AR15.Com Archives
 New AR Pistol with Foregrip....non AOW???
wahoo95  [Member]
5/12/2011 9:12:18 PM
Anyone seen this yet? They say hey got approval from ATF to not classify this as a AOW.

http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html


The marketing video isn't a smart move in my opinion. Looks like they're marketing it to the "drive by"crowd.
Justin-Kase  [Life Member]
5/12/2011 9:20:57 PM
Don't think the drive by crowd drops $1400+ on hardware very often, especially when someone who had no regard for ATF approval could accomplish the same thing much cheaper.

Looks more like they're marketing to the "truck gun" crowd imho.
600RPM  [Member]
5/13/2011 4:27:34 PM
This is most interesting.....


Franklin Armory is pleased to introduce the XO-26!!!
This new design features an 11.5" barrel and comes in 5.56 NATO (.223 Remington) or 7.62x39. We also have a 450 Bushmaster model that is in prototype stage. The XO-26 ships to 01/FFLs, and it is not an AOW. Consequently, no NFA paperwork is required! Here is a link to the ATF letter, and here is a link to the XO-26 in action!
Dealer Inquries Welcome!



FRANKLIN ARMORY

Stripped Lower Receiver
Made from 7075-T6 Milspec Forging




Comes with Stainless Steel Tensioner Screw
FRANKLIN ARMORY

Built Lower Receivers

Comes with manual and California Certified Lock
"...and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. "

Luke 22:36
Background:

As many industry insiders are aware, the addition of a secondary vertical grip to a pistol creates a class of firearm called an “AOW,” or any other weapon and requires an NFA tax stamp. Franklin Armory management made the argument to ATF that the XO-26 configuration above is not readily concealable and therefore should not be classified as an AOW even though it has a secondary grip. ATF agreed.

On March 14, 2011, the Chief of The Firearms Technology Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, authorized the sale of the above configuration without the need for any NFA permits! What is shocking is that it was also defined as a non-pistol. The 4473 would only need to be filled out with “other” checked off. Franklin Armory is proud to be the first company in the nation to be able to shepherd this project into fruition.

California residents will find that 12001 PC will still define this firearm as a pistol, but thankfully there is not an analog to the AOW classification in state law. California buyers will have to be at least 21 years of age, and the DROS form will require one to check “Pistol.”

Product Details:

The XO-26 is a cross over between rifles and pistols. The 26 refers to the absolute minimum length of the firearm as allotted by federal law. However, we chose to make the length an inch longer than necessary so that it would still be long enough to qualify as a non-AOW even if the muzzle device was removed. This length also makes it easier to see the chamber indication.

Besides 5.56 NATO, the XO-26 is available in 7.62x39. After careful study of the external ballistics of both cartridges in 11.5” barrels, we found that the 7.62x39 produces over 1300 foot pounds of energy while the 5.56 NATO creates 950 FPE. We believe that the 25% power increase, combined with the heavier weight and greater frontal area of the 7.62x39 cartridge, will make a more effective firearm for defense and even hunting. Franklin Armory will consider building this firearm in other chambers such as 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, or even 450 BM if the demand is demonstrated.

Here's a video:
http://youtu.be/KzpFxiUSd8c

iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/13/2011 7:25:46 PM
It is not a pistol, revolver or handgun, it was not designed or intended to be fired while held in one hand (due to the manufacturer installed VFG). It is not a rifle or SBR, it is not shoulder fired. It is not a shotgun or SBS for obvious reasons. It is not a machine gun. It is not an AOW because it is not concealable (over 26"). It is a simple title 1 firearm, just like the factory pistol grip shotgun.
Medicfrost  [Member]
5/13/2011 7:34:08 PM
Next task for Franklin Armory can produce a Select Fire version that won't be classified as Class 3.
HU100  [Member]
5/14/2011 9:15:14 AM
Thanks for the info iNeXile556. My AR pistol has a 10.5 inch barrel with the ACE pistol tube and measures exactly 26 1/2 inchs. Does the VFG have to be manufacturer installed? Sounds like mine would be legal except that my 'bird cage' is removable?
franklinarmory  [Member]
5/14/2011 11:46:43 AM
Originally Posted By Medicfrost:
Next task for Franklin Armory can produce a Select Fire version that won't be classified as Class 3.


...Good idea. We're on it....

LOL
MRW  [Team Member]
5/14/2011 1:36:13 PM
interdasting...
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/14/2011 1:57:14 PM

Originally Posted By HU100:
Thanks for the info iNeXile556. My AR pistol has a 10.5 inch barrel with the ACE pistol tube and measures exactly 26 1/2 inchs. Does the VFG have to be manufacturer installed? Sounds like mine would be legal except that my 'bird cage' is removable?

Did you make your firearm or buy it as a complete pistol? It all depends on who "made" it and the design and intention.
It is my understanding that a muzzle device is figured into the LOA just as a stock or buffer tube is. However if you use the muzzle device to figure your minimum OAL, be aware that removing it will result in an AOW. As stated by Franklin they use a 11.5 barrel to keep the OAL over 26" IF the FS is removed.

My 10.5 meausres 26.75", I posted quite sometime ago that it would be technically legal for me to install a VFG but never got any feedback on it.

Again, this is simply my understanding of the OAL measurement. A simple letter to the ATF asking the role of a FS in the LOA would provide the definitive answer.
TitleII  [Member]
5/14/2011 2:23:38 PM
OK, if we follow the guidance in the NFA handbook, for measuring barrel length, the FS would have to be permanently attached by pin and weld, or silver solder for it to be counted toward the (barrel or) overall length to not become a AOW. At least that is the guidance concerning SBRs. I'm not an attorney and that is not legal advise.

"The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to
the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of
attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver
soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod
into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the
furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and
measured."


Just Sayin!
HU100  [Member]
5/14/2011 2:33:50 PM
I made mine. Bought a stripped lower and a complete ADCO upper. When I 'built' it my intention was to add a VFG, but then I read about AOWs and backed off. Both my upper and lower are RRA marked pistol. Sounds like I better wait and see how this all pans out.
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/14/2011 4:37:57 PM

Originally Posted By TitleII:
OK, if we follow the guidance in the NFA handbook, for measuring barrel length, the FS would have to be permanently attached by pin and weld, or silver solder for it to be counted toward the (barrel or) overall length to not become a AOW. At least that is the guidance concerning SBRs. I'm not an attorney and that is not legal advise.

"The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to
the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of
attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver
soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod
into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the
furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and
measured."


Just Sayin!
I cannot find in my NFA handbook the part I highlighted in your above quote. Your quote of the barrel length measurment technique is unquestionable however I cannot find it in reference to OAL for AOW consideration. Please indicate where you read this.

You may be correct. The NFA handbook does state "The overall length of a firearm is the distance between the muzzle of the barrel and the rearmost portion
of the weapon measured on a line parallel to the axis of the bore."


The question is if barrel length is not restricted, such as in the case of a handgun or non-rifle firearm, does the muzzle device need to be permanently attached to be counted in the OAL measurement? Or is it counted like a Bird Head/witness protection or Knox Breaching pistol grip which adds to the OAL vs. a standard PG on a PG shotgun, any of which can be removed just as easy as a muzzle device, and the firearm is still operational?

In any case even a 10.5" barrel would more then meet the minimum OAL with a rifle length RE.
adam731432  [Team Member]
5/14/2011 8:10:20 PM
So if you order a stripped lower, transferred as an "other" on the 4473, and install a long enough barrel/buffer tube to give you over 26.5" OAL without the flash hider then you can install a VFG ?
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/14/2011 9:17:35 PM

Originally Posted By adam731432:
So if you order a stripped lower, transferred as an "other" on the 4473, and install a long enough barrel/buffer tube to give you over 26.5" OAL without the flash hider then you can install a VFG ?
Yep, but remember it is not a pistol. This does play a part if you have a carry permit. I can carry my loaded AR pistol (26.75" OAL) on my person or in my car with my permit. I can not carry the same firearm, loaded, if I had built it as a title 1 firearm (with a VFG).

DiscipleGreg  [Member]
5/15/2011 1:55:12 AM
So....
If it's not a pistol, not a rifle, and not "any other weapon"... what exactly is it?
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/15/2011 7:54:12 AM

Originally Posted By DiscipleGreg:
So....
If it's not a pistol, not a rifle, and not "any other weapon"... what exactly is it?

A title1 firearm, transferred as "other" on a 4473.
TitleII  [Member]
5/15/2011 12:18:24 PM
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:

Originally Posted By TitleII:
OK, if we follow the guidance in the NFA handbook, for measuring barrel length, the FS would have to be permanently attached by pin and weld, or silver solder for it to be counted toward the (barrel or) overall length to not become a AOW. At least that is the guidance concerning SBRs. I'm not an attorney and that is not legal advise.

"The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to
the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of
attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver
soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod
into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the
furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and
measured."


Just Sayin!
I cannot find in my NFA handbook the part I highlighted in your above quote. Your quote of the barrel length measurment technique is unquestionable however I cannot find it in reference to OAL for AOW consideration. Please indicate where you read this.

You may be correct. The NFA handbook does state "The overall length of a firearm is the distance between the muzzle of the barrel and the rearmost portion
of the weapon measured on a line parallel to the axis of the bore."


The question is if barrel length is not restricted, such as in the case of a handgun or non-rifle firearm, does the muzzle device need to be permanently attached to be counted in the OAL measurement? Or is it counted like a Bird Head/witness protection or Knox Breaching pistol grip which adds to the OAL vs. a standard PG on a PG shotgun, any of which can be removed just as easy as a muzzle device, and the firearm is still operational?

In any case even a 10.5" barrel would more then meet the minimum OAL with a rifle length RE.



Hey, I could be very wrong. As you said this isn’t covered in the NFA handbook, but if we extrapolate the guidance we are given then logically, if a minimum barrel length (of 16 inches) required the FS to be permanently attached to meet some established requirement, then the same may be assumed if the overall length (of 26 inches) has some established minimum. Now all of this logic goes out the window as soon as we start talking about folding stocks and why we measure them extended instead of folded…so I am just guessing here and put out my logic for discussion. My logic also errs on the safe side. Remember the arbitrary 26 inch minimum is a number that ATF made up to control the “concealed on the person” thing.

ex•trap•o•late (¹k-str²p“…-l³t”) v. ex•trap•o•lat•ed, ex•trap•o•lat•ing, ex•trap•o•lates. ––tr. 1. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information. 2. Mathematics. To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values. ––intr. To engage in the process of extrapolating

Just Sayin!
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/15/2011 1:41:50 PM

Originally Posted By TitleII:
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:

Originally Posted By TitleII:
OK, if we follow the guidance in the NFA handbook, for measuring barrel length, the FS would have to be permanently attached by pin and weld, or silver solder for it to be counted toward the (barrel or) overall length to not become a AOW. At least that is the guidance concerning SBRs. I'm not an attorney and that is not legal advise.

"The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to
the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of
attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver
soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod
into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the
furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and
measured."


Just Sayin!
I cannot find in my NFA handbook the part I highlighted in your above quote. Your quote of the barrel length measurment technique is unquestionable however I cannot find it in reference to OAL for AOW consideration. Please indicate where you read this.

You may be correct. The NFA handbook does state "The overall length of a firearm is the distance between the muzzle of the barrel and the rearmost portion
of the weapon measured on a line parallel to the axis of the bore."


The question is if barrel length is not restricted, such as in the case of a handgun or non-rifle firearm, does the muzzle device need to be permanently attached to be counted in the OAL measurement? Or is it counted like a Bird Head/witness protection or Knox Breaching pistol grip which adds to the OAL vs. a standard PG on a PG shotgun, any of which can be removed just as easy as a muzzle device, and the firearm is still operational?

In any case even a 10.5" barrel would more then meet the minimum OAL with a rifle length RE.



Hey, I could be very wrong. As you said this isn’t covered in the NFA handbook, but if we extrapolate the guidance we are given then logically, if a minimum barrel length (of 16 inches) required the FS to be permanently attached to meet some established requirement, then the same may be assumed if the overall length (of 26 inches) has some established minimum. Now all of this logic goes out the window as soon as we start talking about folding stocks and why we measure them extended instead of folded…so I am just guessing here and put out my logic for discussion. My logic also errs on the safe side. Remember the arbitrary 26 inch minimum is a number that ATF made up to control the "concealed on the person” thing.

ex•trap•o•late (¹k-str²p"…-l³t”) v. ex•trap•o•lat•ed, ex•trap•o•lat•ing, ex•trap•o•lates. ––tr. 1. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information. 2. Mathematics. To estimate (a value of a variable outside a known range) from values within a known range by assuming that the estimated value follows logically from the known values. ––intr. To engage in the process of extrapolating

Just Sayin!

Agreed but it also goes out the window when you consider that barrel length is not the same as overall length of the barrel. The barrel extension is buried inside the reciever, as is the bolt face, so that length of the barrel, which is counted in the legal barrel length, is not even considered in OAL of the firearm. Therefore the properly measured barrel length is actually greater then the length the barrel adds to the LOA.

If the barrel length, as properly measured, does not correlate to the LOA of the firearm, which is a physical external measurement of the entire firearm as configured, then would the muzzle device still be considered in the OAL if it is not permanently attached to the barrel? If you can add or subtract to/from the OAL by unscrewing a part from the butt of the firearm and adding a longer or shorter piece, why is that different then doing the same to the muzzle end?

And you are correct on the 26" "guidline" to the concealability of a firearm and is not codified anywhere. If one of these firearms or one of the PG shotguns is concealed on your person, say by a long trench coat, then it could be treated as an illegal (read tax not paid) AOW.

It is interesting to note that Franklin Armory's original approval letter from the ATF was for a AR-15 type firearm with an OAL of 26.3" with a 10.5" barrel.


adam731432  [Team Member]
5/15/2011 1:59:06 PM
It is my understanding that the buffer tube/receiver extension,although easily unscrewed, is considered part of the firearms OAL because that parts is needed for the gun to run unlike a flash hider.
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/15/2011 4:37:35 PM

Originally Posted By adam731432:
It is my understanding that the buffer tube/receiver extension,although easily unscrewed, is considered part of the firearms OAL because that parts is needed for the gun to run unlike a flash hider.

True but not all REs are the same length. If you take the RE off of the Franklin Armory AR-15 pictured above it and replace it with one of the GSE 4" REs it would work fine. However it will be under 26" and fall into the AOW category. Therefore by your line of thought the only RE that should count in the OAL is the minimum length required for the operation. A pistol grip on a PG shotgun, while convenient, is not required for operation the firearm but it is figured into the OAL.

ETA: I'm not arguing with anyone, just putting it out for discussion. I do not know the true answer to this question and it is not addressed directly by the NFA or GCA.
TitleII  [Member]
5/15/2011 5:11:15 PM
+2...all we are doing here is discussing a newly introduced configuration and playing the what if? game. If someone really wants to build one of these using a NON permanent FS to meet the 26 in OAL requirement, then a letter to the ATF technology branch is is order. I would not usually say "write a letter" but in this case I believe it is warranted.

Now look, the original manufactures is not selling these things using a NON permanent FS to meet the overall length requirement and I'm not building one of these things using a NON permanent FS to meet the overall length requirement. I don't recommend anyone else do this without further guidance from Martinsburg. If your talking about a standard A2 FS we are talking about one inch.

In reality, if I was going to put that much time into it, I would prefer to find a appropriately licensed SOT and have him AOW one of my pistols and pay the 5 five dollars (I know thats' not really that cheap or simple).

As usual that's not legal advise.

Just Sayin!
adam731432  [Team Member]
5/15/2011 9:08:45 PM
It's like making an AK or SKS 922(r) compliant with 10 or so US made parts. You could take half of them back off easily,or replace them,but that doesn't make it right.

You can easily change the RE on an AR but you can more easily change the barrel on a shotgun making it an SBS but that doesn't make it legal without the proper paperwork.

I don't make the rules. I just follow them.

The funny thing is you could probably install a rifle length buffer tube on a 7.5" ar pistol and be over 26.5 OAL
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/15/2011 11:33:02 PM

Originally Posted By adam731432:
It's like making an AK or SKS 922(r) compliant with 10 or so US made parts. You could take half of them back off easily,or replace them,but that doesn't make it right.

You can easily change the RE on an AR but you can more easily change the barrel on a shotgun making it an SBS but that doesn't make it legal without the proper paperwork.

I don't make the rules. I just follow them.

The funny thing is you could probably install a rifle length buffer tube on a 7.5" ar pistol and be over 26.5 OAL

I'm not saying it is easy to make it illegal. Making anything illegal is pretty easy. I was making the comparison to your comment that the RE is counted in the OAL and the muzzle device is not because the RE is necessary for operation of the firearm and the muzzle device is not.

So let's drop the fact that a long RE is not required and go back to the pistol grip of the PG Shotgun. A pistol grip is not necessary for the operation of a PG shotgun . If you put a 14.5" barrel on your factory PG Remington 870 with a factory installed pistol grip it is under the legal 26" OAL and classified an AOW, however if you replace the pistol grip with a birds head style pistol grip the same firearm with a 14.5" barrel is over 26" OAL and not classified an AOW. And yes, this is 100% legal.

So the my question to you is, if the pistol grip, any pistol grip, is not required for the operation of a PG shotgun why is it counted in the OAL measurement, yet, as you contend, the muzzle device is not because it is not required in the operation of the firearm?

26" OAL is the commonly used limit for concealability by the ATF. 26" overall is 26" overall regardless of how it is achieved.

chapperjoe  [Team Member]
5/15/2011 11:42:20 PM
their letter says that OAL is more than 26",

so it's a firearm. no big news, they just have a letterm that's the news!

a that point, why bother? 26" is pretty damn long.
franklinarmory  [Member]
5/16/2011 12:09:39 AM
Originally Posted By TitleII:
+2...all we are doing here is discussing a newly introduced configuration and playing the what if? game. If someone really wants to build one of these using a NON permanent FS to meet the 26 in OAL requirement, then a letter to the ATF technology branch is is order. I would not usually say "write a letter" but in this case I believe it is warranted.

Now look, the original manufactures is not selling these things using a NON permanent FS to meet the overall length requirement and I'm not building one of these things using a NON permanent FS to meet the overall length requirement. I don't recommend anyone else do this without further guidance from Martinsburg. If your talking about a standard A2 FS we are talking about one inch.

In reality, if I was going to put that much time into it, I would prefer to find a appropriately licensed SOT and have him AOW one of my pistols and pay the 5 five dollars (I know thats' not really that cheap or simple).

As usual that's not legal advise.

Just Sayin!


+1 .... and working on the follow up letter. (...Unfortunately, you will have to wait 30 days for a response.) ... BTW, you guys really get it! You have crystalized the questions that need definition.
adam731432  [Team Member]
5/16/2011 12:51:36 AM
Originally Posted By iNeXile556:

Originally Posted By adam731432:
It's like making an AK or SKS 922(r) compliant with 10 or so US made parts. You could take half of them back off easily,or replace them,but that doesn't make it right.

You can easily change the RE on an AR but you can more easily change the barrel on a shotgun making it an SBS but that doesn't make it legal without the proper paperwork.

I don't make the rules. I just follow them.

The funny thing is you could probably install a rifle length buffer tube on a 7.5" ar pistol and be over 26.5 OAL

I'm not saying it is easy to make it illegal. Making anything illegal is pretty easy. I was making the comparison to your comment that the RE is counted in the OAL and the muzzle device is not because the RE is necessary for operation of the firearm and the muzzle device is not.

So let's drop the fact that a long RE is not required and go back to the pistol grip of the PG Shotgun. A pistol grip is not necessary for the operation of a PG shotgun . If you put a 14.5" barrel on your factory PG Remington 870 with a factory installed pistol grip it is under the legal 26" OAL and classified an AOW, however if you replace the pistol grip with a birds head style pistol grip the same firearm with a 14.5" barrel is over 26" OAL and not classified an AOW. And yes, this is 100% legal.

So the my question to you is, if the pistol grip, any pistol grip, is not required for the operation of a PG shotgun why is it counted in the OAL measurement, yet, as you contend, the muzzle device is not because it is not required in the operation of the firearm?

26" OAL is the commonly used limit for concealability by the ATF. 26" overall is 26" overall regardless of how it is achieved.



I did not know that but that is pretty cool if this rule applies to "other"/title1 , factory PG shotguns also.

I don't know why they do what they do. You could fire a shotgun without a pistol grip or stock but they assume you aren't going to operate one without it or conceal one and then try to pull it out and attach a stock all of a sudden in the commission of a crime. They have declared the stock/PG part of all firearms OAL so that's just what I go by. If you don't have a stock/PG then I guess you still have to abide by the +/- 26" rules.

The receiver extension is just that though. An extension of the receiver or a necessary part. My point being that you could pull an AR pistol out of a duffel bag and shoot it without a flash hider but not without a receiver extension excluding .22 conversions and those weird buffer-less mods in which case it would reduce your legal OAL. I wasn't replying to you or arguing with anyone. I just saw an excuse to mention that.

Sure someone could install a 4" buffer tube reducing their over 26" OAL but that would make them a criminal and we know criminals don't abide by the rules. Anyone could sit at home and configure an illegal configuration. They are just trying to keep people from using a 5 1/2" flash hider to meet minimum requirements that could easily be unscrewed while swapping receiver extensions is a little more complicated.
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/16/2011 7:14:42 AM
Not picking on you either, just asking the question to you to see how your thought pattern is running on this. If Franklin Armory is going to write a follow up letter on this subject that's great. We'll all find out the ?truth? together.

On the PG shotgun matter, yes it works the same way. The firearm MUST have come from the factory with a pistol grip and never have had a stock on it. Or of course, built from a virgin receiver. Remington no longer sells a PG shotgun, the most common at this point is the Mossberg cruiser which is available from the factory with a pistol grip installed.

ATF letter on PG shotguns:

Here

and here
Koshinn  [Member]
5/16/2011 10:43:11 AM
On a side note,

Franklin Armory can't copyright that letter, as they are not the author.
FIGJAM  [Member]
5/16/2011 4:43:33 PM
They're not copy writing the letter. They're copy writing their image of the letter. I think they have an argument which they've already expressed, that's why I didn't post the image of it in the letter thread. It's a stupid argument to make so why piss on their parade. That goes to the other pisser, too, who knows who he is.
Koshinn  [Member]
5/17/2011 9:31:55 AM
Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
They're not copy writing the letter. They're copy writing their image of the letter. I think they have an argument which they've already expressed, that's why I didn't post the image of it in the letter thread. It's a stupid argument to make so why piss on their parade. That goes to the other pisser, too, who knows who he is.


They can't copyright the image of the letter either. Here's an example: someone took pictures of famous paintings, put them on post cards, and copyrighted them. When people copied the post cards, they sued, and lost horribly because a picture of a work you did not make does not let you copyright it, especially if you didn't alter the original in any significant way. And no, adding "copyright by franklin armory" does not count as significant alteration.

Imagine if you could copyright something by changing its format. If I ripped a DVD to .mpg, I could claim copyright on a movie I took no part in creating! If I scanned the Harry Potter book series, I could claim copyright on the scans and make a lot of money selling the ebooks!

But no. The copyright system is broken, but not THAT broken.
FIGJAM  [Member]
5/17/2011 12:00:41 PM
Yes, but they own the letter. They have full rights to their document. The government doesn't retain any rights to a private ruling (in terms of images created from it). If fact, I'd be surprised if one could even get a copy under the Freedom of Information Act because it is a private ruling. Try to get somone's IRS returns under the FOIA. Not going to happen. They own any meaningful right to that document because it's their ruling. That ruling is meaningless to anyone but them. If they choose to make an image of it and copy write that image, they can do so. But this is all irrelevant, because one must have their own letter for issues of this nature. Just because that letter exists doesn't make it universal.

By the way, I have my own letter. Try and get a copy of it and see how far you get. In fact, try and send a blanket request for all private rulings to the ATF regarding short barreled rifles and AOW's. Good luck.

But as I stated, this is all irrelevent. Arfcom could easily yank the link if they chose to and hand type the contents of the letter redacting the authors who are not sight sponsors. There's a bit of symbiosis free of capitalism in these boards regardless of how much riding coat tails tries to be controlled. But, it's ultimately Arfcom's decision.
Dace  [Member]
5/17/2011 12:26:17 PM
Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Yes, but they own the letter. They have full rights to their document. The government doesn't retain any rights to a private ruling (in terms of images created from it). If fact, I'd be surprised if one could even get a copy under the Freedom of Information Act because it is a private ruling. Try to get somone's IRS returns under the FOIA. Not going to happen. They own any meaningful right to that document because it's their ruling. That ruling is meaningless to anyone but them. If they choose to make an image of it and copy write that image, they can do so. But this is all irrelevant, because one must have their own letter for issues of this nature. Just because that letter exists doesn't make it universal.

By the way, I have my own letter. Try and get a copy of it and see how far you get. In fact, try and send a blanket request for all private rulings to the ATF regarding short barreled rifles and AOW's. Good luck.

But as I stated, this is all irrelevent. Arfcom could easily yank the link if they chose to and hand type the contents of the letter redacting the authors who are not sight sponsors. There's a bit of symbiosis free of capitalism in these boards regardless of how much riding coat tails tries to be controlled. But, it's ultimately Arfcom's decision.


Why are you arguing copyrights in a thread about an AOW?

Koshinn  [Member]
5/17/2011 4:33:03 PM
Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Yes, but they own the letter. They have full rights to their document. The government doesn't retain any rights to a private ruling (in terms of images created from it). If fact, I'd be surprised if one could even get a copy under the Freedom of Information Act because it is a private ruling. Try to get somone's IRS returns under the FOIA. Not going to happen. They own any meaningful right to that document because it's their ruling. That ruling is meaningless to anyone but them. If they choose to make an image of it and copy write that image, they can do so. But this is all irrelevant, because one must have their own letter for issues of this nature. Just because that letter exists doesn't make it universal.

By the way, I have my own letter. Try and get a copy of it and see how far you get. In fact, try and send a blanket request for all private rulings to the ATF regarding short barreled rifles and AOW's. Good luck.

But as I stated, this is all irrelevent. Arfcom could easily yank the link if they chose to and hand type the contents of the letter redacting the authors who are not sight sponsors. There's a bit of symbiosis free of capitalism in these boards regardless of how much riding coat tails tries to be controlled. But, it's ultimately Arfcom's decision.


This will be my last post on this topic because it's off topic, lol.

Owning a letter does not equate to owning copyright on it. Again, you can buy a DVD or a book, but you do NOT own the copyright on it. Just because you were given permission from the author to own a copy of his or her work does not give you the permission to make your own copies and it especially does not automatically give you permission to copyright those copies. Talking about FOIA is entirely meaningless with regards to copyright and shows how little you understand both intellectual property law and FOIA. Anyone could do a FOIA request and get a copy of all their letters regarding SBRs, with names and addresses (and other PII) redacted, if I wanted to pay that much money and if I cared that much, just like you can get the entire email correspondence of a public official if you want to pay an outrageous amount of money.

And by the way, if arfcom did retype the letter, that would be a copyright violation of the ATF's copyright on the original letter, who probably doesn't care. But even if they don't care, you can't claim copyright on their work. Changing the medium doesn't change the content.

/endlesson

That said, I'm glad Franklin Armory did post the letter, because while the letter isn't really "legally binding" nor is it protection because the letter was not made out to anyone else, it does show a growing standard the ATF is using; weapons over 26" overall length are not an AOW unless it actually has been concealed. There are other letters showing this trend as well.
Krylancelo  [Team Member]
5/18/2011 12:28:02 PM
Thanks for the info on this guys, very cool!

I just finished typing up a new letter to the ATF inquiring whether or not we can construct a similar firearm to the one Franklin Armory is selling. I defined it as "An AR15 type non-NFA firearm with a pistol grip, a vertical fore grip, a barrel shorter than 16" in length, not capable of mounting a stock, and an overall length greater than 26"."

I also inquired about the usage of the term "overall length" and how it is defined completely as well as if a muzzle device counts towards the OAL or not. I also asked if it needs to be permanently attached to count towards the overall length.

I also asked if you can mount a vertical foregrip on a normal pistol without classifying it as an AOW, but that's already been covered... But who knows, they may say yes!

I'll be sure to post the response when I get it in a separate thread in a couple months or however long it takes. Wonder if this one will go "viral" like the AFG one I wrote did.
Koshinn  [Member]
5/18/2011 4:52:45 PM
I sent them a long letter a couple weeks ago outlining why a pistol with a VFG is not an AOW. Haven't received a response yet, but I'll post it when I get it back.
FIGJAM  [Member]
5/18/2011 5:04:50 PM
Ok, you know what you're talking about on private rulings. I was wrong. Good on you.

In your arguments, did you use the Federal Court opinions or did you go based on the definitions themselves? Or did you use pistols with forearms are AOW under their interpretation? Or was it that concealed handguns are legal in most states thereby nullifying that aspect of AOW?

Koshinn  [Member]
5/18/2011 6:18:04 PM
Originally Posted By FIGJAM:
Ok, you know what you're talking about on private rulings. I was wrong. Good on you.

In your arguments, did you use the Federal Court opinions or did you go based on the definitions themselves? Or did you use pistols with forearms are AOW under their interpretation? Or was it that concealed handguns are legal in most states thereby nullifying that aspect of AOW?



Federal court opinions, definitions, and contradictions within their own rulings. For example, a flash hider has to be permanently welded to be considered part of the rifle's barrel. Shouldn't a VFG have to be similarly permanently attached to be considered a part of a pistol?

I'll post the full letter with the response when I get it.
jonathon  [Team Member]
5/22/2011 12:48:12 AM
Parts only have to be permanently attached to a rifle to make the barrel 16" or longer. OAL means the total length of the assembled weapon. Based on the given information, the VFG plays no role in determining whether or not the weapon is an other or a pistol. Rather the barrel length of less than 16", no shoulder stock, and an OAL of 26" or greater is the determining factor.
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/22/2011 2:21:01 PM

Originally Posted By jonathon:
Parts only have to be permanently attached to a rifle to make the barrel 16" or longer. OAL means the total length of the assembled weapon. Based on the given information, the VFG plays no role in determining whether or not the weapon is an other or a pistol. Rather the barrel length of less than 16", no shoulder stock, and an OAL of 26" or greater is the determining factor.

Right and yet wrong also. I am with you on the OAL formulation. However, A firearm can be over 26" and still be classified as a pistol, by adding a VFG to such a "pistol" you change the classification from pistol to firearm, but not an AOW.

If the pistol is less then 26" OAL, adding an VFG the ATF considers it an AOW, I am not in agreement with this because of the wording in the pistol definition, "originally designed". Adding a VFG does not change the "original" design. But, this is how the ATF currently views the addition and although the ATF has lost this argument in court a few times, it still seems bent on maintaining its position on this point. I personally don't want to spend the time and money it takes to fight it even if I do win the case in the end.

Funny thing is I don't personally like the VFG, it feels awkward to me. I guess it's ok to shoot from the hip like the old gangster movies, but I don't like it when fired from the shoulder.

franklinarmory  [Member]
5/24/2011 1:08:16 PM

Funny thing is I don't personally like the VFG, it feels awkward to me. I guess it's ok to shoot from the hip like the old gangster movies, but I don't like it when fired from the shoulder.


Yeah, we don't recommend using your shoulder either. It requires the shooter to scrunch up and it doesn't work well. Many RO's aren't too happy when they see it either. We have found that it is more comfortable to bring the buffer tube up to your cheekbone. With this technique, your sights line up well and you can index the firearm consistently. There isn't much recoil since that force would be moving perpendicular to the point of contact (...unless you're shooting a 450 BM variant...) and the forward grip really soaks up a lot of force anyway.

With these three points of contact, we can keep our 100 yard shots on a pie plate without a rest and just using an EO Tech. While the mechanical accuracy is much better that this, that's not bad for a11.5" barrel configuration.
moreguns4me  [Member]
5/24/2011 2:39:45 PM
I have a 12.5" barrel and a spikes carbeen length buffer tube wich brings me to a length of about 28.5" without my screw on comp. Here in Michigan we have to register as a pistol for being under 30". I have a CPL (CCW) from Michigan. Can I transport it in my backseat without the VFG, and when I get to the range install and use my VFG. Then before I put it back into my back seat , remove the VFG? Can I use a quick detach VFG for this?

VFG= vertical forward grip
iNeXile556  [Team Member]
5/24/2011 6:28:34 PM

Originally Posted By franklinarmory:

Funny thing is I don't personally like the VFG, it feels awkward to me. I guess it's ok to shoot from the hip like the old gangster movies, but I don't like it when fired from the shoulder.


Yeah, we don't recommend using your shoulder either. It requires the shooter to scrunch up and it doesn't work well. Many RO's aren't too happy when they see it either. We have found that it is more comfortable to bring the buffer tube up to your cheekbone. With this technique, your sights line up well and you can index the firearm consistently. There isn't much recoil since that force would be moving perpendicular to the point of contact (...unless you're shooting a 450 BM variant...) and the forward grip really soaks up a lot of force anyway.

With these three points of contact, we can keep our 100 yard shots on a pie plate without a rest and just using an EO Tech. While the mechanical accuracy is much better that this, that's not bad for a11.5" barrel configuration.
The shoulder comment was in regards to a rifle or SBR with a VFG. But, even on my 10.5 pistol the VFG is not to my liking, normal grip in the handguard and a cheekweld is just fine. If I'm shooting 50-100 yards I'm shooting a rifle or SBR and shouldering it. Anything over 100 is strictly rifle. You know, the right tool for the job and all...

I'm clear to a mile or so in my backyard so no RO to worry about.

I do like the look of a VFG, but for me the form does not follow function.

vanvideo  [Member]
6/14/2011 4:29:47 PM
Man, I SO WANT one of these!
Just so I can stick it to THE MAN!!

No, seriously, I want one just because it's a pistol (sorta) with a VFG. I already own the only other legal pistol with a VFG - the West Hurley Thompson A5. I might as well complete the collection.

And I can't wait for the ATF's response to the letter.