Login System 
IMPORTANT: Please note that you must now log in with your email address and not your username!
 vermont2nd
Full of Maple
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2008  VT, USA
 Posts: 7336 Feedback: 100% (107) |
Posted: 1/27/2011 5:09:48 PM
[Last Edit: 3/5/2011 10:18:56 PM by vermont2nd]
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT Here's one addressing the use of a virgin lower with a buttstock (thanks to iNeXile556 for posting it again): 
Letter addressing the recording of receivers on a 4473 form(thanks to sumkrnboy for linking to this one): 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2011 4:44:29 PM
Don't take it as law, just take it for what its worth.
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMtZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx&hl=en Just stumbled across it looking for an answer to something else |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2011 8:08:01 PM
The letter I am looking for is the one where the ATF says you can use a standard buffer tube on an AR pistol. I had it saved to my hard drive but lost it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2011 8:17:52 PM
the cane tip one would be nice too.
but remember the context of that was - for use while sitting in a safe .... |
|
|
|
iNeXile556
Deo vindice
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2009 TN, USA
 
Posts: 1291 Feedback: 100% (21) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/11/2011 7:53:10 PM
[Last Edit: 2/11/2011 8:01:58 PM by iNeXile556]
Originally Posted By VictorUnit: the cane tip one would be nice too. but remember the context of that was - for use while sitting in a safe .... That one is actually an archived thread found HERE. And you are correct. The letter makes it seem like the cane tip is GTG and will not be considered a stock. But you must take it in context to the question that was asked. This thread clears that up. ETA: Vermont2nd maybe you can extract the letters and repost them here. Please make sure the original question is included also so the letters are not taken out of context. Also is there a way that you can store these images on the ARFCOM server? Using image Shack or the like is fine but they tend to disappear over time and we loose them again. |
|
|
Ghost013
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2008 ID, USA
Posts: 2743 Feedback: 100% (10) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/11/2011 8:01:15 PM
Great thread!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 12:02:39 AM
I know this one is a double post, but I'll include it anyways: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2011 12:56:01 PM
Brilliant, BRILLIANT thread.
Bravo. |
|
|
|
Big-Bore
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2002 IN, USA
Posts: 4841 Feedback: 100% (11) Link To This Post |
Posted: 3/9/2011 2:10:18 PM
And be sure to notice the contradiction between the letter to me and the very first letter that was posted but does not have a date on it. In the letter Nixon wrote to me in 2004, right after the AWB ended, he specifically and clearly said that a lower could not have had either a rifle upper OR butt stock attached, lest it be considered a rifle lower.
Then in the first letter posted they reversed that saying that if it has had a butt stock attached but no upper, it was still not a rifle. Now, right or wrong, this is my thinking. They contradict themselves all the time. So, if you play the logic game, since there is no maximum or minimum length for a pistol barrel, it seems the upper would have little influence on what the build was. But a butt stock, if it has had a butt stock attached, and a butt stock cannot be used on a pistol, one can make an strong argument that if it has had a butt stock attached then it is a rifle lower, as was said in the letter written to me in November 2004. Since the new letter is more than likely more recent than mine, then one can assume they have changed their minds and you CAN build a pistol out of a lower that has had a butt stock but no upper attached. However, since the only person these letters have any legal weight for is the person the letter is actually addressed to and the person actually in possession of that letter, I think I will stick with what mine says, just in case they change their minds again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2011 7:25:42 PM
[Last Edit: 4/10/2011 9:54:37 PM by crkone]
Any letters on the CAA Saddle?
scratch that, im sending in my form1 |
|
|
|
iNeXile556
Deo vindice
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2009 TN, USA
Posts: 1478 Feedback: 100% (21) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/1/2011 4:17:15 PM
The question about the Magpul AFG comes up at least once a week.
Espos1111 has already posted this link but I'll do it again. Page 3, found here, deals with the Magpul AFG. |
|
|
shrikefan
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2007 USA
Posts: 9394 Feedback: 100% (119) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/8/2011 6:47:36 AM
Originally Posted By Big-Bore:
And be sure to notice the contradiction between the letter to me and the very first letter that was posted but does not have a date on it. In the letter Nixon wrote to me in 2004, right after the AWB ended, he specifically and clearly said that a lower could not have had either a rifle upper OR butt stock attached, lest it be considered a rifle lower. Then in the first letter posted they reversed that saying that if it has had a butt stock attached but no upper, it was still not a rifle. Now, right or wrong, this is my thinking. They contradict themselves all the time. So, if you play the logic game, since there is no maximum or minimum length for a pistol barrel, it seems the upper would have little influence on what the build was. But a butt stock, if it has had a butt stock attached, and a butt stock cannot be used on a pistol, one can make an strong argument that if it has had a butt stock attached then it is a rifle lower, as was said in the letter written to me in November 2004. Since the new letter is more than likely more recent than mine, then one can assume they have changed their minds and you CAN build a pistol out of a lower that has had a butt stock but no upper attached. However, since the only person these letters have any legal weight for is the person the letter is actually addressed to and the person actually in possession of that letter, I think I will stick with what mine says, just in case they change their minds again. I understand where you are coming from. However, I think they got it wrong in your letter and right in the letter after yours. If you read the definition of the various firearms, most of them have some variation of 'propel a projectile(s) by use of an explosive' in the definition. If a receiver has a buttstock but has never otherwise been configured to be able to propel any projectile (a barrel put on) then the actual type of firearm it 'is' has not yet been determined and it is still a 'receiver'. My $.02  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2011 8:27:21 AM
[Last Edit: 5/14/2011 8:40:26 AM by FIGJAM]
Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter.
I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary. OAL =>26" without stock, not handgun or pistol, just a firearm not subject to NFA Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to. http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html |
|
|
|
iNeXile556
Deo vindice
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2009 TN, USA
Posts: 1500 Feedback: 100% (21) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/15/2011 8:53:45 AM
Originally Posted By FIGJAM: Franklin has no copyright claim to this letter. It was not authored by them, it is not in their words nor is it a work for hire. In short it is not theirs to copyright.Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter. I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary. Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to. http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2011 10:18:55 PM
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Franklin has no copyright claim to this letter. It was not authored by them, it is not in their words nor is it a work for hire. In short it is not theirs to copyright.
Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter. I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary. Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to. http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html I beg to differ. Since the copyright itself required typeset and scanning "artwork," it is indeed copyright-able. Sure, the base document from our artwork can be FOIA'd since it is public, but I expect that would take about as long as writing your own letter. The intent of posting this document was to make it available to the 2A rights community. Individuals are welcome to make a copy for their personal use. We simply want a head start in the commercial field because we spent several months writing several letters, and fronted the expense of sending in a sample firearm to the FTB. (....Which we still have not gotten back yet.) There are several manufacturers (that will remain unnamed) that have copied what Franklin Armory has done in the past. The XO-26 will probably not be an exception. |
|
|
|
iNeXile556
Deo vindice
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2009 TN, USA
Posts: 1508 Feedback: 100% (21) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/16/2011 6:58:05 PM
Originally Posted By franklinarmory: Actually a scan of a letter is not protected by copyright unless you are the author of the letter. The scan, while an image, does not contain any intellectual or artistic property that belongs to the person doing the scanning. It is much like taking a scan or photo of say, the Mona Lisa, and selling it because you have the "copyright". Copyright means you own the rights to the image, intellectual and/or artistic property thereof to the point that you can lease, assign or sell those rights, or sell copies or extractions of the work. Making a scan, copy or photo of someone elses work, even if you add the typeset "copyright" to it does not make it your property. As the founder of SoCal Image, a stock photo warehousing company, I am well versed in copyright laws. I'm not sure why you would even want to copyright this, how a copy of this letter could even be used by anyone for commercial purposes is beyond me. Any manufacture can make these firearms without a letter, legal is legal.Originally Posted By iNeXile556: Originally Posted By FIGJAM: Franklin has no copyright claim to this letter. It was not authored by them, it is not in their words nor is it a work for hire. In short it is not theirs to copyright.Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter. I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary. Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to. http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html I beg to differ. Since the copyright itself required typeset and scanning "artwork," it is indeed copyright-able. Sure, the base document from our artwork can be FOIA'd since it is public, but I expect that would take about as long as writing your own letter. The intent of posting this document was to make it available to the 2A rights community. Individuals are welcome to make a copy for their personal use. We simply want a head start in the commercial field because we spent several months writing several letters, and fronted the expense of sending in a sample firearm to the FTB. (....Which we still have not gotten back yet.) There are several manufacturers (that will remain unnamed) that have copied what Franklin Armory has done in the past. The XO-26 will probably not be an exception. That aside I don't think anyone here is trying to cash in on your coupon. You do indeed have the jump on the market. The Idea however is not new. I posted the probable legality of exactly the same type firearm in this forum a year or so ago. As well as the legality of making the same type firearm using a .410 shotshell upper. I applaud you for taking the initiative to get the firearm classified and to market. I myself am not a manufacture and have no plan on making any, even for my personal use as I find the position created by a VFG awkward on any firearm. I support you 100% and wish you only the very best luck in Franklin Armory's endeavors. It's good to see a hardworking, honest company down in the trenches fighting not only for 2A rights, but doing it in one of the harshest states as far as firearms go. Bravo. |
|
|
Ryo
Lifetime Shooter
Life Member
Joined: Aug 2007 USA
Posts: 4438 Feedback: 100% (84) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/16/2011 7:46:09 PM
[Last Edit: 5/16/2011 7:48:47 PM by Ryo]
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
The question about the Magpul AFG comes up at least once a week. Espos1111 has already posted this link but I'll do it again.
Page 3, found here, deals with the Magpul AFG. I just thought to mention that it's legitimate. I asked a ATF investigator about this specific letter, and he emailed me that it was valid. 
Specifically he said "ATF Firearms Technology Branch says # 7 is correct." when dealing with the AFG in the letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2011 10:31:59 PM
[Last Edit: 7/20/2011 10:32:53 PM by CommonwealthKid]
"Flexible Hand Straps" on pistols don't change them to AOWs:
 |
|
|
|
Ryo
Lifetime Shooter
Life Member
Joined: Aug 2007 USA
Posts: 4503 Feedback: 100% (84) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/22/2011 2:07:45 PM
Flexible hand strap? Your talking about a strap that goes around the back of your hand?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2011 8:43:23 PM
[Last Edit: 7/22/2011 8:45:23 PM by CommonwealthKid]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2011 3:25:39 PM
From this thread: link
This ATF ruling: link Therefore, so long as a parts kit or collection of parts is not used to make a firearm regulated under the NFA (e.g., a short-barreled rifle or "any other weapon” as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(e)), no NFA firearm is made when the same parts are assembled or re-assembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length). Merely assembling and disassembling such a rifle does not result in the making of a new weapon; rather, it is the same rifle in a knockdown condition (i.e., complete as to all component parts). Likewise, because it is the same weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no "weapon made from a rifle” subject to the NFA has been made. Nonetheless, if a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length is assembled or otherwise produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle, such a weapon is a "weapon made from a rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4). Such a weapon would not be a "pistol” because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile by one hand. |
|
|
|
shrikefan
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2007 USA
Posts: 9594 Feedback: 100% (119) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/3/2011 3:44:16 PM
NICE!!
Melson is still a scumbag.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2011 6:04:12 PM
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
The question about the Magpul AFG comes up at least once a week. Espos1111 has already posted this link but I'll do it again.
Page 3, found here, deals with the Magpul AFG. Since that is a 3 page document and wanted something to carry with my pistol, I sent a brief request with pictures and all. here is there response:  |
|
|
|
shrikefan
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2007 USA
Posts: 9624 Feedback: 100% (119) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/11/2011 10:17:37 PM
Originally Posted By DustyJacket:
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:
The question about the Magpul AFG comes up at least once a week. Espos1111 has already posted this link but I'll do it again.
Page 3, found here, deals with the Magpul AFG. Since that is a 3 page document and wanted something to carry with my pistol, I sent a brief request with pictures and all. here is there response: http://www.dustyjacket.com/shooting/atf-afg.jpg Now if we can just get magpul to make an AFG that is on an 89 degree angle... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:58:55 AM
[Last Edit: 8/14/2011 1:02:43 AM by bp_968]
Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter. I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary. OAL =>26" without stock, not handgun or pistol, just a firearm not subject to NFA Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to. http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html *edit* (ignore.. i should read the whole thread before responding) |
|
|
|
iNeXile556
Deo vindice
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2009 TN, USA
Posts: 1662 Feedback: 100% (21) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/14/2011 2:07:38 PM
[Last Edit: 8/14/2011 2:08:16 PM by iNeXile556]
Here is a letter that member jrzy first posted last year. Although it deals with a PG shotgun, I'm posting it to highlight the VFG on greater then 26" opinion that the ATF recently gave to Franklin Armory. After this opinion there are many people that somehow feel that the 26" rule is a hard fast law. Nothing is further from the truth. Although 26" is a standing opinion by the ATF concerning a firearms concealability, it is not codified as a legal limit and as such firearms could still be considered AOW even if over 26" OAL.
This letter explains the 26" opinion that the ATF is currently using. Let's hope they don't reverse this policy.  
|
|
CIV
