Jump to content

Question about gun laws


gregvs3

Recommended Posts

I have a friend that wants to purchase a benelli m4 with one of Socom's full length mag tubes, a factory collapsible stock and pistol grip. I have been reading that having all three of these parts in combination on the same gun makes it illegal... is this correct?

 

The second part of my question is - the person he wants to buy the gun from lives across the country, so it will have to be sent through the seller's FFL and my friend would have to pick it up at his FFL. Will this be a problem for him? I certainly don't want to see my friend spend $2000+ on a gun only to be arrested or have it confiscated....

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What state are you talking about? Gun laws do vary widely state to state, so some additional info would be helpful. If you are talking about CA in the mix, the only thing that makes the weapon in that configuration illegal is the collapsible stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Mike,

 

Could you clarify what you mean by "taking more than the tube" to satisfy the importation law?

 

Kpura,

 

The seller is in CA and we live in VA. I think he bought it with a collapsible stock, but the seller also has a normal stock with pistol grip.

 

Thanks for the replies. I just had a thought though, could he have the stock shipped separately and just send the gun?

Edited by gregvs3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been discussed to death and quite frankly I am sick of typing out the same answer month after month, so either search on here for one of the 4 million topics about 922r, or go to the following link.

 

http://home.comcast.net/~navy87guy/home/922r.html

 

Now, after you've done all your homework and calculations on exactly how hard it will be to make your gun 100% legal, do yourself a favor and google "922r arrest" or "922r felony" or "922r charged" or ANYTHING related to 922r being enforced and sticking to someone.

 

Report back here when you find a case of 922r being at all relevant or enforceable.

 

I won't hold my breath.

 

ETA - The obvious answer is to leave the gun completely stock if you're paranoid that someone is going to come arrest you. Then you can blast away 7 shells at a time with complete confidence that you are 100% in the right.

Edited by Duggan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been discussed to death and quite frankly I am sick of typing out the same answer month after month, so either search on here for one of the 4 million topics about 922r, or go to the following link.

 

then don't answer,,quit crying,,ya big baby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have your "Friend" check with his local FFL Dealer, he should steer him in the right direction. There are many here and on other sites that would say it's OK. It's not. It will take a bit more than the tube to satisfy the Importation Law.

 

Mg

Mike, could you elaborate on the ma tube part? How many US parts do we need to make our M4 922r compliant?

I may be paranoid, but this 922r thing has been keeping me from get a full length tube, and looks like I am not alone on this.

Yes, ATF might never prosecute 922r alone in the PAST, but who knows what they might do in teh future, especially we have a not so 2nd amendment friendly government now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be paranoid, but this 922r thing has been keeping me from get a full length tube, and looks like I am not alone on this.

Yes, ATF might never prosecute 922r alone in the PAST, but who knows what they might do in teh future, especially we have a not so 2nd amendment friendly government now

 

I dont know why it would keep you from getting the mag tube, if you got one that was made in the US it would seem to me that you would be better off, as you would be a +1 to the US parts category.

 

As far as prosecuting alone I doubt it, what are they going to do send ATF door to door looking for reciepts and/or stampings as to where all the parts came from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

412235.jpg

 

412237.jpg

 

That's what the ATF told us in 2006. I forget if they have since upped the part count, but this is the only solid proof that I have.

 

If you go by this letter, replacing a single item on that list of 11 items would make you 922r legal.

 

But don't take my word for it, contact ATF yourself and see what their tone is now.

 

It may have changed, but I honestly don't really care, because I see it as a non-issue. If 922r is your biggest problem, then you have no problem.

 

Do as you will, I am bored of this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

412235.jpg

 

412237.jpg

 

That's what the ATF told us in 2006. I forget if they have since upped the part count, but this is the only solid proof that I have.

 

If you go by this letter, replacing a single item on that list of 11 items would make you 922r legal.

 

But don't take my word for it, contact ATF yourself and see what their tone is now.

 

It may have changed, but I honestly don't really care, because I see it as a non-issue. If 922r is your biggest problem, then you have no problem.

 

Do as you will, I am bored of this topic.

 

Thanks Duggan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

One question about 922r and import compliance laws that I haven't seen answered (and it may be that the BAFT doesn't know the answer) is:

 

It is legal to replace a foreign part with a US made part if the total after reassmbly is still over the 10-imported-parts limit?

 

Common sense would tell you that reducing the number of imported parts is compatible with the law and a good thing under the law ... But, since when has common sense been synonomous with firearms regulations? Based on the wording of the law, I think it could still be interpreted as illegal to reduce the number of imported parts if you don't get the total n number under 10, because you're still "assembling" a firearm with more than 10 imported parts.

 

Any firearms law scholars out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the problem with Duggan's letter is that it was written by a total moron that doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. It is a joke, just like 922R.

 

Notice #9 on that list: Gas Pistons

 

Notice that NOWHERE in the "M1014" part list, are they mentioned.

 

Again, the letter is just more proof that noone takes 922R seriously enough to even tally up the parts correctly.

 

Are the pistons a single item, or is each one a part?

 

What about the choke? That is a "muzzle attatchment" isn't it? Again, not listed in the M4 part count.

 

Bolt Carrier? Yep, my M4 has one...

 

Okay...what are we at now? 15 if the pistons are each an item, 14 if they are both consolidated into a single item.

 

 

This is aimed at manufacturers such as Benelli USA who might wish to ASSEMBLE the shotgun and SELL a previously UNREGISTERED weapon with said part-count.

 

Of course, that is how I interpret it, it seems the ATF and everyone else vary in opinion, depending on the day of the week and time of day.

 

Also take note that the letter calls the M4 a "non-sporting" shotgun. "sporting" is not a term defined by the ATF. It is nowhere in the law.

Edited by Unobtanium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the problem with Duggan's letter is that it was written by a total moron that doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. It is a joke, just like 922R.

 

Notice #9 on that list: Gas Pistons

 

Notice that NOWHERE in the "M1014" part list, are they mentioned.

 

Again, the letter is just more proof that noone takes 922R seriously enough to even tally up the parts correctly.

 

Are the pistons a single item, or is each one a part?

 

What about the choke? That is a "muzzle attatchment" isn't it? Again, not listed in the M4 part count.

 

Bolt Carrier? Yep, my M4 has one...

 

Okay...what are we at now? 15 if the pistons are each an item, 14 if they are both consolidated into a single item.

 

 

This is aimed at manufacturers such as Benelli USA who might wish to ASSEMBLE the shotgun and SELL a previously UNREGISTERED weapon with said part-count.

 

Of course, that is how I interpret it, it seems the ATF and everyone else vary in opinion, depending on the day of the week and time of day.

 

Also take note that the letter calls the M4 a "non-sporting" shotgun. "sporting" is not a term defined by the ATF. It is nowhere in the law.

Your "interpretation" is insulting to Duggan and some of us on the web. Why did you attack Duggan, a respected and contributing member of this web for a long time?... (for a lot longer than you have been here.) I have come to respect Duggan's contributions and hope he'll hang with us in the future.

 

I would suggest that you consider just laying your opinion out there, but maybe not doing personal attack stuff like this. Duggan probably DOES know his rear end from a hole in the ground I would think. Lighten up, Dude. Duggan was doing his best... where was yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your "interpretation" is insulting to Duggan and some of us on the web. Why did you attack Duggan, a respected and contributing member of this web for a long time?... (for a lot longer than you have been here.) I have come to respect Duggan's contributions and hope he'll hang with us in the future.

 

I would suggest that you consider just laying your opinion out there, but maybe not doing personal attack stuff like this. Duggan probably DOES know his rear end from a hole in the ground I would think. Lighten up, Dude. Duggan was doing his best... where was yours?

 

 

Hey, Monty. I don't see where he is knocking Duggan. He's calling the guy that wrote the letter a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Monty. I don't see where he is knocking Duggan. He's calling the guy that wrote the letter a moron.

 

+1

 

Read the letter. The guy doesn't even know what an M4S90 IS or what parts comprise it, yet he has seen fit to publish a letter on the matter. That, in my mind, makes it a moronic move. Perhapse the man himself is NOT a moron and I spoke hastily, but the action was moronic.

 

Unless this man who published said letter is Duggan himself (I am reasonably sure he is not), my comment is in no-way directed at Duggan.

 

I referred to it as "Duggan's Letter" only in that Duggan posted it, not that it was sent to him or that he wrote it. I clearly differentiate between Duggan and the letter when I refer to "the person who wrote it" and not Duggan.

Edited by Unobtanium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

 

Read the letter. The guy doesn't even know what an M4S90 IS or what parts comprise it, yet he has seen fit to publish a letter on the matter. That, in my mind, makes it a moronic move. Perhapse the man himself is NOT a moron and I spoke hastily, but the action was moronic.

 

Unless this man who published said letter is Duggan himself (I am reasonably sure he is not), my comment is in no-way directed at Duggan.

 

I referred to it as "Duggan's Letter" only in that Duggan posted it, not that it was sent to him or that he wrote it. I clearly differentiate between Duggan and the letter when I refer to "the person who wrote it" and not Duggan.

 

 

By the way, Great to have you back on the forum. You know your info well and have helped a bunch of people out. Not bad for a "tacticool" guy.:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...