![]() That aside I don't think anyone here is trying to cash in on your coupon. Any manufacture can make these firearms without a letter, legal is legal. 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. As the founder of SoCal Image, a stock photo warehousing company, I am well versed in copyright laws. 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. 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. It is much like taking a scan or photo of say, the Mona Lisa, and selling it because you have the "copyright". The scan, while an image, does not contain any intellectual or artistic property that belongs to the person doing the scanning. View QuoteActually a scan of a letter is not protected by copyright unless you are the author of the letter. The XO-26 will probably not be an exception. There are several manufacturers (that will remain unnamed) that have copied what Franklin Armory has done in the past. (.Which we still have not gotten back yet.) 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. Individuals are welcome to make a copy for their personal use. The intent of posting this document was to make it available to the 2A rights community. 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. Since the copyright itself required typeset and scanning "artwork," it is indeed copyright-able. It was not authored by them, it is not in their words nor is it a work for hire. Here's the url for those interested in what the letter was pertaining to.įranklin has no copyright claim to this letter. However, should they yank it or complain, I will archive it and make available as necessary. I only will provide the link because they claim copyright (for commercial purposes only). ![]() Nothing ground shaking here but it's an interesting letter. ![]() I'm surprised it's not here already considering the desire of those with OAL of 26" and greater to have a forward grip. Linky to Franklin Armory's overall length of =>26" is not a handgun or a pistol for the purposes of extra grips. 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'. 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. However, I think they got it wrong in your letter and right in the letter after yours. 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. 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. 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. 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. Now, right or wrong, this is my thinking. 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. 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. 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |