5Shot Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I looked at all of the codes listed by the ATF and there isn't anything I can find that states that a tube magazine on an imported shotgun is limited to 5. 922(v) states that shotguns with mags holding 5 or less are not part of the "Assault Weapons" clause, but doesn't say you can't import them. Where is the code that spells this out? 925(d)(3) only says that you can't make a destuctive device or firearm out of it (IRS Code 5845) but as long as the barrel is longer than 18" and OAL more than 26" it falls under the catagory of "Shotgun" and isn't illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dport Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 If it was legal wouldn't Benelli be importing the USMC version already? 5Shot, You can play word games with it all you want, but .gov has a **** of a lot more resources than you to throw into any legal proceeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipguy Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by dport: If it was legal wouldn't Benelli be importing the USMC version already? 5Shot, You can play word games with it all you want, but .gov has a **** of a lot more resources than you to throw into any legal proceeding. 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 ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4Madness Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 The ball is in Benelli's court now. They requested that I fax a copy of the letter from the BATF to them, and I did just that less than an hour ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4Madness Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Originally posted by 5Shot: [QB] I looked at all of the codes listed by the ATF and there isn't anything I can find that states that a tube magazine on an imported shotgun is limited to 5. 922(v) states that shotguns with mags holding 5 or less are not part of the "Assault Weapons" clause, but doesn't say you can't import them. Where is the code that spells this out? 922(r) is what covers imported non-sporting firearms. I'm not sure that a list of non-sporting firearms even exists. "EKIE" from AR15.COM has said it best: 1989 policy change, commonly known as the '89 Bush Ban The Bush administration directs the Secretary to find that low and behold there are unsporting firearms being imported right under our noses. This was not a new law, regulation, ruling or executive order as is commonly reported. At this point Form 6's (import permits for firearms) are denied for our ugly guns, under 18 U.S.C. section 925(d)(3). No criteria is released stating what is good and what is bad other then a huge "report" put out by the ATF which consisted of a bunch of mumbo jumbo, and later a list of specific models in letter format, neither of which was ever put out as regulation or ruling by the ATF. Remember this is not a law banning anything it is simply a government policy shift where by permits are denied for imports, so calling it the '89 ban is a misnomer, the '89 import restriction would be a better name for it. This was a rather odd situation. Permits were approved for some of our rifles but with strings attached on the importer saying that they would only be sold to law enforcement or other favored Americans like Government employees. Importers find that they can get Form 6 approval for really ugly looking thumbhole mutant rifles, because some how these rifles are sporting and thus importable. There is still no published criteria for what is sporting. Seems that any rifle is okay as long as it has a thumbhole stock, and nothing more then a muzzle nut on the end. Many rifles are brought in with simple tack welds holding these on and some with nothing at all. Bayonet lugs seem to be bad too but, again some rifles are brought in with them. 1990 18 U.S.C. section 922® Congress reacts to all this funny business by passing a new bill that Bush signs into law. It states that it is illegal to assemble a un-importable firearm from imported parts, or more specifically makes it illegal to build any firearm prohibited from importation under 18 U.S.C. section 9235(d)(3). There is still no criteria listed for what is unsporting and thus importable in law, regulation, ruling, etc. Well since this law is so vague ATF writes regulation (178.39) that spells out the 10 parts rule in 1993 that spells out what imported parts means. It states that only 10 imported parts are allowed in a unsporting imported firearm. The odd part is that the Federal Firearms Regulation Guide that is circulated by the ATF is put out in 1990 and is too late to include this in it. This new law and regulation shows up in the 1995 Guide. So you see, all the government needs to do is deny Benelli Form 6's and prohibit importation. The M1014 doesn't actually have to be on any list. If the government finds the M1014 sporting and allows Benelli an exemption, then form 6's will be approved. We can only cross our fingers and hope. [ 10-21-2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: M4Madness ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipguy Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dport Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 I think what is going to happen is an M4 with a telestock or an extended magazine is going to be identical in configuration to an already prohibited shotgun and denied thusly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double_wield Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 ip, I don't belive Benelli imports it in that configuration, so it has never been 'denied', so to speak. But, I don't know. I'm blown out of the water by this post-11th hour disturbance in the force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Shot Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Is the problem the M1014's stock and pistol grip? Since the practical has an 8 +1 capacity, obiously having a mag extension isn't a problem or they couldn't sell that one over here. Sure hope Benelli can clear it up for us. 5Shot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipguy Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Originally posted by dport: I think what is going to happen is an M4 with a telestock or an extended magazine is going to be identical in configuration to an already prohibited shotgun and denied thusly. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dport Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 Originally posted by ipguy: quote: Originally posted by dport: I think what is going to happen is an M4 with a telestock or an extended magazine is going to be identical in configuration to an already prohibited shotgun and denied thusly. 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. No I don't want it to happen. I'm being realistic here. There is a ton of wishful thinking going on here and on ARF.com. Let's face it, if the .gov wants to rule a configuration as non-sporting they will. The Congress WE elected gave them the power. BTW, it won't matter when you had your configuration set up, the law was passed in 1990. That's the date they'll go by. Here's my take, the M4 with telestock and extended mag is going to be considered the same functionally identical as the M3 with extended mag and folding stock. The M3 was prohibited from importation, so the M4 will be too. Unless Benelli's legal department pulls a rabbit out of their hat. So far I'm impressed with their responsiveness. They immediately asked for the letter from the ATF, so it looks like the wheels are turning. My guess is their argument is going to be the extended mag, the telestock and the sight rail are all suitable for sporting use. We'll see if .gov buys that. I noticed the M1 practical is getting a lot of play here with the extended magazine. Here's my take, it's OK because of the stock on it. The M4 won't be OK because of the pistol grip stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4Madness Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Here's my take on it. The BATF has already ruled that it is ILLEGAL to do these mods on a Benelli M1014. It will be up to Benelli to get an exemption. I truly hope that they can, as I really want my shotgun to be "correct". But since I own a registered full-auto M16 and various sound suppressors, I have a lot to lose and don't wish to tempt fate even if I could do the mods illegally and go undetected. I need to stay as squeaky clean as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double_wield Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have to ask: why didn't you request proof from Benelli? Assuming they're on the up, they should have some sort of documentation, which could mean the response you received was a reversal of the previous ATF agreement. [ 10-24-2004, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4Madness Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Double_wield: I have to ask: why didn't you request proof from Benelli? Assuming they're on the up, they should have some sort of documentation, which could mean the response you received was a reversal of the previous ATF agreement. I figure that the best way to find out is to get it straight from the horse's mouth. It appears that Benelli had the wrong impression about the legality of all this, so if I'd have listened to Benelli say that it was legal, I would be in violation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double_wield Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Well, if they have documentation of an affirmative judgement from ATF, & you have a negative, it's potentially going to be a mess to resolve. [ 10-25-2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dport Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 M4, Has Benelli figured this out yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenb Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I believe M4Madness and I discussed a possible way to get the mods we want done on the M4 for those of us who live in Class III states. M4Madness mentioned that if it was registered as a Short Barreled Shotgun (SBS) then it would be exempt from the '89 import ban restrictions. Is it mandatory to actually put the 14" entry barrel on the M4 if registered as a SBS? If not, you could simply classify it as the shorty, leave the 18.5 on it, and add all the evil you want. Yes, you will get dinged for a 200 dollar tax stamp and wait around for 4 - 8 months for them to give you the green light. This is likely the route I will go if I can confirm it will exempt this weapon from the import ban. Plus, I want to know if I can leave the 18.5 on it after it is registered as the SBS. Also, does Benelli even sell the entry barrel to civilians? -Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen783 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 As far as putting a 18.5 inch barrell onto your SBS, sure it's not a problem. Benelli will sell the 14inch barrel to a class 3 dealer who would process your paperwork and hang onto your gun until the BATF paperwork is returned to him and then he will release the gun to you. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dport Posted October 30, 2004 Author Share Posted October 30, 2004 Benelli has M4's letter, so what is the reaction BenelliUSA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4Madness Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Originally posted by dport: Benelli has M4's letter, so what is the reaction BenelliUSA? I haven't heard anything from them. They haven't even acknowledged to me that they received the faxed letter. All I have is the paper saying that the fax went through. I wish someone from Benelli would at least e-mail me and let me know that it has been received. I provided my e-mail address on the cover page of the fax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmorerKrug Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Any thig new on this yet? I Read something obout a FOIA letter that went to BATF. I think In ARFCOM. is this a dead issue or is there light at the end of this tunnel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipguy Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Originally posted by ArmorerKrug: Any thig new on this yet? I Read something obout a FOIA letter that went to BATF. I think In ARFCOM. is this a dead issue or is there light at the end of this tunnel? 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dport Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 Benelli, it is a new week. What's the word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dport Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 Benelli? Any word yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmikesteen Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Benelli, Could you at least provide your paying customers the courtesy of a reply even if you don't know anything yet. It would at least indicate that you acknowledge that we as consumers have a choice in the future. We represent your customer base and as such have a right to expect the manufacturer of the product we selected to at least acknowledge we have questions. You on the other hand have a right to ignore us and I promise you if you do, you will receive the same loyalty and respect you deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.