ipguy,
I understand your concern. But I doubt your "sea lawyering" is going to change things. I understand you have a significant stake in this, but you can't be overwhelmed by what you want to be the truth at the expense of the truth itself.

The ATF was asked about a specific shotgun. They replied about a specific shotgun. You cannot draw anymore conclusions than what they said about that particular shotgun.

If you want to know the legal rational, I strongly suggest you mail, snail mail mind you, the ATF and ask. Under the FOIA they'll have to provide you with the documentation. If you don't have pic hosting capabilities, I'll be happy to post it.

Here is my prediction. An imported semi-auto shotgun with a pistol grip and a capacity of greater than five rounds will be forbidden. An imported semi-auto shotgun with a pistol grip and a telestock, but a capacity of five rounds or less will be forbidden. An imported semi-auto shotgun with a standard stock and a capacity of greater than five rounds will be allowed. Why do I think this? Because this matches the current configuration of imported shotguns both before and after Sept 14th. Sept 14th changed nothing. See my post above.

I argued this before the collapsable stock nonsense started. I waited for M4 to get his letter back. His letter matched what I already suspected.

There was one poorly worded sentence in the letter, but the context of the letter is for the M1014.

As for Benelli, I doubt their lawyers had us in mind. I bet they asked the ATF if they could legally sell the stocks, which they can. I doubt they asked if it was legal for Joe Citizen to assemble the gun to have a telestock.

As for the condesention, oh well, we are all big boys here and it's the internet, so I highly suggest if people get offended to get over it as well. Am I being an asshole? Sure am, but I'm also tired of trying to argue with a brick wall, not you ipguy. I'm doing that here and at Benelli Forums(you know people like slu_med).

Quoted: dport, I disagree with your analysis of the ATF letter, and I believe the ATF letter is simply wrong.  But then, that's why we have these forums so that readers can draw their own conclusions after we fight it out over this.

Disagree away!

Your are a cautious man, and understandably so.  I should probably be more cautious myself.  However, I will say once again, there is nothing concrete that ATF is using to support its declaration that the identified modifications to the M4/M1014 are illegal.

Concrete that you have seen. Let me ask this. If it was legal to have a telestock on an M4 why isn't Benelli importing them this way? It's because it isn't legal. Just because we haven't seen the rulilng doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

925(d)(3) requires a determination that allows a comparison between what is "prohibited" with something that is "identical".  That  presupposes that there is some specific firearm, either by name or with reference to a complete feature set, that is prohibited from import because of a determination that it is non-sporting.  You are of the opinion that ALL imported semi-auto shotguns with pistol grips, extended mags, and telescoping stocks are illegal.  I have to ask: where are you reading this?  And don't tell me M4Madness' letter, because that ain't law, either in statute or regulation.

I NEVER said ALL imported semi-auto shotguns with pistol grips, extended mags, and telescoping stocks are illegal. Read my posts. I said that IMPORTED semi-auto shotguns with a pistol grip cannot have an extended mag. If it has a standard stock it is allowed. How do I know this? Simple look at the shotguns that the ATF allows into the country. What configuration are they in? In a previous post I provided links to two shotguns that are semi-auto have and extended magazine and are imported. We all know the Benelli M1 Practical is the third in this configuration. It is illegal to assemble a weapon that is identical to one that isn't allowed into the country without the required number of US made parts.

I know of nothing in writing that prohibits the importation of the M4/M1014 with all the "evil" features.  Until I hear otherwise, I am of the opinion that the ATF either: (a) doesn't know what it's talking about, or (b) is blowing smoke, because it knows it can influence firearm purchases and use merely by the power of a simple letter that completely lacks the most critical piece of information that we need, i.e. a specific determination of "non-sporting" for the M4/M1014.

Then why doesn't FN import their semi-auto with a pistol grip? Why doesn't Fabarms import their semi-auto with a pistol grip and extended magazine? Simple because they are not allowed. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for 5shot's comments, I believe they were right on point, and that your comments about him not "keeping up" were condescending.  No need for all that.  5shot's comments, and my own and perhaps  many others are because we want something legally specific about the M4/M1014, because we have exhausted our reading and analysis of 922(r), 925(d)(3), and regulation 478.39, and we are left with a gaping hole in the ATF position.  Are they holding something back?  Why?  If not, then it's simply not there, and our modified M4's are perfectly legal, because they're not "prohibited" under 922(r). I suppose there's nothing more to say on the issue other than "time will tell."

Simple if you have exhausted all known measures the WRITE THE ATF. ASK FOR THE SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON WHAT IS IMPORTABLE AND WHAT IS NOT. If they can't come up with something I agree with you, but they have rullings, I can guarantee it; otherwise, Benelli, FN, HK/Fabarms would be importing these shotguns with pistol grips and extended magazines. Hell, they have to change their guns to make them importable for the US. If they could just build from one production line it would be cheaper for them.

I won't even comment on statutes and what the BATF bases their decisions on, as I have no legal experience to speak of.

My opinion, though, is that if the BATF chooses not allow importation of the Benelli M1014 / M4 with a mag extension and telestock, then you will not legally be allowed to add these features regardless of if you did it between the '94 sunset and when a public ruling is issued. Say you convert one tomorrow and the BATF clarifies its position one week from today, stating that it is illegal to do so. You will have an illegal configuration and will have to convert it back into a legal configuration. There will not be any exemption (grandfathering) allowed, as this so-called "law" has been in effect since 1989. Just because an actual Benelli M1014 was not in existence in 1989 doesn't exclude it now. If it did, foreign shotgun manufacturers would  just design new shotguns now to circumvent the '89 "ban".

Again, that is just my opinion, and I have no legal jargon to back it up.

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.

Quoted: dport, just 3 quick comments, because it's late.  Just got back from the Toby Keith concert in New Orleans.  In a word: AWESOME!!!

Country music, YUCK!

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.

It's not how the ATF wants me to think. It's how I KNOW the .gov operates. We haven't seen the ruling because the ruling is issued to the firearms importers, not the general public. I've read the law and know who has the authority to make importation rulings. I know the AG delegates that responsibility to the director of the ATF. I also know the law does not require them to make those rulings public, but they are required to make them available on request.

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.

Have you seen the rulings on these guns? No, you haven't. So it must not exist right?You're contradicting yourself. According to you if you haven't seen it then it doesn't exist. Both the FN and the Fabarms shotguns were designed and built AFTER the 1989 ban and the 1994 ban. The ATF would be in the same postion with both of these guns. Yet, three different companies are not importing these guns in the configuration we would like to see.
BTW, have you ever seen the rulings that ban AK variants? The Styer USR? I haven't, but I know they exist.

Here's another question. Can you import a firearm without ATF approval? The answer is no. So any weapon built from imported parts that hasn't been ALLOWED by the ATF is by default ILLEGAL.

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.

Do you honestly think the ATF is going to sit tight and allow a "back door" importation of weapons they would otherwise not allow imported? I don't think so.

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?

This is the most telling paragraph of all. You would rather hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, then dig for the truth. I'll tell you this much I'm not going to sit by with my head in the sand. If you want to be an ostrich about this then go ahead.  

What does the ATF have to lose by responding with the truth? They certainly don't prosecute these violations unless there is another violation of Federal Law. They enforced the AWB what twice? And both of those were piggyback charges. I seriously doubt the ATF is going to prosecute. I haven't heard of them doing it yet. But my M1014 serves as a home defense gun. I don't want there to be any question about its legality should I ever have to use it in earnest. I certainly don't want some prosecutor trying to paint me as some nut that assembled a shotgun that the ATF doesn't allow imported.

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.

You you did write the ATF, at least indirectly.
You're still sea lawyering. To me it's painfully obvious you're hoping against hope that it is somehow legal by some loophole.

Was out of town, will just respond to the last post.

Quoted: It's not how the ATF wants me to think. It's how I KNOW the .gov operates. We haven't seen the ruling because the ruling is issued to the firearms importers, not the general public. I've read the law and know who has the authority to make importation rulings. I know the AG delegates that responsibility to the director of the ATF. I also know the law does not require them to make those rulings public, but they are required to make them available on request. Have you seen the rulings on these guns? No, you haven't. So it must not exist right?You're contradicting yourself. According to you if you haven't seen it then it doesn't exist. Both the FN and the Fabarms shotguns were designed and built AFTER the 1989 ban and the 1994 ban. The ATF would be in the same postion with both of these guns. Yet, three different companies are not importing these guns in the configuration we would like to see. BTW, have you ever seen the rulings that ban AK variants? The Styer USR? I haven't, but I know they exist.

If a Federal Ruling is not published in the Federal Register the Federal Court may not enforce it on the general public.  Therefore fear of prosecution is mute.

Quoted: Here's another question. Can you import a firearm without ATF approval? The answer is no. So any weapon built from imported parts that hasn't been ALLOWED by the ATF is by default ILLEGAL. Do you honestly think the ATF is going to sit tight and allow a "back door" importation of weapons they would otherwise not allow imported? I don't think so.

That was Congress's intent in writing 18 USC Section 922(r), to stop "back door" importation.  For example, at the time it was the B-West Type 56 variant.  The problem with prosecution of a 18 USC Section 922(r) violation is that the ATF has not published legal guides in the form of Regulation or Ruling defining what is meant by the terms "assemble" and "sporting" in the Federal Register.  Prior to the ATF doing this, then the courts can not prosecute a case involving someone "assembling" a firearm that is not "sporting", in that it is not possible for an individual to determine wether or not they are in violation just by looking at the Federal Register.  In other words we can (are) argue for weeks here about wether or not a particular firearm is "sporting" or not, but all argument will be based on information derived from sources other then the Federal Register and thus not something the courts would be able to consider.

Quoted: This is the most telling paragraph of all. You would rather hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, then dig for the truth. I'll tell you this much I'm not going to sit by with my head in the sand. If you want to be an ostrich about this then go ahead. What does the ATF have to lose by responding with the truth?

The idea that the ATF is the holder of the "truth" is as you say very telling.

Quoted: They certainly don't prosecute these violations unless there is another violation of Federal Law. They enforced the AWB what twice? And both of those were piggyback charges. I seriously doubt the ATF is going to prosecute. I haven't heard of them doing it yet.

I know of four people that were convicted of 18 USC Section 922(v) violations in the 10 years it was law, and yes they were "add on charges".  18 USC Section 922(r) has been law for 14 years, and no convictions, there is a reason for that.

Quoted: But my M1014 serves as a home defense gun. I don't want there to be any question about its legality should I ever have to use it in earnest. I certainly don't want some prosecutor trying to paint me as some nut that assembled a shotgun that the ATF doesn't allow imported.

Kinda off topic, but if you don't won't to be portrayed as a "nut" by a Federal Prosecutor then I would advice not to kill people with firearms.

Quoted: Do LE departments have an exemption from 922(r)?  I've seen M4s with working tele-stocks for sale in gun shops, and they are all marked "LE" right below the ejection port. "

Yes, police depts and military ARE EXEMPT from 922(r) !  They can have non-sporting imported semi-autos.

That is how they are legally imported.  But because of 922(r) they are still illegal for civilains to own.


The only way to be completely legal with a Benelli is to get the a letter from the ATF stating which
of the 20 "parts" pertain to the specific model of Benelli shotgun in question.  

Once you know how many of the 20 parts make up your Benelli, ( say it is 15 ) then all you have to do is switch out 5 of the imported parts with US made parts.  

Then the Benelli would be considered a "domestic" shotgun and not restricted by 922(r).

You can fight and squabble all you want but this IS the proper way for compliance.  Whoever makes US compliantr parts is going to make a nice chuck of change =)

LB

Quoted: Kinda off topic, but if you don't won't to be portrayed as a "nut" by a Federal Prosecutor then I would advice not to kill people with firearms.

Doesn't have to be a federal prosecutor, could be local. They don't have to charge you to bring something up in court.

Your advice on not to kill anyone with firearms is totally assinine. I didn't say I wanted to I just said should I have to.

Quoted: If a Federal Ruling is not published in the Federal Register the Federal Court may not enforce it on the general public.  Therefore fear of prosecution is mute.

Pet peeve of mine. It's not "mute." It's "moot." I love when people try to sound all legal and this screw this up.
Mute(as related to the courts):refusing to plead directly or stand trial
Moot(as related to the courts):deprived of practical significance; made abstract or purely academic


Like I said before, before any firearm is imported into this country the ATF has to approve it. They have to deem it suitable for sporting use. If it isn't imported then it is not approved, and therefore not an approved configuration. USMC_LB is exactly right about compliance.

I wonder if Kurt can machine some Benelli parts?

I going to lock this. I wanted to tack this so everyone could see the letter from BATF not for a food fight to start. Please check with a lawyer before making any mods on your gun. MIKE>

I going to lock this. I wanted to tack this so everyone could see the letter from BATF not for a food fight to start. Please check with a lawyer before making any mods on your gun. MIKE>