Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Benelli Forums
pboneal

Is adding a factory collapsible stock and mag tube legal on M4 11707?

Recommended Posts

I am a newbie and am wondering if this is okay. I see them all over but I see questions raised about the imported parts and being added to the weapon.

 

Thanks

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That takes the jam out of my doughnut. :mad:

 

I knew about the collapsable stock. I intended to install it when shooting in Nevada, remove it before returning home, and actually leaving it at my Nevada home, just for safe measure.

 

I didn't know about the extended tube, which I have bought...a factory Benelli 2 shot extended tube. And I can't have that installed at all? :mad:

 

F***ing politicians. They can all bite. Guess I'll resell it on eBay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That takes the jam out of my doughnut. :mad:

 

I knew about the collapsable stock. I intended to install it when shooting in Nevada, remove it before returning home, and actually leaving it at my Nevada home, just for safe measure.

 

I didn't know about the extended tube, which I have bought...a factory Benelli 2 shot extended tube. And I can't have that installed at all? :mad:

 

F***ing politicians. They can all bite. Guess I'll resell it on eBay.

 

Just remember that for $200 and some paperwork you can put the gun on a Form 1 as a registered NFA weapon and ignore all 922r regulations. Might be worthwhile if your state allows it before you go and sell all your cool parts.

 

You can also remove the gun from the NFA registry for free and sell it in its original configuration if you ever decide to offload it. The questions is, is it worth $200 one time payment to be able to put all the cool accessories on your M4?

 

Shane A. Bernskoetter

Author of:

Surviving Twilight: A Soldier's Chronicle of Daily Life in Iraq

http://www.survivingtwilight.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats California Law say about the special permits because i know they left BB gun ban stuff in place from what i understand?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys can take this with a grain of salt. I spoke with the ATF yesterday at the shot show. They had a booth there. The gas pistons count as 1 item, not 2. So, back to 14 parts. Not sure what to believe anymore. He also stated the burden of proof is on us. They can't tell a foreign part from a domestic. To be sure just keep the receipts that prove you purchased american made components(to exchange off the list) and you will be fine. Said there was lots of debate on the M4. LOL Just passing it along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pbneal:

 

Below are some excerpts from the Federal Gun Control Act that you may wish to review.

 

§ 921. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter --

30) The term "semiautomatic assault weapon" means --

D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of --

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

§ 922. Unlawful acts

r) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to –

(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

 

3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to –

 

D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

 

4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to –

(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

 

 

§ 925. Exceptions: Relief from disabilities

(d) The Secretary shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition --

(3) 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 1954 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, except in any case where the Secretary 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;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in the fun state of Massachusetts, you can have a semi-automatic shotgun with pistol grip and holding more than 5 rounds IF you owned it before the ban and IF you can prove it with a sales receipt and Mass form FA 10 and IF your local police chief has blessed you with a class "A" large capacity firearms permit and AFTER you have taken all the gun courses, passed all the back ground checks, State Police investigation and finally, you live in a city or town that the chief even allows private citizens to have a firearm listed on the long, state issued no-no list. Unless of course you actually live within the city limits of Boston, in which case you can't own the above mentioned firearm under any conditions. :eek:

 

SgtCathy

 

Cape Cod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's still hope for enough US parts. In addition to the SOCOM magazine tube and Sure cycle follower, there is a Surefire handguard available. Now you're down to needing two parts. A while back one of the members of this forum who goes by "yallknowwho" was going to have trigger, hammer and disconnector made in a US machine shop and available to purchase. That project may have come off the tracks though, because he has not reappeared for quite a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This country is at a crossroads. Ridiculous rules and regulations that have no effect on anything other than denying a law abiding citizen their pesonal freeedoms are a disgrace! Boston, NY, CA, NJ and all these other places that require you to have a law degree to decypher a silly reg is insane! Since when did we willfully give up our rights to think for ourselves?? defend ourselves?? If things dont change in this country, this nation too will falll just like other great ones throughout history and with our pick of both parties candidites.......im afraid we're doomed! Installing something as small as an adjustable stock on our shotguns will make us felons??? Laws like that do nothing but turn law abiding citizens into criminals....when are people going to stand up??? im sick to think of what is coming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd hate to ruin the mood here, but there are federal restrictions on semi-automatic shotguns imported after 1989. They cannot be imported or assembled in such configurations set forth by the Gun Control Act. This pre-dates the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and is still in effect throughout the country.

 

The GCA prohibits:

Quote:

(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of --

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of

the weapon;

(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the issue is as clear cut as the above would suggest.

 

This section comes from the definitions in 921(a)(30) which, along with the prohibitions of manufacturing, transferring or possessing as covered by 922(v), were added as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. Per ATF, "The law enacting the ban provided that it would expire 10 years from the date of enactment, which was September 13, 1994. Therefore, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 13, 2004, the provisions of the law ceased to apply."

 

So these clear-cut definitions of 921(a)(30) do not appear to be applicable anymore. If someone can provide a reference to any other section with specific, documented criteria along these lines which is still in effect, I'd love to see it.

 

ATF likes to hold power over the issue and they will readily send letters of a cut and paste nature that paints a picture implying those definitions are still in place and applicable towards 925(d)(3). Please remember 922® does not define any actual weapon configurations. The prohibited configurations are defined within 925(d)(3) and specifically 5845(a), and even these do not call out anything like the definitions within 921(a)(30).

 

The real problem is that the AG is given free reign to determine the sporting suitability for an imported shotgun, and in theory, the determination could be made on a case by case basis if ever prosecuted. Good luck trying to find actual documented proof of what the non-sporting criteria is. The personalized ATF letters which have been posted on many gunboards are horrible mish-mashes of opinion and leaps of logic that are constructed in such a way as to provide 'proof' of something which is not necessarily the case. This trashy piece of dissinformation has been spread on so many gunboards that now it is taken as gospel, and most every neophyte who reads a post about a Benelli and a mag tube now automatically quotes something back about 922® and how they know for sure what is being discussed is illegal.

 

As long as this nonsense keeps spreading amongst the gun community, there is little reason to wonder why the ATF or AG haven't put anything in writing on the topic ... the various forum experts are doing more harm then they could ever hope to accomplish.

 

Until then, I think I'll wait for:

1) Publically published information from ATF on specific 'non-sporting' criteria that can be applied across the board,

2) Written clarrification from Benelli in light of their previous sales of parts and published catalogs which said mag tubes were 'now legal',

3) Explanation from Benelli how they can openly sponsor Tom Knapp and Tim Bradley when they are using configurations which every 922® expert knows is 'illegal',

4) Documentation of a 922® prosecution for possesion of a shotgun in the commonly assumed 'illegal' configuration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So these clear-cut definitions of 921(a)(30) do not appear to be applicable anymore. If someone can provide a reference to any other section with specific, documented criteria along these lines which is still in effect, I'd love to see it.

 

 

921(a)(30) banned civilian ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons in 1994, which expired in 2004.

 

922(l) and 925(d)(3) banned importation of semi-automatic assault weapons and 922® banned assembly of an unimportable semiautomatic assault weapons since 1989. These will probably go on forever.

 

 

Here's what the ATF FAQ says:

Q: Does the expiration of the SAW ban and the LCAFD ban affect importation?

 

A: LCAFDs are no longer prohibited from importation but they are still subject to the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act. An approved Form 6 import permit is still required. Non-sporting firearms are still prohibited from importation under sections 922(l) and 925(d)(3) of the GCA. Because the vast majority of SAWs are nonsporting, they generally cannot be imported.

 

If an importer has an approved Form 6 import permit for LCAFDs with a restriction stamp on it related to the ban, the importer may import LCAFDs using the permit and disregard the restriction stamp. Importers may apply for a new permit if they prefer.

 

Temporary importation of SAWs and LCAFDs is now lawful under the provisions of Title 27, CFR, section 478.115(d) because firearms that are temporarily imported are not required to meet sporting purpose requirements.

 

Q: Does the expiration of the SAW ban change laws regarding assembly of nonsporting shotguns and semiautomatic rifles from imported parts?

 

A: No. The provisions of section 922® of the GCA and the regulations in 27 CFR 478.39 regarding assembly of non-sporting shotguns and semiautomatic rifles from imported parts still apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
922(l) and 925(d)(3) banned importation of semi-automatic assault weapons and 922® banned assembly of an unimportable semiautomatic assault weapons since 1989. These will probably go on forever.

 

Here's what the ATF FAQ says:

 

 

Again, more misdirection on the part of the ATF in their FAQ.

 

Please be careful how you interpret their messages when offering explanations of the listed codes/statutes as you are now adding the SAW terminology into these sections when there is no mention of it within the actual text.

 

As an example, 922(l) covers illegal importation issues related to ANY type of firearm; it is not directed at nor does it contain any mention of "semi-automatic assault weapons".

 

922(l) "Except as provided in section 925 (d) of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition; and it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof in violation of the provisions of this chapter."

 

 

Sure, the assembly of non-sporting firearms from imported parts is still regulated under 922® and 27 CFR 478.39, however where is the officially documented and published non-sporting criteria to be found? The specific short barreled shotgun or destructive device phrases in 5845(a) notwithstanding, non-sporting criteria are not defined within the sections we have discussed so far, however this hasn't stopped the ATF from exercising their creative writing skills in making some interesting connections in their 'official', if otherwise non-legally binding publications (see: FAQ and those personal letters from Sterling Nixon). Note how their FAQ keeps mentioning the ambiguous non-sporting phrase in conjunction with their attempt to propogate the notion of a separately regulated class of firearms under SAW moniker.

 

I believe the SAW terminology was defined and implemented as part of the 1994 Crime Bill, however with this bill's expiration in 2004, it is not clear that the SAW definition still officially exists or could be recognized within the context of the existing Federal law. Since no official non-sporting criteria seem to exist, most every discussion on the topic naturally turns to the old SAW definitions as some starting point, with the ATF all the happier to assist with their own campaign of misinformation. Under the most commonly accepted belief, SAW, or at least SAW type features, equates to non-sporting.

 

One interesting point to consider however comes from the actual text in the ATF FAQ:

"Because the vast majority of SAWs are nonsporting, they generally cannot be imported."

 

Since the '94 ban is dead, SAWs cannot be banned from importation or possesion based solely on their SAW status. In effect, ATF acknowledges this here by saying that any ban on importation under of 925(d)(3) or the duplication clause of 922® is due to the non-sporting nature ONLY; it is not due to the SAW issue in and of itself.

 

Now I'm still not sure how you can qualify a SAW as non-sporting without a published definition, but what I think is more important is that by their own implied logic, if the vast majority of SAWs are non-sporting, then there may exist some small minority of SAWs which ARE NOT non-sporting, i.e. there may be some SAWs which are 'sporting'.

 

This begs the question, if some SAWs or SAW featured firearms are indeed sporting, then what else is used for the basis of determining the sporting/non-sporting nature?

 

Apparently SAW features alone do not equate to 'non-sporting', and if there is no other defined basis for determining the sporting status, how can other SAWs (or more properly, firearms that have features once covered by the now defunct SAW criteria) be evaluated for their legality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 90% sure that I could win a court case regarding possession of a Benelli M4 with extended magazine and adjustable stock. I am 10% sure I could afford the cost of the case. 10% of the cost of the case is still more than buying or even having custom made, enough US parts to be able to support the claim that it does not violate the terms of the 922r statute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There probably hasn't been a single case where an individual had been prosecuted for breaking only 922® or 925(l). More likely it could be possible to find cases where it would have been tacked on to a greater charge.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...