Were Benelli shotguns with enough "evil" features to be classified as an AW imported between '89 and '94? The reason I'm asking is to verify the legality of adding a working telestock and mag extension to my Benelli M1014 if the '94 ban sunsets. I understand the "American parts count" for foreign rifles such as AK variants to have them considered domestically made. But if Benelli was importing full-feature shotguns between the '89 and '94 bans, then I will be legal to build one after the sunset with no American parts. Anyone care to elaborate? Thanks.

I didnt know that the 89 imports ban had anything to do with shotguns...

The Benelli M3 with folding stock was discontinued after the 89 import ban.
That was a really cool shotgun, and was used in one of the Schwarzenegger movies.
Once the 89 ban happened, you couldn't buy them anymore.
They never imported just the folding stock part, so no conversions of regular M3's was possible.

I don't know if Benelli is producing the new 1014 shotgun in an American plant, or not. Sometimes there is a requirement to have the guns built in a US factory, to get a military contract. If it was built here, then you could do what you want with it.

My impression was the 89 ban just banned the importation of the weapons not the creation like the 94 ban did.

Quoted: I didnt know that the 89 imports ban had anything to do with shotguns...

The Franchi SPAS-12 was banned from importation in '89...

Benelli did import what could be called AW shotguns prior to '94, however that will not help you in this case.  The M1014 specifically was not imported at all (obviously it didn't exist back then) and therein lies your troubles.  Adding a telestock to the M1014 after the AWB sunsets would keep you safe from AW violations, but you'd still be in violation of the provisions of the '89 import ban.  Not the Bush executive order, but the subsequent  law barring one from converting an imported firearm into non-importable form: i.e. removing that thumbhole stock in favor of a military pistol grip and stock.  Adding a telestock to an M1014 would render that shotgun non-importable.  If you could, as you say, swap enough parts to make the whole firearm "dometically manufactured" then you'd be okay.  But finding any domestically made Benelli parts is going to prove impossible.

The reason I asked is that I recalled a thread that was in the AK forum a while back that stated it was LEGAL  to add "evil" features to AK variants such as the MAK-90 that were neutered and imported between '89 and '94 as long as it was done before the '94 ban. I argued that if it could not be imported, then it couldn't be assembled in an AW configuration. Many folks "in the know" told me that I was wrong.

So, my theory is that if Benelli was allowed to import shotguns in an AW configuration between '89 and '94, then I should be able to now if the '94 ban expires. Confusing, huh?

Quoted: The reason I asked is that I recalled a thread that was in the AK forum a while back that stated it was LEGAL  to add "evil" features to AK variants such as the MAK-90 that were neutered and imported between '89 and '94 as long as it was done before the '94 ban. I argued that if it could not be imported, then it couldn't be assembled in an AW configuration. Many folks "in the know" told me that I was wrong. So, my theory is that if Benelli was allowed to import shotguns in an AW configuration between '89 and '94, then I should be able to now if the '94 ban expires. Confusing, huh?

You can get away with it on rifles like AKs and FALs because there enough domestically produced parts on the market that you can make the '89 import ban non-applicable.  Not so easy to do on the Benelli.

Quoted: You can get away with it on rifles like AKs and FALs because there enough domestically produced parts on the market that you can make the '89 import ban non-applicable.  Not so easy to do on the Benelli.

No, the AK-thread discussion was about adding "evil" features to MAK-90 rifles before the '94 ban came about. The MAK-90's were neutered and imported between '89 and '94. No American-made parts were added. I'm pretty sure that the parts count was part of the '94 ban, but don't quote me on that. Anyway, I was told by "Ekie" and maybe even "Campybob" (among others) that you could have legally converted the neutered MAK-90's to AW configuration before the '94 ban, and not use domestic parts; just thread the barrel, add a pistol grip & stock, and go. I felt like if it couldn't be imported, then it couldn't be built here with foreign parts only.

I just want to be positive of the legality of adding a mag extension and working telestock to my Benelli M1014 if/when the '94 ban sunsets.

Quoted: Quoted: You can get away with it on rifles like AKs and FALs because there enough domestically produced parts on the market that you can make the '89 import ban non-applicable.  Not so easy to do on the Benelli. No, the AK-thread discussion was about adding "evil" features to MAK-90 rifles before the '94 ban came about. The MAK-90's were neutered and imported between '89 and '94. No American-made parts were added. I'm pretty sure that the parts count was part of the '94 ban, but don't quote me on that.

The definition of domestic vs. imported based on parts count was part of '68, as I recall.  

No, the AK-thread discussion was about adding "evil" features to MAK-90 rifles before the '94 ban came about. The MAK-90's were neutered and imported between '89 and '94. No American-made parts were added. I'm pretty sure that the parts count was part of the '94 ban, but don't quote me on that. Anyway, I was told by "Ekie" and maybe even "Campybob" (among others) that you could have legally converted the neutered MAK-90's to AW configuration before the '94 ban, and not use domestic parts; just thread the barrel, add a pistol grip & stock, and go. I felt like if it couldn't be imported, then it couldn't be built here with foreign parts only. I just want to be positive of the legality of adding a mag extension and working telestock to my Benelli M1014 if/when the '94 ban sunsets.

You are mixing up your laws here and some of your info is dangerously mistaken.  The '89 Import Ban was actually an executive order from Bush I to the ATF ordering them to cease importation approval of non-sporting AWs.  Shortly thereafter, a loophole was discovered, one could import the stripped receiver or bring the weapon in "sporterized," then legally swap it to military configuration  AFTER importation.  This was not illegal as the law read at the time. This lasted about a year until Nov 30, 1990 when 18 USC 922 (r) was enacted and went into effect to close this loophole.  922 (r) is what created what we know as the "parts count law."  
Regarding the AK variants, what I think you are referring to was the 1 year (basically '89-'90) where 922(r) did not exist and any AK or other AW-type weapon that was imported could legally be converted into military configuration.  In order to qualify as "legal," such a converted AK must have been imported in that year, after Bush's executive order and before 922(r) went into effect.  AKs that were imported AFTER Nov 30, 1990 MUST have had the requisite number of parts swapped out for U.S. Made Parts in order to legally remove the thumbhole stock in favor of a pistol grip and separate stock.   You should still be very suspicious of any imported AK variant that is in military configuration and does not have any U.S. parts in it.  922(r) is still in effect, it has no expiration date and unless the seller of such an AK can prove the importation date as falling into that '89-'90 period, it is likely illegal.

Regarding your M1014, it's the same law, same issue.  The AWB aside, you would be creating an unimportable, non-sporting shotgun by adding a telestock and would be in violation of 922(r).  Adding a mag extension after the AW ban expires would be okay as this does not effect it's importability.  Besides, Benelli  tightly controls those telestocks.  They do not sell them to dealers, let alone civilians at all and any LE or gov't entities wishing to add a telestock to their M1014 must send the gun to BenelliUSA for installation.  The telestock is not compatible with the M1 or M3 series.

Hope this helps.

Let me try to simplify what I said above...

I will use a MAK90 as an example, but it applies to all imported military-style firearms.

Prior to 1989: Wild West, do what you want, though most of them showed up in military dress.
1989: President Bush bans further importation of complete non-sporting military-style firearms.
1989-1990: You could import a receiver or partially-complete or "sporterized" military-style firearm and convert or build it into military configuration using any and all available parts, imported or otherwise.  This could include adding a collapsible or folding stock to your MAK90 or any other features desired.
1990: 922(r) goes into effect, ends the "build it here" loophole.
1990-1994: You could build or modify an imported "sporterized" firearm into military configuration as long as it had the requisite number of domestically made parts to qualify the complete firearm as "domestically manufactured."  You could still do whatever you wanted to your MAK90, you just had to have the U.S. parts count to accommodate it.
1994: Crime Bill is enacted, defines "Assault Weapon."
1994-2004: You can still build or modify your imported firearm, but are limited in what features you add to it, even with the proper number of U.S. made parts. You can no longer add a folding stock AND pistol grip to your MAK90 even with the proper number of U.S. made parts. You are limited to swapping out the thumbhole stock for a separate pistol grip/buttstock.
2004-beyond:  If the AWB expires, we will be exactly back at the 1990-1994 period.  You can continue to modifiy your MAK90, add whatever features you want, as long as the U.S. parts count is appropriate.

I hope this is easier to understand.  The parts count issue isn't going away and this is what is limiting you regarding your M1014.  Even if you could get the telestock, you would still have to come up with the U.S. parts to legally install it, whatever that count would be for a Benelli.

Homeinvader, thanks for clarifying a few issues. I do have a couple of questions/comments below your quote though.

Quoted: Regarding your M1014, it's the same law, same issue. The AWB aside, you would be creating an unimportable, non-sporting shotgun by adding a telestock and would be in violation of 922(r). Adding a mag extension after the AW ban expires would be okay as this does not effect it's importability. Besides, Benelli tightly controls those telestocks. They do not sell them to dealers, let alone civilians at all and any LE or gov't entities wishing to add a telestock to their M1014 must send the gun to BenelliUSA for installation.

Why does the addition of a mag extension not affect importability, while a telestock does? If they were able to import shotguns in an AW configuration right up until the '94 ban (as I've heard on this board), then they should have no problem importing them after the ban expires. I guess my best bet is to wait and see if Benelli offers a full-feature M4 Super 90 after the ban. If so, then I'll be able to purchase a working telestock. Otherwise, I'll add a mag extension and trash the faux telestock for a pistol-gripped stock.

I tried reading the following publication, but it was a lot of legalese.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/part178.pdf (I did not want to hot-link directly to the BATF.)

Some of the importation stuff is covered starting at the bottom of page #24 and there's also something on page #51.

"Sporting Purpose" is the ATF standard for importing. Very subjective, but it is based on a point system:  Physical features accumulate specific amounts of points, but they are not weighed evenly.  A folding stock weighs more negatively than a fixed magazine capacity, etc.  Is the firearm currently being used by any nations' armed forces?  Is the firearm being marketed to military or law enforcement in other countries?  These things also have a negative impact in considering an approval.

Regarding imported folding-stocked shotguns up until '94, the only one I can think of that fits that bill is the Benelli M3T, but I honestly don't remember when they stopped coming in.  It is decidedly an "Assault Weapon" due to the pistol grip and folding stock, but as far as its "sporting purpose," who knows? I do think that its convertible feature (it is both pump and semi-auto) helped get it in and the fact that it was never a military weapon.  ATF Import Branch goes so far as reviewing sales literature of a particular firearm when deciding whether or not to let it in.  In the case of the real M1014, as you are trying to acquire or build, the cards are stacked way against it.  It was designed and built at the request of the USMC, Benelli's own sales literature for the M1014 is designed for nothing other than military sales.  It is decidedly, and by Import law definition, a military firearm.  It would be very tough for Benelli to import these for civilian sales and that won't change with the AWB expiring.  They could manufacture it here to get around the import issues, as they do with the NFA-length M1 Super 90 Entry model, and they may well do so if they see profitable sales forecasts beyond the USMC.

Remember too that ATF Import Branch, like any other gov't department, has a culture that changes with each and every administration. Democrats or Republicans take power and create their own culture within the confines of the law.  At ATF, Firearm Import permits were more heavily scrutinized during Clinton, less so under Bush, then more so after 9/11.  All done within the confies of the law, just a matter or more tightly or loosely. The law regarding importing firearms has changed very little since 1990, but you'll notice huge fluctuations in what type and how many over the last 14 years.  This is simply due to changes in the political climate. What might have been approved for importation in '93, might not be today despite the fact that importation law hasn't changed.

Quoted: Regarding imported folding-stocked shotguns up until '94, the only one I can think of that fits that bill is the Benelli M3T, but I honestly don't remember when they stopped coming in.

Well, I forgot that I had a copy of the 1994 Gun Digest in my gun room. I just went and looked and on page 418 it shows the Benelli M3 Super 90 was still being imported in early '94. The description states that it had a 7-shot mag and folding stock and it also pictures this model.

It also shows a Franchi SPAS-12 with 7-shot mag on page 417, but lists only a fixed nylon stock. Maybe this is along the lines of what you said about no folding stock, but mag extension allowed. Who knows? Like I mentioned above, I guess the only thing I can really do is wait to see what Benelli offers after the expiration of the ban.

For everyone sake guys if your going to quote law please copy and paste what your referring to and provide a link just so were all crystal clear.

I was recently told by my local dealer and on another forum, that adding a mag extension to my Benelli M3 would be illegal yet had nothing to do with the 94' ban. I understand that a number of places sell the mag extensions, why do they sell them if it is illegal to install them?

Quoted: I was recently told by my local dealer and on another forum, that adding a mag extension to my Benelli M3 would be illegal yet had nothing to do with the 94' ban. I understand that a number of places sell the mag extensions, why do they sell them if it is illegal to install them?

Just because they're not legal on your M3 doesn't mean they wouldn't be legal on somebody's early M1.

I called BenelliUSA today. They said that the 2 shot extension will be legal to install on postban firearms after sept 14th. They also said that the 4 shot extension would be legal in October. I spoke to two different customers representative who said the same thing. I am not saying that this information is correct; it’s just what I was told. Other people have told me that the laws governing the magazine capacity on semi-auto shotguns is completely separate from to AWB. If anybody knows what the real deal is...please post the law if possible.
Thanks-Justin

Is the M1014 assembled here, or is it imported? My understanding was that it's assembled Stateside.

To address few of the above posts in one post...

The Benelli, being a semi-automatic shotgun is in fact governed by the AWB:
An Assault Weapon is defined as:
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Post bans can only have 1 of the above listed features. Pre-bans aside, obviously if you have a pistol grip AND a fixed mag of more than 5 rounds, you have a post-ban  AW.  They sell the mag extnesions because if you have a conventional stock only, you can any fixed mag capacity you want.  My IPSC post-ban M1 has a straight stock and a fized mag capacity of 10 rounds (holds 12 total) and is perfectly legal. Vice versa, if you have the pistol grip installed, you cannot have a mag capacity of more than 5 rounds.  It's a trade off, either/or but not both in this case. At least until the ban expires.  A telestock is obviously a no-no as it has a built-in pistol grip, 2 features and you have an AW.

I'm not sure why Benelli would say it'll be okay to put the 2-shot extension on after Sept 14.  It's legal now, has been since '94.  Maybe you misunderstood him?  The 2-shot extension is what comes on all post-ban pistol gripped M1s already.  You have 3 in the tube under the handguard, the 2-shot extension brings you to 5, which is the legal mag limit.  Remember too that the law governs mag capacity, not gun capacity.  You are prefectly okay to do the 1 + 1+ 5 arrangement on Post Bans:  1 in the tube, 1 on the elevator and 5 in the mag.  In the end, you'd be wise NOT to listen to Benelli customer reps about the law.  It's not their job.  Call ATF if you have a question or better yet, write to them with a detailed question about your particular issue.  They will respond in writing and you'll have that letter as proof that what you did is okay.

Benelli M1014/M4s are made in Italy and imported.  Even if they were assembled here, it would still be considered an imported gun.  Labor has no bearing on whether it is "imported" or not, at least for firearms.  A gun imported fully assembled is percisely the same thing legally as if it were assembled here out of imported parts, no difference whatsoever.  Benelli would have to at the very least manufacture enough parts in the US that when installed into the M4 would legally render it domestically manufactured.

Regarding putting a telestock on your pre-ban M1, as someone suggested above:  First off, it's not compatible.  The M1014 telestock simply won't fit the M1 or M3 due to differences in the recoil spring tube and plunger.  A good gunsmith might be able to modify it, but that brings me to the next point. Despite the fact that your M1 might be pre-ban, a telestock on it would violate 18 USC 922(r), you are building a non-importable shotgun.  You might be safe from the AWB, but 922(r) is here to stay, it has no expiration.

Believe me, if Benelli could sell these telestocks, they would.  The problem is that there is no legal way to use them and they know that.   To sell them anyway, leave it up to us to obey the law just invites ATF or civil litigation.  They don't need that.  They sell pistol gripped stocks and mag extnesions because there are legal ways to use these and still stay within the law, as I said above.  The same is not true of the telestocks.  They either violate the AWB right now on post-ban guns or 922(r) on all Benelli guns.

My Benelli M1014 has a 5-shot mag tube from the factory, with a red 1-shot plug installed to lower it to 4. Removing the plug and adding the 2-shot extension would bring my mag capacity up to 7, which is currently a "no-no" with my pistol grip.

Quoted: My Benelli M1014 has a 5-shot mag tube from the factory, with a red 1-shot plug installed to lower it to 4. Removing the plug and adding the 2-shot extension would bring my mag capacity up to 7, which is currently a "no-no" with my pistol grip.

That's why I put a standard shotgun stock on mine. I prefer firepower to pistol grips.

Quoted: To address few of the above posts in one post... The Benelli, being a semi-automatic shotgun is in fact governed by the AWB: An Assault Weapon is defined as: (D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of - (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine. Post bans can only have 1 of the above listed features. Pre-bans aside, obviously if you have a pistol grip AND a fixed mag of more than 5 rounds, you have a post-ban  AW.  They sell the mag extnesions because if you have a conventional stock only, you can any fixed mag capacity you want.  My IPSC post-ban M1 has a straight stock and a fized mag capacity of 10 rounds (holds 12 total) and is perfectly legal. Vice versa, if you have the pistol grip installed, you cannot have a mag capacity of more than 5 rounds.  It's a trade off, either/or but not both in this case. At least until the ban expires.  A telestock is obviously a no-no as it has a built-in pistol grip, 2 features and you have an AW. I'm not sure why Benelli would say it'll be okay to put the 2-shot extension on after Sept 14.  It's legal now, has been since '94.  Maybe you misunderstood him?  The 2-shot extension is what comes on all post-ban pistol gripped M1s already.  You have 3 in the tube under the handguard, the 2-shot extension brings you to 5, which is the legal mag limit.  Remember too that the law governs mag capacity, not gun capacity.  You are prefectly okay to do the 1 + 1+ 5 arrangement on Post Bans:  1 in the tube, 1 on the elevator and 5 in the mag.  In the end, you'd be wise NOT to listen to Benelli customer reps about the law.  It's not their job.  Call ATF if you have a question or better yet, write to them with a detailed question about your particular issue.  They will respond in writing and you'll have that letter as proof that what you did is okay. Benelli M1014/M4s are made in Italy and imported.  Even if they were assembled here, it would still be considered an imported gun.  Labor has no bearing on whether it is "imported" or not, at least for firearms.  A gun imported fully assembled is percisely the same thing legally as if it were assembled here out of imported parts, no difference whatsoever.  Benelli would have to at the very least manufacture enough parts in the US that when installed into the M4 would legally render it domestically manufactured. Regarding putting a telestock on your pre-ban M1, as someone suggested above:  First off, it's not compatible.  The M1014 telestock simply won't fit the M1 or M3 due to differences in the recoil spring tube and plunger.  A good gunsmith might be able to modify it, but that brings me to the next point. Despite the fact that your M1 might be pre-ban, a telestock on it would violate 18 USC 922(r), you are building a non-importable shotgun.  You might be safe from the AWB, but 922(r) is here to stay, it has no expiration. Believe me, if Benelli could sell these telestocks, they would.  The problem is that there is no legal way to use them and they know that.   To sell them anyway, leave it up to us to obey the law just invites ATF or civil litigation.  They don't need that.  They sell pistol gripped stocks and mag extnesions because there are legal ways to use these and still stay within the law, as I said above.  The same is not true of the telestocks.  They either violate the AWB right now on post-ban guns or 922(r) on all Benelli guns.

Well - you beat me before I could correct my post because I remembered that assembly doesn't constitute manufacture. The parts would have to be fabricated Stateside to make them legal on a post-'89 firearm. The only legal way to have a 7-shot tube on the M1014 is to have a straight stock. No other way. Thankyou GB, Sr.

Homeinvader did an excellent job answering your questions, not very often that you find a guy that has spent that much time on this subject.

Only find two things to nit pick on Homeinvader's posts:

"The '89 Import Ban was actually an executive order from Bush I to the ATF ordering them to cease importation approval of non-sporting AWs."

Imports were restricted by the Administration, but not thru something as formal as a EO.

"The law regarding importing firearms has changed very little since 1990, but you'll notice huge fluctuations in what type and how many over the last 14 years."

The law is 18 USC section 925(c)(3), and has not changed since 1968.  The application of this Code has changed though.

M4Madness:

The subject matter is very convoluted, best bet to get up to speed is to read both 18 USC section 922(r) and 18 USC section 925(c)(3), and put the two together.

Quoted: Homeinvader did an excellent job answering your questions, not very often that you find a guy that has spent that much time on this subject. Only find two things to nit pick on Homeinvader's posts: "The '89 Import Ban was actually an executive order from Bush I to the ATF ordering them to cease importation approval of non-sporting AWs." Imports were restricted by the Administration, but not thru something as formal as a EO. "The law regarding importing firearms has changed very little since 1990, but you'll notice huge fluctuations in what type and how many over the last 14 years." The law is 18 USC section 925(c)(3), and has not changed since 1968.  The application of this Code has changed though. M4Madness: The subject matter is very convoluted, best bet to get up to speed is to read both 18 USC section 922(r) and 18 USC section 925(c)(3), and put the two together.

I didn't mean to say that it was an offical rose-garden signed Executive Order that instigated the '89 ban, but a "order from the executive" to the ATF to halt further approval of suspect Form 6 Import Permits.  Clinton's import ban which halted importation of the "assault pistols"  was a bonafide, formal Executive Order.

As far a the law changing since '90, you are parcing an "ing."  Laws governing "importing" have not changed since '68, true, but the laws governing "imported" have and that is what I was refering to.  

I gotta keep my cred here.  It's all I have.