Jump to content

ipguy

Members
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ipguy

  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.
  15. My +2 extension looks just like that. Gives me 7+1. I put 50 rounds of skeet loads through, just for kicks, then 50 rounds of 00 buck, and 50 rounds of 1-oz. slugs. You ought to see this thing punching through man-size targets at 50 yards. Recoil is great and muzzle jump is significant, but FUN AS ****!!! After 8-10 slugs, I tore a big gaping hole into the target, and the laughs from the folks around me were priceless. Just praying I don't have a part failure like I've been hearing.
  16. Ha! Yeah it was me who sent the FOIA request. They denied it (got a letter today), because they think I'm a "commercial requester," and they want me to either commit to copy and research charges coincident therewith, or appeal their decision and prove that I'm an "individual." Therefore, I appealed the decision, but asked for specific clarification as to what I could do so that they can be convinced of my "individuality." LOL. You gotta laugh when dealing with the gov't, otherwise it would make you cry. More delay...
  17. dport, you almost sound like you WANT this to happen. That is rank speculation on your part , unless you know something we don't. What "already prohibited shotgun"??? The statute says "identical". Not "substantially similar" or "functionally equivalent." Am I being overly optimistic here, or are you being overly pessimistic? I cannot find a single piece of information that would suggest that the M4/M1014 has ever been characterized as non-sporting, But, even if ATF were to make such a ridiculous determination tomorrow, it would not predate either the importation or modification of MY GUN. And I feel good about that... Moral of the story: Buy now and modify as quickly as possible, especially before Kerry wins.
  18. M4, So if what you are saying is correct, then in order for the M4/M1014 to be "prohibited" under 922®, the ATF had to have denied (some time in the past) a Form 6 for that shotgun in a configuration that included a telescoping stock and an extended magazine, and pistol grip. Then, and only then, if the gun is "prohibited" as a result of that previous denial, then any modifications to a "sporting" version (such as the civilian M1014 or M4 without a telescoping stock) that would make it "identical" to that "prohibited" gun, would be illegal (a violation of 922®). So, if that is the case, what we need is information on the precise configuration of what may have been denied, so that we can ascertain whether our "modifications" make the sporting version "identical" to that which was "prohibited." That is the requirement of the statute.
  19. dport, You are assuming that Benelli is not importing a USMC version of the M4/M1014 because it would be illegal to do so under the 1989 import ban. Maybe Benelli is not importing a full 7-round mag, pistol grip, telescoping stock version of the M4/M1014 because it has CHOSEN ON ITS OWN to keep a low profile on this gun. Without all those "features", there is less to alert ATF or at least cause them (the Attorney General) to declare it to be "nonsporting." As long as it flies under the radar, then it is importable (non-prohibited) and hence modifiable by consumers. That would make perfect sense to me, especially since the expiration of the AWB. Your thoughts? [ 10-21-2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: ipguy ]
  20. Unpublished rulings??? So, when I'm prosecuted for violation of 922®, the prosecutor will present as evidence unpublished (and heretofore unknown)rulings from ATF that clarify whether I'm a felon?! Come on, I need better than that. If all the ATF and the federal prosecutor can say is "we know it when we see it", that dog won't hunt. I'll bet Benelli has worked this out with ATF along the same lines as what I've said earlier, but please give me something concrete. I'm willing to admit I've got it all wrong, but I need something better than unpublished rulings. Sounds kind of "Area 51" to me. [ 10-19-2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: ipguy ]
  21. That is exactly what I cannot find. Where is this writing that categorically declares that any imported semiautomatic shotgun having in excess of 5 rounds in the mag or a telescoping stock is NOT suitable for sporting purposes (as if it were ATF's decision to make)? In the letter to M4Madness, ATF only referenced the statutes and the single reg. If there were other ATF regs or internal rulings, should they not have been cited? The only other reference was to an "enclosed brochure." Please provide any info you have on any other ATF reg or ruling that declares all semiauto's as not suitable for sporting purposes if they have those features. Then let's talk again.
  22. dport said: Punt? I'd say it was a brush-off. It is apparent that most of us have already read the statutes, 18 USC 925(d)(3) and 922®, as well as the regs, 27 CFR 478.39. Going to the ATF site for answers is a "fox and the henhouse" proposition, don't you think? All we can do is draw our own conclusions. Here are mine. CAVEAT: These are my own conclusions. They are not legal advice. Consult your own attorney. Do not rely on any of this. (1) 18 USC 922® prohibits "assembly" from "imported parts" of any semiautomatic shotgun which is identical to any shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925 (d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. (2) Assuming that our modifications to M4/M1014's in the form of collapsing stocks and extended magazines constitute an "assembly", then the question is whether the resulting "assembly" is IDENTICAL to any shotgun prohibited under 925(d)(3). (3) 18 USC 925(d)(3) states that the Attorney General SHALL authorize a firearm to be imported or brought into the US if the firearm 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, 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. (4) Section 5845(a) defines a "firearm" as all of the well known NFA-type firearms for which tax stamps and LE sign-off are required, i.e. Class 3 stuff. In this case, shotguns having barrels under 18" or an overall length of less than 26". Therefore, we're clear of that part. (5) The last part is whether the modified firearm is "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." In my own personal opinion, I believe that the modified M4/M1014 (as well as most firearms) is certainly both "readily adaptable" and "particularly suitable" to sporting purposes. I also believe that such a characterization would be "generally recognized", but especially by those who use such firearms. (6) Finally, I have to go back to 922® which requires that the firearm be IDENTICAL to a "prohibited" firearm. I know of absolutely NO law or regulation which prohibits importation of the M4/M1014 in any particular configuration. I am unsure of what the situation is with the M1 and M3. (7) Under the above interpretation, 27 CFR 478.39 does not apply, because that regulation ONLY proscribes assembly of a "firearm" that is PROHIBITED under 18 USC 925(d)(3). All that §478.39 does is augment 925(d)(3) by defining what is meant by "imported parts." That's my story and I'm sticking to it. If anyone else has comments, please chime in, and let's have an intelligent discussion on this. I would prefer to be challenged and recognize a faulty argument than persist in my own self-serving interpretation. Although I harbor no hope that Benelli will provide further guidance on this issue, or even comment on the above, I still welcome it. ipguy
  23. Can we PLEASE get some information from Benelli on this issue? I don't care whether it's Benelli in Italy or Benelli USA, someone has to take ownership of this matter and address it for the benefit of all of us who have M4/M1014's. Some of us purchased 11707's and separate collapsing stocks, and some of us are modifying existing M1014's to have the same function. It would be extraordinarily helpful if Benelli could articulate its position on the legality of these kinds of modifications, if for no other reason than to give us something to tell an ATF agent when we get stopped at the range. From the wording of the letter from ATF, it is abundantly clear that ATF is writing in a manner to foreclose as much as possible. That's their job, at least as they see it. But, that letter would seem to criminalize even M1's and M3's with 8+1 capacity, which are used extensively by persons shooting competition, such as 3-gun matches. Surely, there must be some supportable rationale for the legality of telescoping stocks and 5+ rounds in the magazine for the M1, M3, and M4/M1014. Come on Benelli, we know your legal team has probably provided an opinion on this long ago. Just give us the gist of it so we can all sleep a little better. If you don't, there are going to be a lot of customers that feel as though they've been misled and left out to dry. All we want is a clarification from someone who's in the best position to know. Help us out. ipguy
  24. Has anyone seen or used this rail system from Side Armor? Looks interesting... http://www.sidearmor.com/cart/catalog/product_50_M401_Shotgun_Interface_system_for_Benelli_M4_M1014.html [ 10-12-2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: ipguy ]
×
×
  • Create New...