Jump to content

STOP THE TELESTOCK MODS!


dport

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dport:

Thought you all should read this first, since adding the telestock is illegal according to our friends at the BATF.

LETTER FROM THE BATF

FORUM READERS:

This issue is serious enough to recommend that you refer to www.atf.gov to clarify any questions regarding the modification of the Benelli M1014/M4.

 

Nelli Girl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Nelli Girl:

quote:
Originally posted by dport:

Thought you all should read this first, since adding the telestock is illegal according to our friends at the BATF.

LETTER FROM THE BATF

FORUM READERS:

This issue is serious enough to recommend that you refer to www.atf.gov to clarify any questions regarding the modification of the Benelli M1014/M4.

 

Nelli Girl I believe this is known as a punt.

 

Seems to me the best way to clarify this is for Benelli USA to contact the technical division of the BATF and get some sort of letter faxed to them and post it here.

 

Of course, Benelli USA doesn't have to do this they are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to make sure we comply with the law. It would be nice, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dport said:

 

I believe this is known as a punt.
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ipguy,

The problem is the ATF makes the rulings as to what is particularly suitable for sporting use. They have ruled, in writing, that a shotgun with a capacity of greater than five rounds OR a telescoping stock IS NOT SUITABLE FOR SPORTING USE.

 

Therefore it is illegal, period. No list required because they write the CFR. It's not something passed by Congress. Congress charges the ATF with coming up with the definition of readily adaptable for sporting use.

 

Will you get by with the shotgun illegally modified? Probably, it's not like they go looking for such things unless you're trying to sell them. It doesn't change the fact that it is illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dport:

ipguy,

The problem is the ATF makes the rulings as to what is particularly suitable for sporting use. They have ruled, in writing, that a shotgun with a capacity of greater than five rounds OR a telescoping stock IS NOT SUITABLE FOR SPORTING USE.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ATF makes the rulings, but they certainly don't publish them. We need Benelli to step up and ask for clarification. After all they DO IMPORT weapons. It seems to me they should know what is legal to import to the US to sell to us civies.

 

BTW, I think the letter referred to the five round limit due to the M1014 coming with a pistol grip stock. I don't think it applies to a standard stock shotgun. There definitely needs to be clarification at least on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:eek:

 

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 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, you can only have what they import, if you change it then it's illegal? I don't know. I'm just trying to play it conservatively. I try to do that when it comes to doing something that might land me in a Federal "pound me in the *** prison."

 

 

Like I said it's time for Benelli to step up and show us what is legal for them to import. They are offering LE versions of the M4 for sale and mag extensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These gun laws and auto-government described/interpreted rules are ridiculous! As if a criminal is going to purchase a 1200 dollar shotgun pay 80 dollars for the extension and ??? dollars for a stock, to rob the 7-11. Needless to say, a criminal is not going to abide by the LAW OF THE LAND, they are criminals!

 

This is just FUBAR!!

 

I do applaud all here for trying to be LAW ABIDING CITIZENS despite all these draconian laws.

 

 

Iso

 

[ 10-19-2004, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Iso ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you think Benelli telestocks are made?

 

The law clearly states you CAN NOT assemble a weapon that is identical to a weapon that is prohibited from being imported unless it has less than 10 imported parts off of the list.

 

Seriously, you need to read the letter and read the applicable USC and CFRs. Trying to play word games with the ATF will most likely land you in a Federal pound me in the *** prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it rather interesting that Benelli USA would explicitly sell these parts as legally persmissable for retrofit modification of the M4S90 w/o consulting the BATF firsthand - something they claim they have done. Even so, we're getting a different take on it after the fact. What the **** is going on here? I called customer service, & was told they did square this issue w/ BATF.

 

I'd like to know how the company could publicly set this up if it's illegal. FUBAR, I must say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by 5Shot:

Since only IMPORTED PARTS are prohibited, adding a Mag Extension made here in the USA would not be illegal - If you interpret the codes as allowing anything not expressly prohibited by them.

 

5Shot

You still have to get the number of foreign parts down to 10 or less to defeat 922® and add a telestock or mag extension. Even if either of these two parts were US-made, it still would not matter unless enough US parts are added for the shotgun to be considered domestic.
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...