Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ipguy

  • Birthday 06/22/1963

Personal Information

  • Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
  • Occupation
  • loginname
  • displayname

ipguy's Achievements


Member (2/3)



  1. Thanks for passing this on to the Benelli forums. I haven't listed on any other forums other than AR15.com (and this one, sort of), so if it does not get much interest, I'll post on Snipers Hide. Really had fun with this shotgun, and the highlight was shooting steel plates at 100 yards with 1 oz. slugs. I've got a homemade plug in it right now for a goose hunt I made in January, but of course, that just pops right out for 7+1 capacity.
  2. "Legal under Federal law, check your state and local laws before purchasing." Benelli already made a statement on this, so all of the points you make about manufacturers being cautious are, well, kind of irrelevant. My point is that now that Benelli has taken a clear position on this, we want the rationale, because it may help us as we wrangle with these obscure statutory provisions and seemingly contradictory statements propounded by BATF in a private letter. Understand my request. I already KNOW that Benelli thinks this is legal. I want the rationale, the line of thinking, the basis for their decision to make a statement like that on the web site. If the answer is, "Hey, we goofed, we really were trying to say that because the AWB expired, that collapsing stocks are now legal," then let's make that clear that the "legality" statement was not intended in any way to speak to the issue of importation and assembly under 18 USC 925(d)(3) and 922®, respectively. That would be a helpful clarification. Not very satisfying, but helpful nonetheless. Re the Vioxx analogy, I don't get it. That's a product liability issue based on allegations that the drug can kill you. You kind of went off there with the Katrina thing and the lawyers. But, I appreciate the sentiment and agree that the lawsuits will fly for quite a while. Most (not all) of the inner city folks at the Superdome and Convention Center will migrate to other inner cities (Houston?) to perpetuate the only lifestyle they know. Sad, but true, that a large number of the inner city evacuees are simply not even employable, and even if they were, they're not motivated to work. And I wouldn't say that if I didn't live and work so close to it. [ 09-08-2005, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: ipguy ]
  3. Tucker301, As you can see from my post, we civilian customers have fairly exhausted this topic and contacted Benelli and ATF. We've certainly done everything we can do. Hence my request for a written clarification from Benelli. So, your suggestion that we ask ATF for clarification is late but well understood. As for Benelli not having the responsibility to provide their interpretion of the law, I completely disagree. Let's say you bought a pharmaceutical product (prescription drug) from a national pharmacy chain, and you had legitimate concerns that your purchase and/or your use of same might be illegal. Would you have an expectation that the seller explain why it believes that that your purchase and use were legal? Would that expectation be reasonable if the seller went so far as to make an EXPRESS representation on its web site that the product was legal? Hypothetically, if I were ever arrested and prosecuted for "assembling" a prohibited firearm under 922®, I can assure you that part of my defense strategy would rely upon such an express representation of the seller that the product was legal. In view of the ambiguity of the applicable laws, I believe this would be a significant point to make to a judge or jury. And I would also surmise that Benelli would be unable to prevent coughing up its rationale in a deposition or in response to interrogatories and requests for production of documents based on the attorney-client privilege, because the very representation that it is "legal" opens this subject to discovery. I make these points only because when the first Benelli customer having a fully tricked-out M4 gets arrested, this will all likely become public information anyway. So, why not just provide us, their loyal customers, with helpful information that supports our position when law enforcement thinks we're felons????? As I requested in my message, if Benelli believes (for whatever reason) that it CANNOT provide clarification, then just say so, rather than persist in this "speak no evil" silence.
  4. This topic has been raised before, but is now churning again on AR15.com forums. See link below: Discussion of legality of M4/M1014 Here's the bottom line: Existing and potential customers of Benelli (M4/M1014 buyers) want some written assurances (other than a small notice on the web site) that their purchase and use of Benelli-manufactured telestocks and 2-rd mag extensions to a pistol-grip M4/M1014 is not illegal under 18 USC §922®. If there is no authoritative and concrete letter, determination, or ruling from BATF as to whether the M4/M1014 is importable under 18 USC §925(d)(3), or whether end users are prohibited from "assembling" a full-featured M4/M1014 under 922®, then the customers would like a comforting written explanation from Benelli as to why they should have no concerns. Understand that those of us who have purchased M4's are being told in various forums by various "knowledgeable" persons that we are everything from "oblivious" to "stupid" for wanting to attach a telescoping stock and 2-rd magazine extension to an M4, and that we are all going to go to the federal pokey if we do it. Obviously, we would like to respond to such comments with supportable facts, but all we have right now are theories. Benelli USA, please provide us with any "hard" information you may have as to why your company is confident that end users are not engaging in illegal activities by adding these accessories to our M4's. Do not spare us the legalese; we have dissected the laws on this backward and forward, and it seems to this humble customer that these "assemblies" are legal precisely because the Attorney General (and/or BATF) has made no specific pronouncement that they are "nonsporting." Is that the basis? Please help us out here. If you cannot provide any such helpful information because the very act of doing so would place this situation in jeopardy, please say so, and we will draw our own conclusions from there. Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide on this very important topic.
  5. Ummmm.... BenelliGirl, Mudhen's tongue was planted firmly in his cheek when he made the above comments.
  6. It hasn't so far.... when it comes to legal issues, the silence has been deafening. Which is kind of strange if all of these mod's are legal in the hands of Benelli customers in the U.S. Perhaps that's because it's still being worked on, but it would at least be nice to hear what that process is.
  7. Yep, the LE133's are great. For competition, if you're shooting slugs, they make a corresponding low-recoil tactical slug as well. Perfect feeding and shooting through my M4.
  8. You unscrew it!!! Don't attempt to remove the plate on the inside of the stock. Just remove the butt pad, loosen the puppy up and unscrew it.
  9. The 3gungear stuff is fantastic. Bought a bunch of do-dads from him, and they're on the M4. Love 'em.
  10. Steven, I haven't heard of this before, but then I haven't really shot my M4 in competition yet. Exactly how fast are you shooting? I know it's impossible to answer this with any real precision; just trying to get a feel for it. Are you shooting at multiple targets very close together, or are you trying to put two slugs on one target?
  11. I use mine for sporting purposes - Sporting Clays and trap & skeet. So it fits the definition. And I use mine for 3 gun competitions, and I feel very sporting when I shoot it. But the feds have long since abandoned the idea that a firearm's capacity to be used for such "sporting" purposes, or even the fact that it is ACTUALLY used for such "sporting" purposes, negates its character as a "nonsporting" firearm. This goes back to 1968, I believe; saw this in some legislative comments. Pretty amazing and sad at the same time. There is certainly a presumption in our gun control laws that buying a "nonsporting" firearm predisposes you to engaging in criminal acts with said firearm.
  12. Sounding like a broken record again here, but "nonsporting firearms" under 925(d)(3) still doesn't tell us whether the M4/M1014 was characterized as "nonsporting". Just because there is a general prohibition doesn't mean that specific firearms are "by default" nonsporting. It has to involve a determination by the AG or ATF, and we haven't seen the M4/M1014 on any hit list, although many other guns have made such lists, i.e. AK's, Uzi's, M1/M3, etc. Caution is admirable and wise, but I think there is insufficient basis to conclude that the M4/M1014's (fully functional as discussed ad nauseum) are illegal. Going back into my hole...
  13. Personally, I prefer the 3 Gun Gear 8-round side saddle that I bought a month ago. It fits great, looks great, and comes right off of the Velcro base that is adhesively attached to the left side of the receiver. Interested in the Surefire M80, but no pictures that I'm aware of. Does anyone know what that looks like? M1014, saw your post about how to get 7+1+1, and I'll try it tonight. But I'm not sure I understand the explanation. I'll review and study when I get home.
  14. Sorry, I haven't been paying attention... As I can tell, that groove is just an annular groove, as if it is supposed to add some resistance to collapsing. When I got my shotgun, me and the dealer immediately replaced the factory tube and put on the extension as a complete replacement. It does not attach to what's it on there from the factory, because the factory tube is artificially shortended. Not sure if that helps.
  • Create New...