dport, just 3 quick comments, because it's late. Just got back from the Toby Keith concert in New Orleans. In a word: AWESOME!!!
1. Your line of thinking on this is precisely how ATF wants you to think. Most people, like yourself, would rather take the government's word for it, and just assume that they have the authority to do things, and that what they say is correct. Your comment of "Just because we haven't seen the ruling doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is classic. Even though we cannot find anything under a criminal statute or implementing regs that supports ATF's position on this, I'm sure they know what they're doing, so we better not do anything that makes them mad or questions whether it's right. That is the insidiousness of gun control and federal agencies that are charged with enforcement. Once people are convinced that ATF is right all the time, even though our logic and reason and the law tells us otherwise, we prematurely give up rights and change our behavior. A Kerry administration will expound upon this in ways that one can only imagine.
2. But the 2 guns you mentioned, the FN and Fabarm, are specifically mentioned by ATF and have already been the subject of "non-sporting" rulings, right? Not the M4/M1014. That would seem to be a key distinction.
3. You asked why Benelli has not been importing M4/M1014's with all the evil features. You say, because it is not legal. You took two huge steps there. First, we disagree whether it is illegal. I think it is legal. But, these started off as military guns, and so importation for civilians in a "diluted" form may well have been a conscious decision on Benelli's part. As I've stated elsewhere, perhaps Benelli simply wanted to stay under the radar and not force an issue with ATF by trying to import the full-featured military version for civilians. I mean, the AWB was in effect for the last 10 years, so it would have been pointless for Benelli to do this anyway. So, the non-importation of a telestock version (after expiration of the AWB) was not necessarily because of an internal Benelli conclusion of illegality; could have been an entirely unilateral decision not to tempt fate. This makes great sense to me.
4. I'm not going to write the ATF for legal guidance on ANYTHING. Frankly, I would never do that, and I wish that the request letter never was sent, or that at least it could have been drafted in a manner to box ATF in, and prevent them from making such broad and unsupported conclusions. It was an open door for ATF to say, "Oh yeah, those M4/M1014's? Yeah, those are all illegal; you can't modify them that way." Seriously, what does ATF stand to lose by responding in that manner?
It is because of all this, and the ATF letter, that I sent my FOIA request last week. I asked for all documents between ATF and Benelli (USA or Italy) relating to the M1, M3, and M4. Of course, whatever I get, I will forward to the group.