User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 7:38:17 AM EDT
[#1]
The law is vague and open to interpretation - naturally, two schools of thought result 1) vagueness is a loophole and 2) vagueness is all-encompassing. Then, the bickering begins.
Despite the differences of interpretation, we all want the same thing...to legally own a Benelli M4 with collapsing stock and two-shot extension. The fact that there even exists a controversy is ridiculous: M1014 specs from Benelli web site, etc.: 18.5" barrel 39.5" long w/ stock extended 35" long with stock collapsed 7 shot magazine with 2-shot extension Gentlemen, we are NOT talking about a SBS or an AOW (which are, by the way, completely legal when registered with the BATF), we are NOT talking about an AR-15 with 100-round capacity (completely legal now that the ban has expired)...we ARE talking about a fairly long, somewhat cumbersome semi-auto shotgun that is all but identical in size and function to a similarly spec'd (and completely legal, by the way) Remington or Mossberg. If it's about the BATF playing politics with imports, I don't see the rationale in that either. First, Italy supplies our troops with its fine weapons. And, second, Italy is an unwaivering ally in the war on terrorism. Again, this whole thing is just ridiculous. I'm not choosing sides in the argument, but it is significant that Benelli customer service reps are repeatedly telling everyone that asks that creating an M4 in proper configuration (collapsing stock and 2-shot extension) has been examined by their lawyers and deemed legal under Federal Law (their web site states this as well). Benelli is not a small-time business, and it is certainly not a novice at interpreting Federal Law. Therefore, if anyone is ever prosecuted for configuration violation under Federal Law, Benelli has more than opened itself up to a serious lawsuit. Like everyone else here, I just hope this whole thing gets put to bed with a clear and definitive answer....SOON.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 8:14:01 AM EDT
[#2]
well said brother
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 8:42:50 AM EDT
[#3]
I don't want to bicker, but I am interested in seeing all sides of this debate.
I am trying to find out: what is fact, what is fiction, and what is opinion. I am trying to find out: what is black, what is white, and where the shades of grey are. There is alot to learn and this site has tons of good info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 9:13:53 AM EDT
[#4]
Healthy debates are good. So far these are the interpretations from our board members to the ATF rules. Now we need something from the official. I would like to see another Letter from: Chief, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Firearms Technology Branch, Room 6450 650 Massachusettts Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20226 The Chief, Curtis Bartlett, whom I talked to back in 2002 that I am not sure if he is still there. The lady at Benelli sounds very nice and friendly. But we need something from Benelli in writing. An official released statement from Benelli. Can we get both? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 11:31:29 AM EDT
[#5]
why doesnt everyone just call benelli explain to them whats going on here and ask for someone to check out the website maybe post a response....I mean I did it the lady was very nice and helpful...im sure if they got a few of those calls in a day it would spark something
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 12:32:08 PM EDT
[#6]
We had three or four threads about this on Benelli's website. And they were mute on the subject. I think some people even tried calling, but I'm not sure.
What I settled on was a configuration similar to the FN autoloader, which is also imported: extended mag and standard stock. I can point to several shotguns imported in that config, so I feel comfortable modifying my M1014 in this manner. I would prefer a true M1014, but I'll take what I can get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 12:58:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Okay, I did it. I started a new thread on the Benelli site with a very specific request to Benelli, and linking to this specific discussion.
Benelli site and thread on legality of M4/M1014 I've done all I can do now, so get some popcorn and let's see what transpires from here, and whether Benelli is willing to provide much-needed clarification on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 1:21:36 PM EDT
[#8]
How long has the BATF been in business?  I'm just saying that I'd rather trust someone who "makes" the law (if you can call it that) than someone who thinks they know what it is. 1. A shotgun with a telescoping stock or a magazine greater than 5 rounds is prohibited from importation into the United States under the provisions of section 925(d)(3) of Title 18, United states code (U.S.C.). 2. ASSEMBLY of such a shotgun from imported parts is prohibited under 18, U.S.C. Section 922(r). According to 925(d)(3), you CANNOT import a shotgun that has a mag extension or telescoping stock. According to 922(r), you CANNOT convert a shotgun from imported parts into a shotgun that is prohibited from importation. The loophole is to use enough US-made parts for the shotgun to be considered domestic. For example, AK-47 rifles cannot be imported with pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, or folding stocks. They CAN be imported with neutered barrels and thumbhole stocks. Once stateside, they can be converted to the unimportable configuration BECAUSE they add 6 US-made parts to get down to the allowed 10 import parts.
I would assume that it would be legal due to the fact that you are only allowed "one" evil feature. In this case, the mag extension would be the only one present.
I tried last year to get a statement from Benelli. I believe that they refuse to do so because they know the answer (and it won't be the one we want.) I'll tell you what, guys. I'll contact the "higher-up" person at Benelli who originally requested a faxed copy of the BATF letter from me. I still have their contact info. EDIT: Okay, I just sent an e-mail to the gentleman. If/when I get a reply, I will post the contents here. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 1:38:46 PM EDT
[#9]
M4,
Did Benelli ever respond to your letter from the ATF? I know you emailed it to them last year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 1:51:31 PM EDT
[#10]
I faxed it to them, but never got any reply other than the one indicating that they received the fax. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 1:58:21 PM EDT
[#11]
I firmly believe that's because they know the answer. They knew the answer before the letter was sent to them. They just want to profit off of selling the shotguns, the stocks and the extensions. They also know their advantage over domestically produce shotguns is diminished if they can't match the configuration.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 2:21:46 PM EDT
[#12]
M4Madness, can you please connect the dots for me? Unless I am looking at something terribly outdated, 925(d)(3) says nothing about telescoping stocks and magazine extensions. How are you and everyone else connecting the "nonsporting" issue in 925(d)(3) to those specific evil features?
I understand the interesting historical issues with AK-47's and SKS rifles, but I'm looking for specific statutory or regulatory provisions which support the statement that 925(d)(3) prohibits importation of shotguns with magazines having greater than 5-round capacity or telescoping stocks in combination with pistol grips. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 2:50:57 PM EDT
[#13]
I'm just quoting the BATF's letter.  Basically all 925(d)(3) states is: (d) The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition - (3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Attorney General has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled. All the Attorney General has to do is reject a Form 6, and it won't be coming in. I don't think that there is a list of banned features; it's just left to the discretion of the AG. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 4:51:30 PM EDT
[#14]
Great start IPGUY. Thank you for getting the ball rolling again. I'm going to go over and post on the Benelli Forum that I also want to know. We all kind of left M4Madness out on an island when he requested a response from Benelli earlier (I apologize M4Madness, but I figured at that time that you would have gotten a response. I didn't know that it would basically get brushed aside by Benelli). The more support for IPGUY's Benelli Forum thread, the more likely that he will get a definitive response to this request for clarification.
tfisch67/usctf |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 6:33:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Yep, credit where credit is due. M4Madness pushed pretty hard to get answers, and he's the only one that has anything specific from BATF (albeit a poor response). I hope that Benelli gives us what we need.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2005 6:40:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Fat chance, but good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2005 1:37:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Well, I received the following e-mail today: "I am currently on travel to Oshkosh, WI doing the Ducks Unlimited Festival. Why don't you give me a call next week and we can discuss it. I would be happy to tell you all I know. A few months ago I was promoted to Product Manager for the Franchi brand but I still recall the controversy. I will return on Tuesday." I will call him Tuesday afternoon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2005 2:25:04 PM EDT
[#18]
That sounds promising...Thanks for the update.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2005 3:40:39 PM EDT
[#19]
awesome...keeping fingers crossed :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2005 6:41:10 AM EDT
[#20]
You guys can argue to no end, but it all comes down to this.
If the Government were to prosecute a 18 USC Section 922(r) case the court would need to know the meaning of "sporting purposes". By simply reading Law, Regulation, and Ruling as found in the Federal Register it is not possible to determine the meaning of "sporting purposes". That is why there has not been one 922(r) conviction in the 15 years it has been on the books. So the whole thing is mute, other then for something to argue about on the Internet, all the while not being applicable in court. What the ATF is supposed to do is write a Regulation or Ruling defining what "sporting purposes" is. That would go into the Federal Register and could be enforced as law. ATF has not gotten around to doing that, but in the mean time they enforce it with licensees by threat of yanking their licence, and with the sheeple by writing them nasty intimidating nonsense letters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2005 3:23:06 PM EDT
[#21]
I tried to call twice today after work, but got his voicemail both times. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 12:13:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Any update on this?
Gary |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 1:34:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Okay, guys, here it is straight from Benelli:
It is ILLEGAL to add a magazine extension or a working telestock to a Benelli M1014/M4 Super 90 shotgun. I just spent the last half hour speaking with a gentleman who was recently promoted from Benelli's customer service manager to Franchi's product manager. He stated unequivocally that you cannot make these modifications. He said that Benelli was recently visited by the BATF and told to stop selling the magazine extensions. He also said that Benelli cannot import the full-featured shotguns and that consumers here in the U.S. are prohibited from converting a Benelli shotgun into a configuration that is banned from importation. He even went as far as to say that dealers are not even supposed to be selling these items to non-LE. He informed me that Benelli will be issuing a statement on their website in the near future regarding this issue. I have sent him a link to this thread, and recommended that he register as a member here so that he could respond. It is my belief that he will visit the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 2:02:57 PM EDT
[#24]
M4, Thanks for the update and staying on top of this issue. Members should be warned not to modify their guns in this manor while this issue continues. If anyone has already made alterations they should change their guns back to their original form.
This is a issued that the NRA should start looking at now that the lawsuit preemption bill has passed. I will speak to the new president of the NRA, Sandra Froman and bring this issue to her. MIKE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 2:04:42 PM EDT
[#25]
So it's either or? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 2:11:13 PM EDT
[#26]
Yep, that is how 922(r) is enforced, through intimidation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 2:25:39 PM EDT
[#27]
It is my understanding that the mag extensions are not legal even for a field-stocked shotgun. He stated that the BATF was concerned that snow geese hunters were adding mag extensions to their Benelli HUNTING shotguns in violation of the law. Snow geese hunters have no mag restrictions like other waterfowl hunting (where you must use a mag plug to get down to only 3 rounds.) The problem arises from the fact that they were installing these mag extensions on their regular hunting shotguns. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 2:44:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Well you know how those snow geese hunters can get out of hand
 . If this was not so sad it would be funny.There is lot's of real work for ATF to do without worrying about the snow geese hunters. There are armed violent felons who should be tracked down killed or incarcerated. MIKE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 2:45:14 PM EDT
[#29]
That doesn't make sense. The FN autoloader has an extended mag, as does the Benelli M2 "Practical" with a nine round capacity. http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/sg_selfloading.htm http://www.benelliusa.com/firearms/special.tpl Snow geese hunters my eye. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 3:02:27 PM EDT
[#30]
I'm confused as well, because I figured an M4 shotgun with a field stock should be legal with a mag extension. We never specifically discussed this exact configuration. If mag extensions are legal for some imported hunting shotguns, why has the BATF asked them to cease all sales of Benelli mag extensions to the public? Hopefully the gentleman I spoke with will chime in here in the next day or so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 4:06:57 PM EDT
[#31]
M4 please don't take my previous post as some sort of attack on you. Your efforts in this have been phenomenal. I just think the ATF is blowing alot of smoke. They are allowing the exact configuration I have to be imported. This crap about geese is just that, crap. They don't want someone to assemble something that's illegal, so while they are at it they are also preventing legal configs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 5:08:09 PM EDT
[#32]
This is ridiculous...apparently true, but ridiculous nonetheless...
1) The Benelli M4 with stock collapsed is still slightly LONGER, yes LONGER, than an AR15 with 16" barrel and stock fully extended. The Benelli is deemed ILLEGAL and the AR15 is deemed LEGAL...  2) The Benelli M4 with the mag extension holds 7 shots max, which is 93 shots less than an AR15 with a Beta Mag. The Benelli is deemed ILLEGAL and the AR15 with Beta Mag is deemed LEGAL... 3) AND, to top it off, if the word Benelli on the receiver was replaced with Remington or Mossberg, the collapsible stock and mag extension equipped shotgun would miraculously switch from being ILLEGAL to LEGAL... No, this isn't ridiculous...it's freakin mind-boggling If one would put a collapsible stock on an imported semi-auto shotgun that was 20 feet long, it would be ILLEGAL. What planet am I on...planet Reebok?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 6:18:06 PM EDT
[#33]
mind giving the guys name that you spoke to at benelli?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2005 6:23:56 PM EDT
[#34]
I'll IM it to you. He asked that I not post his e-mail address on the board, but never specified whether I could name him in public or not. Just to err on the side of caution, I will not post his name in this thread until I receive permission. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2005 7:38:33 AM EDT
[#35]
Well this brings this sad chapter to a close. When will Benelli start manufacturing in the US? That would be a logical thing. Or at the very least make their receivers here.
Regards, Gary |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2005 1:26:00 PM EDT
[#36]
I received an e-mail from the Benelli/Franchi gentleman today stating that he read this thread this morning, but wishes not to reply. He states that he fears if he posts, everyone will swamp him with questions, which he doesn't have available time to answer. He also stated that Special Agent Sterling Nixon is going to try to get the regulations rewritten to make magazine extensions legal on imported shotguns. It is unclear to me if working telestocks will also be legalized or not. He did state that if the regulations are relaxed, it will be quite some time from now, as these issues take time. Hopefully a statement regarding the illegality of these modifications will be posted on Benelli's website soon.
This is all I can offer you guys. Hope it helps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2005 1:35:11 PM EDT
[#37]
What "regulation" what that be? I would like to see a copy of a "regulation" that says mag extensions are not legal on imported shotguns. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2005 1:58:50 PM EDT
[#38]
His word, not mine.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2005 2:25:49 PM EDT
[#39]
where are the FN shotguns with retractable stock and mag extension made???? becouse i see these for sale EVERYWHERE
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2005 2:27:32 PM EDT
[#40]
They are pumps, and not subject to 922(r). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2005 3:54:13 PM EDT
[#41]
damn it all to hell LOL :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 1:50:14 AM EDT
[#42]
Well I won't hold my breath waiting for them to issue this 'correction' on their website. What I will do is keep my copy of the Benelli 2005 catalog handy which shows in print "... the law has changed and private citizens can now add these extended magazines to their own Benellis for increased firepower. The Benelli magazine extensions are sold as accessories and are legal under U.S. Federal Laws". A question springs to mind ... what happens now to Tom Knapp's shows and sponsorship from Benelli? Surely if they are backpeddling on the extensions, they can't rightly keep Tom's shows running with his full mag extensions. I know Tom is/was selling some US made extensions on his site, presumably to keep a supply going with the dry up from Benelli. Will have to keep an eye on his site as well to see if there's any news. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 3:10:34 AM EDT
[#43]
also on the benelli website for the collapsable stock it says, these stocks are now legal for CIVILIANS to own and use on there shotguns.......so your friend at benelli says NO but they print stuff like that on the website?? it just cant be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 1:09:40 PM EDT
[#44]
also cals sporting armory....and impact guns sell the M4 with collapsing stocks and 2 shot mag extensions....says on there website that its legal to own
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 1:23:36 PM EDT
[#45]
"The 11707(refering to M4 with collapsing stock)is now available to the general public(were permitted by state and local laws) due to the expiration of the 1994 assault weapons ban. The reciever is marked M4 L.E. this M4 super 90 is the only commercially available model that will allow the skeletonized pistol grip stock- part #70085 to COLLAPSE as it has the same recoil spring tube as used on the military M1014." straight off their site, highlighted and in plan view FOR SALE to the public......now if this is illegal why are all these gun shops able to sell the same product, shipped straight from benelli and offer to the public?? why becouse it ISNT illegal. If it was illegal why hasnt the BATF busted these guys a long time ago?>??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 1:41:04 PM EDT
[#46]
That's exactly why this Benelli guy doesn't want to post here in this thread. He knows that whatever he says, someone is going to argue the facts and waste his time. Just because Benelli's website or catalog says they are legal doesn't make it legal. The BATF and the manager at Benelli/Franchi say that the mods are illegal, so that it good enough for me. The head of the firearms division paid Benelli a personal visit and informed them that the parts were not legal for civilians. Obviously this info hasn't tricked down to all of the lower-level employees at Benelli yet, and their website just hasn't been updated to reflect this position. The gentleman that I spoke with also said that dealers are not supposed to be selling the telestocks or magazine extensions to civilians. He said that LE dealers supposedly even have to sign an affidavit that they won't sell these items to the general public. Notice that Benelli's website no longer shows the magazine extensions for sale, and the top of the page about the M4 shotguns says, "Civilian metal stocks are not collapsible", even though it says they are legal at the bottom of the page. Guys, I want to state for the record that I really wish that it was legal to add these parts. I have one of the limited edition M1014 shotguns, and would thoroughly enjoy configuring it exactly the way that the Marine Corp gets them. But I'm also smart enough to listen to the BATF when it says that these parts are illegal. Maybe one day we can rid ourselves of all of this 922(r) bullsh**, but in the meantime, I'll abide by it 100%. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 1:49:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Note that they are not selling them in the banned configuration. Their website says that the receiver "will allow the skeletonized pistol grip stock". It doesn't say that they sell the shotgun with it installed. Note that their website says that the #11707 shotguns come from Cal's with 4+1 capacity and a synthetic pistol grip stock. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 3:00:48 PM EDT
[#48]
M4 im not trying to be an ass but come on did you look at impact guns ad for selling the m4? there selling the straight stock...collapsing stock AND 2 shot mag extension for $1400....also Cals IS selling the shotgun with pistol grip stock and collapsing stock....and again it says LEGAL TO OWN in this configuration according to your local and state laws.......another question if this guy is a higher up at benelli and he says its ILLEGAL to have a shotgun in this configuration....then why does he allow his reps to tell everyone that it is legal to own the M4 shotgun with collapsing stock and mag extension?? I mean damn they work in the same place and they cant get there stories straight?? I just find it funny that he says its illegal but allows his reps to sell a damn collapsing stock and mag extensions(your buying the collapsing stock for the M4 what else are you going to buy it for?????????????not to mention that it states on Benellis website that it now PERFECTLY LEGAL to own a collapsing stock for your M4.......its not hard if it is ILLEGAL why do they offer the parts on there website??? JUST DONT SELL THE STUFF PERIOD.......that is why it is so hard for me to believe that its against the law....again not putting you down or trying to be an ass but you cant tell someone its illegal and have everyone else at your work place says its pefectly legal to purchase these parts and own in that configuration........I mean if hes such a higher up why not put a stop to all that???? oh and I called yesterday and that was the answer i recieved from the 3rd rep I spoke to...PERFECTLY LEGAL to own and have in this configuration..............again not trying to be a jerk towards you or your buddy at benelli but damn something stinks here big time
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 6:00:53 PM EDT
[#49]
When I see a post online of an individual being convicted of committing the evil act of adding a magazine extension or collapsing buttstock, then I would worry about it. But until someone is actually prosecuted, I would imagine the BATFE has better things to do than worry about parts counts and collapsing buttstocks. Actually, show me a single case where someone was convicted of this atrocity that everybody worrys about, just 1 single case since the laws were put into effect and I will worry about things like parts counts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2005 7:07:23 PM EDT
[#50]
grkred, I'm not trying to be an ass either, and I hope that you realize that it's nothing personal against you or anyone on this thread.
All I can really say is, if this is all so legal, why do I have a letter addressed to me from the BATF saying that it is ILLEGAL? Can anyone here enlighten me on this issue? The BATF considers it illegal, and will treat it as such, whether or not it actually is. Does anyone here have any proof that Impact Guns or Cal's Sporting Armory either one is selling the shotguns already configured with the mag extension and working telestock INSTALLED? I've heard of them selling the shotgun with the accessories included, but never heard of them selling them already assembled. If it's legal, then they ought to be selling them with the modifications intact. One more question: Does Benelli sell the mag extensions or working telestocks directly to the general public? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
