The McCloskeys used the inoperable pistol as a prop in another case. She knew it wouldn't work when she took it outside.

Start your reading right here, and then watch the video in the post right after it.

Can you link that other case? I can't find it.

Flipping a firing pin around is hardly making it inoperable...sure, until it's fixed. Given that the pistol was not recovered immediately, there is the possibility that it was perfectly operable when she waved it in people's faces and made inoperable in the window between the 28th and the 11th in order to aid her case.

Mr.M. has already been proven a lier, so, I'm not taking their word on anything. Pics or it didn't happen, as they say. In this case, proof that the gun was inoperable immediately preceding the event in question. (Which, is unlikely to exist)

 

[Tarawa86]

Can you link that other case? I can't find it.

Flipping a firing pin around is hardly making it inoperable...sure, until it's fixed. Given that the pistol was not recovered immediately, there is the possibility that it was perfectly operable when she waved it in people's faces and made inoperable in the window between the 28th and the 11th in order to aid her case.

Mr.M. has already been proven a lier, so, I'm not taking their word on anything. Pics or it didn't happen, as they say. In this case, proof that the gun was inoperable immediately preceding the event in question. (Which, is unlikely to exist)

The state can't prove that the weapon was operable when she was waving it around either. I'm thinking the burden of proof might be on the state in this instance. I doubt the defendants would be stupid enough to use the prop alibi if they couldn't verify it.

Edit: googling around about the Missouri law in question seems to indicate that the burden of proof is on the state, so the state should have seized it immediately. They can't complain now that it might have been 'tampered' with. Apparently the defendants said it was used as a prop in a lawsuit they brought against a gun manufacturer. That's pretty specific, so I'm thinking they can verify their claims.

 

[Hueco]

The state can't prove that the weapon was operable when she was waving it around either. I'm thinking the burden of proof might be on the state in this instance. I doubt the defendants would be stupid enough to use the prop alibi if they couldn't verify it.

Edit: googling around about the Missouri law in question seems to indicate that the burden of proof is on the state, so the state should have seized it immediately. They can't complain now that it might have been 'tampered' with. Apparently the defendants said it was used as a prop in a lawsuit they brought against a gun manufacturer. That's pretty specific, so I'm thinking they can verify their claims.

RE: Burden of Proof on the State...I agree, and that's how it should be.

The whole thing just smells shady as #$(%. They were in fear for their life, then walked out with an inoperable pistol? Yea...okay.

 

[DunRanull]

I suppose it depends on the .25... if one is willing to pay for something outstanding (ie NOT a Raven, Phoenix, etc), there are .25's, .32's and .380's that no .38 snubby will approach in terms compactness.

Out of curiosity, juxtaposed my Seecamp with my .38, for example:

View attachment 718732

Not that the Seecamp is my go-to carry gun (though occasionally I do carry it), I just think there's a place for it depending on the circumstances because of the extreme compactness.

Can't remember the last time I carried my Baby Browning .25... But it sits in a safe place should I ever need it. A .32 which hasnt been out of the safe in years (decades, maybe?)... A handy 36 S&W is about as small as I go tho on occasion a Mak has found it's way into my pants...
The McCloskey's arent gun people, that was obvious. Hopefully (for them) their social standing and money will insulate them from any really bad things that could come from this. I personally don't feel they did anything "bad" under the circumstances, but the laws might disagree. We shall see.

 

[sobo]

Can you link that other case? I can't find it.

I thought the article I read was in Reason, or maybe it was in the National Review. I don't recall now and don't feel like going to hunt for it.
That being said, @Tarawa86 makes the valid point that it's the State's burden to prove the pistol was operable at the time she was flagging everyone with it.
That makes the case where it was allegedly used as a prop moot.

RE: Burden of Proof on the State...I agree, and that's how it should be.

The whole thing just smells shady as #$(%. They were in fear for their life, then walked out with an inoperable pistol? Yea...okay.

I thought about that, too. Seems like Patrica wants to have it both ways. In fear of her life, so she grabs a pistol...
But it's inoperable, so she can wave it around flagging everyone and intimidating them and she's OK within Missouri law.
The "fear of my life" claim seems dubious at best...

 

[sobo]

While we're at it, does anyone know why the McCloskeys got a new lawyer for this case?
I can't find anything related to their decision to change counsel...

Did they switch to an attorney that specializes in 2A cases?
Or was there some sort of falling out with their original attorney?

 

[Tarawa86]

While we're at it, does anyone know why the McCloskeys got a new lawyer for this case?
I can't find anything related to their decision to change counsel...

Heh, I wonder if being a lawyer for a lawyer is as bad as being a doctor for a doctor is rumored to be lol.

 

[RVTECH]

under Missouri law, the gun had to be "readily" capable of lethal use, KSDK reported.

This is kind of a inverse, hypothetical question but is it reasonable to assume (under Missouri law) if a criminal is threatening someone (let's say an LEO) with a gun that is not 'readily capable of lethal use', and continues to display it in a threatening manner and winds up getting shot could the LEO (or citizen) be charged because the gun was not 'readily capable of lethal use' - such as if it was a prop or toy gun?