Talk:U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Company

Court decision

The Supreme Court decision protects the individual's right to bear arms. To set the issue in historical context, since before the Declaration of Independence, gun builders and gun users had presumed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights protected this right. The relevance to the gun builders today is that the Supreme Court has vindicated this presumption of right. The Decision is as relevant to gun builders as it is to the individual who would choose to exercise this freedom. To say the Supreme Court decision is not relevant to gun builders is to fail to recognize that it is gun builders who produce those guns.Newportm (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Any Supreme Court decision can ultimately impact a business in some way. This particular decision did not even involve gun manufacturers. It involved an individual who wanted to possess a gun in the District of Columbia. If the business that is the subject of a wikipedia article is not a party to the lawsuit, the connection is very tenuous and discussion of the Supreme Court decision is best placed under a page devoted to the opinion itself See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller Does the Heller decision ultimately affect a gun manufacturer? Possibly, in that sales may possibly increase in the District of Columbia. Is the Heller decision relevant to an article devoted to one specific gun manufacturer who is a non-party to the suit? No. This article is about the U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co., not the Second Amendment. Nightkey (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 ; == Historic United States Supreme Court Decision ==
"In a failed effort to reduce crime in its city, Washington, D.C. enacted in 1976 what effectively became an outright ban on firearms. Citizens sued and the issue escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The individual's right to keep firearms for lawful purposes, as by a lawful citizen in his home, had never before been placed before the Court. Since the time of the American Old West, and before, firearms manufacturers and citizens presumed that the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights secured this right. Others, including some Supreme Court Justices in the minority, opined that this right was related to service in a militia. Since the Court had never before definitively interpreted this aspect of Americans' Constitutional rights, legal scholars and experts working in this field seized the opportunity to analyze the issue in the context of legal history from before the Declaration of Independence to the date of hearing before the Court.
"On 26 June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights conferred by the Second Amendment. Associated Press described this as the first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history. The New York Times wrote that the Court's 5-4 ruling decided that "there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense." The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre noted in his blog that the Court's decision stated that some gun control laws might be acceptable, while a complete ban is unsupported. The Supreme Court has done its part to help keep part of United States history alive; this decision benefits not only the individual but also the gun-building minor fraction of American industry. U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co. issued a press release in support of the decision."

(Copy of disputed section.) — Athaenara ✉ 19:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The D.C. v Heller decision upholds the individual's right to bear arms, which impacts the class of gun manufacturers in the sense that manufacturers only exist within the legal framework of the Second Amendment, now clarified by this decision. This situation is similar to the impact of Prohibition's repeal (the removal of a different absolute ban) on brewers and distillers. For instance, the Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) page illustrates a specific company's response to Prohibition, and its response to its repeal. The upholding of the individual's rights to bear arms is different from Prohibition's impact on brewers because it has not been established how D.C. v Heller has impacted a specific member of the class of gun manufacturers, although it clearly benefits the class, as did the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In the wake of D.C. v Heller, other cities' absolute bans will likely fall, individual freedoms will be upheld, and this will continue to benefit the class of gun manufacturers.

The disputed section offers a synopsis of the decision and illustrates the impact of D.C. v Heller on U.S. Fire Arms only in a tangential way, by virtue of U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.'s issuance of a press release in support of the decision. It does not directly address any other specific action of the company, or of any other individual gun company's actions, in the wake of the decision. Yet D.C. v Heller is important to anyone investigating the topic of gun manufacturers, or specific manufacturers, even specific guns, in American society in 2008 and beyond.

How would editors feel about placing this synopsis of D.C. v Heller, along with a link to the District of Columbia v. Heller page, into a "Further Reading" section on this page? Newportm (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For instance, see the pared-down section "Further reading" on the page now... Newportm (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See also: Chicken or the egg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newportm (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Commenting here per the request placed at WP:3O. As I see it, the concern is whether the recent Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller is pertinent enough to the company in this article for a section to be included. From my point of view, the criteria for inclusion would be that the case had a direct effect upon the company itself, as in the company performed some action in response to the case before it opened, during the case, or as a result of the case. Yes, the case has importance in relation to gun production and ownership in the United States, but that does not necessarily mean that inclusion of the case is relevant in all gun-related articles. Currently, there is a mention that the company posted a press release in support of the case, which would be suitable for inclusion. Also remember that when including details, it is necessary not to give undue weight to the case within the scope of the article. Background information is fine but it should be succinct. As such, I am not sure whether an entire section is warranted unless the company made a significant response to the case. If this is the case, then a section would be appropriate, but otherwise, a mention of any of the company's responses to the case would be the appropriate weight that should be given. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate to list patent/trademark lists?

A significant portion of this article is just a list of patents and trademarks held by USFA. I really haven't seen that kind of list in any other article, and I believe that it's not really encyclopedic material. It goes into far more detail than is generally needed in an encyclopedia article. I could see an external link to "Patents held by USFA" or whatnot, but as-is it adds considerable bulk to the article, and isn't anything that anyone (outside a very serious enthusiast) would have any need for. Recommend removing this material. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted some of your changes. Replies on these: The DC v Heller notation is significant in this article because USFA was the only firearms maker in the USA to issue a press release on the decision. Kindly refer to the foregoing talk page section. The See also sections link to topics closely related to the historic period of the company's production and contemporary enthusiasm for their recollection and preservation. Thank you for your interest. Please keep up the good work. Newportm (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. It would be appropriate to have statement like "USFA was the only US firearms maker to comment on XYZ", however summarizing the Heller and Lawful Commerce acts is really not immediately applicable to USFA, and basically just duplicates info found elsewhere. Further, linking to the "Gunfight at the OK Corral" also doesn't seem pertinent, as USFA revolver were not used in said event. Should the Colt article, Uberti article, Ruger, Cimmarron, etc. articles all have links to the OK Corral article because they make guns resembling guns of the period? Most of your links and "See also"s make sense, but many are really a stretch and detract from your other, more applicable, links. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You wrote, "It would be appropriate to have statement like "USFA...to comment on XYZ," yet you did not make that edit. Rather, you deleted. I encourage you to improve the article with your full artillery of talents; deletion is a simple option, but perhaps not the best one. Gunfight at the OK Corral is perhaps one of the most commonly reenacted Old West events, and USFA guns are popular not only for their precision manufacturing, but for their historical accuracy, a distinguishing feature of USFA guns. You're doing good work. Newportm (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MatthewVanitas that the list of patents and trademarks seems unnecessary in this article, and I support its removal. The "Further Reading" section also seems out of place, as it deals with the gun manufacturing industry in general, rather than this manufacturer specifically. If, as mentioned above, USFA is in a unique situation relative to one of these legal cases, that should be incorporated into the article. (I'd add it myself, but I know nothing about this manufacturer other than what I've learned from this article. cmadler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the industry of manufacturing reproductions of products for which patent protection has expired, the use of a trademarked name provides identity to the product which distinguishes it from similar products. A closer look at the list of trademarks shows that many were historical marks not renewed by their holder, which would otherwise have disappeared into history. USFA appears to have been acquiring such marks and making these historic products available again for those interested in their history. This seems to be a primary mission of this company since they are not making otherwise non-descript product. The company's attention to history is documented by the list of marks, which is an encyclopedic listing of them. These are a real pain to look up by the way, so showing them in one place is a great accomodation to research. Newportm (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, look at Colt's Manufacturing Company; no lengthy list of patents there. I'd say there are few to no articles in Wikipedia which have lists like you relate. That's not to say that such a list is not useful, but is is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, and more appropriate to a website specifically analyzing the history of USFA. Likewise, as several people have stated above, the "Further reading" about legal acts is not necessary, as those acts are not inherent aspects of USFA. I removed them because they simply don't need to be there. If you think it's appropriate to mention, somewhere in the article, that USFA released a single press statement about a piece of legislation, by all means include that. Adding an entire paragraph to cover the issue, which is already covered in copious detail, is unnecessary. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The two problems here are that the article doesn't really explain the relevance of the trademarks, and that it smacks of original research. Find a source discussing USFAMC's aquisition of trademarks, and add it to the text of the article. cmadler (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Modernizing production section of the article treats the company's pursuit of historic products for manufacture; how expanded do you think that should be. Enthusiasts familiar with the period's history recognize the marks. The Maxim mark is one of these. Have you ever used a mouetrap? Thank Hiram Stevens Maxim, whose son, Hiram Percy Maxim, not only invented the Maxim Silencer, but also founded the national amateur radio association, ARRL, still located adjacent to Hartford in Newington, CT. Most automobiles have mufflers, for which you can also thank Hiram P. Maxim. These people and their inventions have touched many lives yet they are just part of the history of the Industrial Revolution that was written in Hartford. To me this seems not to be original research but instead WP:OBVIOUS Newportm (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Though your point is good, the way you address it is not encyclopedic. If you were to have a few sentences in the larger article that said "USFA has focused their product line on reproductions of historically significant firearms which have fallen out of production. Such products include reproductions of the Colt Woodsman .22LR semi-automatic pistol, and the Hiram Maxim suppressor.", that would be useful information and totally valid. Listing out a lengthy list of patents with no context as to why a casual reader should note their importance doesn't really add to the article. The article is not about Hiram Maxim, it is not about mufflers, it is not about gun legislation, it is not about the OK Corral. It is about USFA, and any content not about USFA should be omitted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're getting it; by acquiring the trademarks, the company makes not reproductions, but the thing known by that mark--the very thing itself. You have good ideas. I think that one of the most fascinating things about Wikipedia is the ability to hyperlink to related areas of knowledge so other people can explore interrelationships. Someone who is not interested in Old West historical reenactment is not obligated to click to the gunfight at the OK Corral; like a book on the shelf, it's available for an interested party. It's not a link to a story about the kind of gun MacArthur carried; that would be a longer stretch, more relevant to revolver, not so much Old West. Most of the people interested in these historic products are interested in Old West history, and the link is there to provide easy access to that history. When you prune away interrelationships, what's lost is perspective, interest, context, and relevance. Newportm (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning USFA reintroducing the Woodsman, etc. is pertinent. The lengthy lists are not, however, pertinent. I'd recommend you summarize some key points from the list and incorporate it into the article. You could then wiki-link those concepts to articles about the originals as appropriate. I still disagree with your point about the OK Corral: yes, Wikipedia is like a big shelf. However, if someone wants to read about the OK Corral they can 'search for the term. Or, if the OK Corral is highly pertinent to an article about USFA, it can be mentioned and wiki-linked within the article itself. If we encourage people to simply toss up tangentially related links in a "See Also", then the article about Jamaican cuisine would have a huge list to articles about culinary schools, reggae music, and the history of the sugarcane industry. You are corret that links are very helpful, but they are only helpful when they are specific to an article, and not "things that someone reading this article might conceivably find interesting.

Again, I highly recommend that you remove the "Further Reading" section about gun law, and remove the list of patents and trademarks. Such info from those as is directly applicable to USFA would be great to see, wiki-linked, within the body of the article itself. I could do it myself, but since you've already reverted it I wanted to make sure we all come to an agreement rather than simply revert things back and forth. I believe Cmadler agrees with me on many of these issues. If you need fresh eyes for an opinion, I suggest we mention this in the WP:Firearms project page and ask a few folks to come by and weigh in to reach a larger consensus. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Further Reading section disputed:

Further reading

Study of gun manufacturing in the United States today is informed by two recent legal and legislative actions. On the legal front, specifically addressing the individual's right to bear arms, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an outright ban on firearms in a 26 June 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller. This decision clarified the individual's civil rights under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights for the first time in United States history, benefitting not only the individual whose freedom was protected, but also the manufacturer, whose existence depends on interpretation of the Second Amendment. On the legislative front, the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 eliminated gun manufacturers' legal liability from prosecution for criminal misuse of guns they manufactured.

Footnotes for further reading

I clipped it here but left in the See also reference to DC v Heller which includes a footnote to the company's press release on the decision. I believe this removal helps narrow the focus of the article, which you mention as being too-inclusive of additional material.

The tables I made collapsible to reduce their bulk on the page, yet keep that information handy for research. Thank you for your collaboration. Newportm (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas, how would you like to write something about the Woodsman? Newportm (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Demonstration heavy edit

Your shrinking down the lists is an interesting idea; I still think they are redundant, but at least this way they aren't cluttering, so we can count that as a fair compromise.

I still believe there are significant legibility issues, and that the footnotes are far too extensive to be easily digested. I'm going to make some major mods, not to be hostile, but to demonstrate how I believe parts of the article can be better brought into line with Wikipedia standards, particularly in terms of wiki-linking information (such as the history of Colt) rather than re-stating in within the article. Rather than simply reverting my changes, I'd appreciate it if you could compare them side by side and dispute or change individual points rather than revert. There's no point in us getting involved in revert wars, and I'll likewise refrain from simply reverting your edits, instead bringing up the issues here for debate. If we hit an impasse, we can bring in more folks from WP:Firearms to give opinions. Works for you too? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit diff left the section on Representative commissions with somewhat redundant paragraphs. I gave that section some help. Newportm (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Does every gun this company produces need its own Wiki article?

The category [Category:U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.] lists a number of Wiki articles on firearms made by the US Fire Arms Manufacturing Co, and I'm really not sure they're necessary, as they all appear to be versions of the Colt Single Action Army and not really that different from one another in any major respect. As per WP:GUNS#Variants, it would seem better that the articles could be better condensed into a single article- U.S. Fire Arms Manufacturing Co. revolvers, for example. Any thoughts? Commander Zulu (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been nearly a week with no response; at this stage I'm increasingly of the opinion the individual gun articles are a form of advertising and qualify for deletion on those grounds, unless someone has a compelling reason as to how the USFA revolvers are noticeably (and in some tangible way that the "average reader" is going to care about) different from every other Colt Single Action Army reproduction on the market? Commander Zulu (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the individual USFA gun articles at AfD; the nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USFA Custer Battlefield Gun. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Licensing agreement

This article cites a 2007 press release from USFA that it would produce for Remington Arms several historic products. This agreement is dead, according to USFA via telephone. That's original research, so I can't post it in the article; not sure what to do about the related sentence in the article. It is consequently merely a historical footnote. Suggestions? Newportm (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't consider it OR to acknowledge that an agreement supposedly reached in 2007 hasn't yet eventuated, which allows the reader to draw the same conclusions. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we still need some documentation that it hasn't happened. cmadler (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The lack of reproduction Remington Arms being made by USFA would be pretty clear evidence of that, I think. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point is: how do we know they're not making Remington reproductions? If it hasn't been mentioned somewhere else, it's OR. cmadler (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The USFA website does not list any Remington reproduction arms for sale- they're all Colt Peacemaker or M1911 copies, as far as I can see. That seems to be pretty clear evidence they're not making copies of any of the Remington arms, I'd say. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

I reverted an edit a few weeks ago by an anonymous IP that added a plaintext URL to the body of the article, which in addition I felt constituted original research. This revert was in turn reverted by an anonymous IP, who then proceeded to add a paragraph arguing for why the user felt another separate article should be made. I have just now reverted both to the earlier version.

I feel pretty confident in saying both these reverts were justified. Anonymous IP user, if you'd like to argue your case here please do so. Will the Great (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, anonymous IP user - take a glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style when you get a chance. Will the Great (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)