Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Model Of 1928 Added To Curios And Relics List


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#21 v188

v188

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 62 posts

Posted 27 January 2006 - 08:18 AM

2nd and final (?) question:

I just checked my Form 4, since it's reweld M1, it has the "mfg", and not Savage. Since it doesn't say, AO; Colt or Savage........and........I'd guess no Fm 4 says Thompson, how do I go about letting ATF know this is in fact a Tommy?

Not for me, but if sometime i wanted to sell it. Well also I guess to go out of state without the 5502?

- Send a letter and/or call my examiner (NFA) and have a notation made it's a Thompson?

- Maybe it's best to get a personal letter from FTB pertaining to this SN? If so, anyone have a example I can plagarize?

Thanks in advance.
  • 0

#22 First Sergeant

First Sergeant

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South West Ohio

Posted 27 January 2006 - 09:26 AM

Mike,

I too put fingerprints on the Philly M1 about 2 hrs after Phil had his hands on it. We were treated to the privilege at the OCGA meeting in Wilmington a couple weeks ago. Frank's pretty proud of it and rightfully so....very nice indeed.

Chuck

  • 0

#23 amafrank

amafrank

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis, USA
  • Interests:MG's of all types. Cannons that can be transported by normal people. Fine firearms of all descriptions.

Posted 27 January 2006 - 12:11 PM

I see my evil plan has worked.....I tried to find some info on these very boards about the philly ord transferables with no result. Once I had the gun I figured I needed to share the info so when the next guy asks there will be some answers. Thanks Mike, Phil and Chuck. You helped the plan get rolling.....

I don't think the form for it has Thompson listed anywhere and I don't have the gun sitting here to see if it says Thompson on it. 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. It might be worth looking into with ATF to see if it would qualify for this piece of the C&R list or maybe just on its own. The maker said that he only finished 12 guns tops and that ATF disallowed all the receivers he had done that would not fire when they did the inspection. Another obvious case of selective enforcement. . .
Frank


  • 0

#24 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 01:08 PM

QUOTE (amafrank @ Jan 27 2006, 12:11 PM)


I don't think the form for it has Thompson listed anywhere and I don't have the gun sitting here to see if it says Thompson on it. 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. Frank

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.

As far as ATF Forms 3/4, there are boxes for the name of the weapon's manufacturer, i.e. Colt, Savage, AO, WH, and there is a box for the type of firearm. In that box, ATF seems indifferent to either "Machine Gun," "Submachine Gun," or "Thompson SMG." ATF couldn't care less what name goes in the "type of firearm," or "Model," box. They are only concerned with the serial number.

I have seen "Thompson" typed in the manufacturer's box on ATF forms. Of course "Thompson" was not the manufacturer of any smg. So it seems ATF is, or was, indifferent as to what name was plugged into that box as well. If anything that would come under the heading "model." But in that box, I have seen "1928," "1921," "Navy 1928," "1921/28 Navy"

The absence of the name "Thompson" on ATF forms is common even for Colt, Savage, or AO TSMG's. ATF would not be able to use that name in their revised C&R status since they never required the "Thompson" name typed on their forms to begin with

  • 0

#25 Tman

Tman

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 488 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Interests:Firearms, in general

Posted 27 January 2006 - 02:42 PM

QUOTE
T-man,

Didn't you say you were going to discuss something with the Firearms Technology guys shortly?


We had a meeting this morning talking about MG conversions and discussed a pending case dealing with HK trigger packs. I asked about the adding of TSMGs to the C&R list and was told that the recommendation went forward to our legal staff but he wasn't aware that a ruling had been issued. He did not personally work on the letter but heard about it in the office so he couldn't add anything new on the subject.

My opinion is it will probably take a clarification of the ruling to include Group Ind. and Phila Ord guns.
  • 0

#26 Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner

Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Thompsons, Garands, All things WW2, Corsairs, Classic Guitars, Sex, Guns and Rock & Roll

Posted 27 January 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!)


  • 0

#27 Asmodeus

Asmodeus

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 67 posts

Posted 27 January 2006 - 03:44 PM

I presume this means that I now have to add my WH to my bound book?


  • 0

#28 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 04:37 PM

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 wink.gif

  • 0

#29 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 04:42 PM

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.

  • 0

#30 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 04:59 PM

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 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.

  • 0

#31 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 10:06 PM

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?
  • 0

#32 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 10:24 PM

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.

  • 0

#33 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 10:51 PM

Facts:

...they probably didn't care….I still think…sure looks like…but I doubt…

Why don’t we do this another time.
  • 0

#34 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 11:31 PM

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.
  • 0

#35 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 11:39 PM

Opinion...no.

wink.gif

  • 0

#36 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 January 2006 - 11:48 PM

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
  • 0

#37 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 January 2006 - 12:19 AM

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
  • 0

#38 ClevelandShooter

ClevelandShooter

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland Ohio
  • Interests:Class 3,Beer, VietNam era small arms, Beer, Harley-Davidson's, Beer, and as Car and driver once said "Torque and Recoil"

Posted 28 January 2006 - 01:27 PM

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
  • 0

#39 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 January 2006 - 02:58 PM

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.

  • 0

#40 amafrank

amafrank

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis, USA
  • Interests:MG's of all types. Cannons that can be transported by normal people. Fine firearms of all descriptions.

Posted 28 January 2006 - 06:53 PM

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

  • 0