Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 As we all know the C&R handbook makes the general statement: What are Curios and Relics 1) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including REPLICAS. Of course it goes on in item 2 and 3 to expand upon that. But my point is if the ATF wanted to be picky, they could make the argument that a Group Industries or Phil Ord is a replica of a Thompson.. I think you'd have to make your case and get it in writing. (Don't even start Art!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asmodeus Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I presume this means that I now have to add my WH to my bound book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 QUOTE When talking with the manufacturer he did say that the West Hurley boys threatened to sue him if he used the word thompson on the guns or the ads. QUOTE Group Industries, or Philadelphia Ordnance, should have called Trast's bluff. Then Trast would have had to produce in court the actual document, the one William Helmer never saw, that stipulated Trast's sole ownership of the Thompson name, patents, logos, etc. Anyone have any reason to believe either one of these companies would have bowed down without good reason? Of course, when you own the rights to something, most successful business people are not going to challenge your position. Just another instance that shows the Thompson time line goes from General Thompson in 1916 to George Numrich and Ira Trast in West Hurley, New York. Why would anyone think any different http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 QUOTE (Roland @ Headless Thompson Gunner,Jan 27 2006, 03:34 PM) As we all know the C&R handbook makes the general statement: What are Curios and Relics 1) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including REPLICAS. Of course it goes on in item 2 and 3 to expand upon that. But my point is if the ATF wanted to be picky, they could make the argument that a Group Industries or Phil Ord is a replica of a Thompson.. I think you'd have to make your case and get it in writing. (Don't even start Art!) ATF is not using the first category of 27 CFR 178.11 to validate the 1928 WH for C&R status. They are using the third category. ATF says that a firearm must fall within ONE of the following three categories, not ALL of them. So ATF is not using the first category to include or exclude the Philly or Ohio Ord "Thompson's" that were made in the 1970's/80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 QUOTE (TD. @ Jan 27 2006, 04:37 PM) Anyone have any reason to believe either one of these companies would have bowed down without good reason? Of course, when you own the rights to something, most successful business people are not going to challenge your position. Just another instance that shows the Thompson time line goes from General Thompson in 1916 to George Numrich and Ira Trast in West Hurley, New York. Why would anyone think any different http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Why would anyone think differently? Well, Group Industries and Ohio Ordnance surely thought differently. Not to mention that Numrich never sued the makers of the "Egyptian Thompson" back in the 1950's. Businesses make threats about perceived copyright ownership all the time. Paris Hilton says she owns the rights to "That's Hot!" In that infamous self-aggrandizing 1965 "Gun World" article, Numrich was wishy washy about the legality of anyone other than himself using the Thompson name on a smg. I wonder if the manufacturer of Philly Ordnance, or Group Industries, actually received a letter of intent to sue, or if this was some verbal declaration by Trast/Numrich? If only there was a court case on record. Maybe these guys could have counter sued Numrich/Trast for using the name Auto Ordnance Corporation when it was still owned by the Maguire family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 It has been my observation over the years that going to court when the facts are not on your side is a bad (and expensive) idea. Maybe that is why these court cases you speak of never materialized. Suing someone in Egypt…….did you really say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Facts? Facts are theories that have been proven through science and mathematics. Facts in court are documents, affidavits and sworn testimony. Since Numrich/Trast claim as the sole legal owner of the Thompson name has never been subjected to these traditional standards, they have nothing more going for them than allegations. Philly Ord and Group Industries production of Thompson receivers was so infinitesimal they probably didn't care about using the Thompson name since the NFA world was not the money maker it became later on. I still think they could have used the name and suffered zero circumstances. You scoff at the Egyptians, yet Numrich's lack of a response to them sure looks like precedent in a copyright infringement case. Of course Ole George could have produced the Blish Pistol in court, but I doubt a judge or jury would find that compelling evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Facts: ...they probably didn't care….I still think…sure looks like…but I doubt… Why don’t we do this another time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 QUOTE (TD. @ Jan 27 2006, 10:51 PM) Facts: ...they probably didn't care….I still think…sure looks like…but I doubt… Those false start sentences have the familiar ring found reverberating throughout your "Thompson time line goes from General Thompson in 1916 to George Numrich and Ira Trast in West Hurley, New York." Except you conveniently excise any qualification that your favorite "time line" refrain is merely your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Opinion...no. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Belief? Hypothesis? Conjecture? Wish? Hope? Suggestion? Supposition? Take your pick. Unless and until you can produce some tangible proof, that even Helmer never discovered, that changes the complexion of the Numrich/Trast saga, then the one four letter word that will be conspicuously absent from your lexicon when speaking of this "time line" will be that non FCC regulated "f" word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandShooter Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 NAP TIME FOR ARTY!!!!!!!. Arty give it up we have heard your opinions countless times. Put that superior mind to some useful work. Like finding the cure for AIDS or something. The ATFE C&R rules state no Replicas sooooooooo Westies by the definition of the law are not Replicas as you espouse. Also that puts 2 of my 5 Westies on the C&R list wanna bet a nickle I'll get the set listed??????. YOU said it would never happen. Remember never say never. Great string of posts guys. And my deepest THANK YOU to those that got this done, Well DONE!!!!!!! Bill OUT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Bill Out, ATF is in no way making any declaration that WH are not replicas. You need to read 27 CFR 178.11 completely. There are three categories ATF uses for C&R status. ATF is not using the first category of 27 CFR 178.11 to validate the 1928 WH for C&R status. They are using the third category. ATF says that a firearm must fall within ONE of the following three categories, not ALL of them. ATF never considered category 1, the "replica" standard, regarding whether WH M1's or their Commemorative editions could be classified for C&R status, so why would they now use that standard for 1928 models made during the same period? In the first category, the firearm must be manufactured 50 years prior to the current date. That means that a replica firearm that was indeed manufactured 50 years ago cannot be C&R. ATF is using the third category to validate the remaining WH full auto models into the C&R family. To illustrate this point again one need only look at the S&W 76 that is ruled C&R (made from 1968-74), but the MKA 760 (1983-86), whose recorded and documented purchase of the rights, parts and receivers from S&W, is not rated C&R. The reason for inclusion or exclusion has nothing to do with the first of the three 27 CFR 178.11 categoies. It has to do with the third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amafrank Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Phil, Bowers told me that when ATF disallowed all his receivers that would not shoot he was pissed but when he found out that DLO registered pallets of raw tubing he was really pissed and still is. When I asked why he didn't protest ATF's ruling he said that at the time the value of the receivers was far less than a lawyer would cost to fight it. Who wants to make enemies at the ATF for the rest of their life too. AF, its easy to suggest that someone should have challenged Trast but would you have put your money up to pay the lawyers and would you have risked your small company? Are the odds good that Philly Ord and Group would have prevailed? Maybe from your hindsight perspective.....maybe theirs too but they didn't do it. Bowers didn't sound to me like he was scared of Trast. He sounded proud of his guns and told me the reason he started the project was because the westies were so bad. I think the fact he made them pissed off trast and maybe Trast helped nudge ATF into disallowing the finished receivers that weren't assembled. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE (amafrank @ Jan 28 2006, 06:53 PM) AF, Bowers didn't sound to me like he was scared of Trast. He sounded proud of his guns and told me the reason he started the project was because the westies were so bad. I think the fact he made them pissed off trast and maybe Trast helped nudge ATF into disallowing the finished receivers that weren't assembled. Frank Thank you for the first hand account of Bowers run in with Trast. Hey, I am the last one to fault him for not taking the whole shebang to court. I was just rhapsodizing on what might have been. I do applaud him for making a superior product and I think you are on to something about collusion between Trast and ATF about disqualifying those bare receivers. Had Trast encountered any competition back in the mid 1970's, he would have either ceased production of his replica, or been forced to live up to the name stamped on their receivers. The name they coerced others into believing was their exclusive property. Having been to the West Hurley "factory" back in late 1970's, I doubt if Trast had the coin to actually do anything but acquiesce to an out of court settlement allowing, at the least, a franchise to interested manufacturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 …what might have been…I think…Had Trast…I doubt if… Don’t you think it is time to start accepting some of what actually happened as Auto-Ordnance and the Thompson Submachine Gun moved from General Thompson, to Russell Maguire, to Kilgore Manufacturing, to Fredrick Willis, to George Numrich. to Ira Trast, and to Kahr Arms. Yes, it “might have been" different if (fill in the blank), but it wasn’t, so let’s get on with enjoying this fine firearm - and all the great history behind it http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Phil - please keep dreaming http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/woot.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 TD, Phil's dream has a lot more chance for fruition than your "unbroken line" dream. Your devotion to George is commendable, but even though most children give up the Ghost on Santa Claus, some passible children continue into adulthood to favor the irresistible fairy tale rather than admit being hoaxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Arthur, I wish it were so. I would gladly trade the unbroken line of succession on the Thompson Submachine Gun for repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban - and I believe the General would join me for that one! But for now we are just struck with the truth. For easy reading with pictures, I suggest reviewing your copy of "On the Side of Law and Order" Exhibit Catalog designed by the Thompson Collectors Association expressly for the Thompson display at the NRA National Firearms Museum in 2004/2005. It starts with the Blish pistol and ends with Kahr Arms http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Actually that NRA "On The Side Of Law & Order" brochure ends with a "Thompson look alike Airsoft pellet gun." The brochure is sort of the politically correct periodical that attempts to be all inclusive at the expense of easily documented historical evidence. Or in Numrich/Trast case, the lack of any evidence. Back in 1965, I had a black plastic 1928 water submachine gun with all the Thompson and Auto Ordnance names emblazoned on it. I feel slighted that the NRA brochure left it out. Why draw the line at water as a projectile? That Thompson squirt gun actually fired unlike the Kahr versions. It's great that all full auto WH's have C&R status. All pre 1986 mg's and smg's should have that rating. ATF doesn't make a distinction between replicas and licensed versions, as long as the replicas were not made 50 years ago at the time the originals were being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bounty1 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 but the way I understand it is that if it is C&R eligiable you do not have to file travel papers to take it out of state ? Is that correct ??? OK, let me see if I can get this straight.....The WH 1928's are now C&R's, but in order to take it over state lines w/o the paperwork, you have to have a C&R license also, right? I looked into getting a C&R but was put off by having to allow the BATFE to have unfettered access to all my medical records. None of their f*****' business as far as I'm concerned as long as a NICS check comes back OK. I'd rather protect the little that's left of my privacy than having the jackboots going on a fishing expedition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amafrank Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 You are correct on the taking machineguns out of state deal there. If you have a C&R license (or any FFL for that matter) than you can take C&R firearms over state lines with no 5320.20 filed. If you have an FFL you can take any firearms which you are licensed to deal in over state lines with no 5320.20 filed. As an added bonus the C&R license allows you to receive C&R firearms of all types directly without the need for an intermediate dealer for interstate transfer. This means MG's and DD's too. An FFL will do this same thing and allow you to deal as well. As to the details of getting the C&R or FFL, you have to decide if the lack of travel paperwork is worth the trouble of getting the FFL. Sometimes the choices are tough. good luck Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Jr Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Every single transferable MG should be on the C&R list, they are all rare. ARTY IS A COLT WHORE TROLL. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/troll.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE The brochure is sort of the politically correct periodical that attempts.... Arthur, You gave yourself away on this one. Since you know what was in the minds of the creators of this document, we now know you were one of the authors. It is a real shame you and your co-writers went to all the trouble to be politically correct - and ended up reporting the simple truth. Isn't the truth so simple to report! (I feel like I may have inspired the picture of NAC 17 given all our posts on the NAC Thompsons) My congratulations on a story well done. I am off to the skeet club http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandShooter Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Yo Arty. Earlier on you made reference to Ohio Ordnance. Would you please clarify that? Inquisitive minds want to know??? Bill Out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now