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

Any Lawyers on this board?

Recommended Posts

I'd be very interested to hear your comments on these research observations and the opinion resulting:

 

A search of the Federal Register from 1994 to present identifies no notices by the Attorney General that the Benelli M4 shotgun is prohibited from importation.

 

 

922 ®

® 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—

 

 

925 d 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 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes, excluding surplus military firearms, 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; or

 

 

 

  • Whereas, the Benelli M4 shotgun, as imported with fixed length buttstock, or affixed with collapsible stock, and having a barrel length of at least 18 inches does not fall within any definition of a firearm in section 5845 of Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code and,
  • Whereas the Benelli M4 shotgun with an 18 inch barrel, and fitted with a collapsible stock which is set to the collapsed position exceeds an overall length of 26 inches, and ,
  • Whereas the Attorney General has not prohibited the importation of the Benelli M4 shotgun as not particularly suitable for or readily adaptable for sporting purposes and,
  • Whereas the affixing of a collapsible stock, and extension of the magazine are in fact adaptations that render the Benelli M4 shotgun particularly suitable for the sporting purpose of engaging in competition such as IPSC three gun competitions…
  • Now therefore it does follow that nothing in current US law will prohibit the assembly of a legally imported and acquired Benelli M4 shotgun, which has a barrel of 18 inches in length or greater, with any stock, magazine tubes or other appurtenances which by the incorporation thereof do not either reduce the overall length to less than 26 inches in any configuration, or which do not in any other way violate the act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of reports of a letter from BATF, though I have not seen the letter, but BATF has no statutory authority to define what is or is not acceptable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. That can only be done by the Attorney General, and must be published in either the United States Code or in the Federal Register. It must first be published as a notice and after a comment period, can become a rule if not modified during the comment period. That has clearly not happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benelli ought to be able to tell us whether or not the Attorney General has ruled that the M4 with 18 inch bbl and collapsible stock is not suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if a '3 Gun Compitition' is considered a 'sporting purpose'?

 

I think IPSC competition is "sporting" for damn sure!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of its purpose, the Constitution protects all US citizens with regards to the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Any federal, state, or local law which prohibits or restricts that right is illegal and therefore irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washinton DC, Illinois, Kaliforina the list goes on and on.

This topic has been brought up before. The BATF are the one's that state that the m4 is non sporting under the ******** 922 that is suppose to save us from being bad.

The really bad people do not worry about 922r or no CCW allowed signs.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Washinton DC, Illinois, Kaliforina the list goes on and on.

This topic has been brought up before. The BATF are the one's that state that the m4 is non sporting under the ******** 922 that is suppose to save us from being bad.

The really bad people do not worry about 922r or no CCW allowed signs.

 

John

 

The reason for this post is that I can't find where the Attorney General has made this ruling. BATF does not have the statutory authority to make the ruling regardless of how much people in it may want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this can help. I did a quick search and the second post found this on the BATFA.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 19+15+1 viewpost.gif

I've seen lots of references to this law, but there seems to be some disagreement as to what exactly it means. I'm hoping someone can explain the law in plain English. I'm about to buy an M4 and would like to customize it but I'm concerned that I might do something illegal.

 

This is from another forum

 

"Technically, it prohibits the domestic assembly or reassembly of an imported firearm into a configuration that is unimportable. Once the Bush Import Ban took effect, people quickly discovered the legal loophole that allowed the importation of neutered guns and their restorative parts separately, then reassemble the firearm into its unimportable configuration: Taking that ugly thumbhole-stocked MAK-90 and adding the pistol grip, folding stock, etc after importation. This practice was perfectly legal until 18 USC 922r was enacted to close the obvious flaw in the legislation a year later in Nov 1990.

 

It applies to all semi-automatic rifles and and, according to a strict interpretation of the law's text, all shotguns regardless of mode of operation.

 

There are a lot of legal arguments floating around regarding the law's applicability:

 

Only ATF Import Branch has the authority to approve or deny a Form 6 import permit. If a firearm as been deemed unsuitable for sporting purposes and hence unimportable, then logically it has been submitted for approval for importation and been denied:

 

Does 922r apply to an assembled or reassembled firearm that has never been denied import approval? If the firearm in the same configuration has never been submitted for import approval, then its importability remains undefined for that configuration.

 

Can 922r apply where the resulting firearm is in a configuration not offered by the manufacturer, where there is no configuration to be denied importation? The Beretta Cx4 Storm is a good example where it is not a neutered version of a military weapon, but a standalone rifle made for the American civilian market. There is no manufactured version with a flash hider, non-thumbhole stock, folding stock, etc, so there cannot be an unimportable version."

 

Hope this helps.

BTW this SUCKS!!!

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of us who know anything about firearms and who attempt to comply with these laws understand how silly and ineffective they are. The only functionality these laws limit is that which renders these firearms more easily fitted to different sized people, and which makes them more convenient to store. I'm sure it would be perfectly legal to shorten my M4 non adjustable stock by just cutting it off at the end of the buffer tube, Gluing a new plate on the back and refitting a smaller recoil pad to it. I wonder why things that simply slip on or screw on are not considered "readily adaptable". If for some reason a collapsible stock is not "suitable for sporting purposes", the ability to quickly screw on a fixed stock should render said firearm "readily adaptable".

 

I don't want to be the one to find out, but If I had the money to spend on a series of trials, I would bet a sensible rational judge who is not totally anti gun, nor interested in making firearms law from the bench would find with me on this. I even more sure that at least 3, maybe 4 and possibly even 5 Supreme Court Justices would also find with me.

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...