ecross27 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Would appreciate any definitive update information if adding a Benelli or aftermarket mag exention to the collapsible stock M4 is legal? Has anyone ever a written ATF response to this question? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clansoup Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I think your asking on the wrong website, but the combo's vary from state to state. People in this forum say that it is illegal to put a mag extension on a base M4 (fixed pistol grip stock) in California when according to the California Department of Justice it is not. If you happen to live in California then it would be illegal to have a pistol grip with a collapsable stock. Whichever state you live in try this but change the state. Google - California Department of Justice Which brings "Office of the attorney General" ( http://ag.ca.gov/ ) Click on "Publications" - "Firearms" - "California firearms law (current year)" On Page "13" item "6" "A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following: (A) A folding or telescoping stock (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip. (7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine. (8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder. The following definitions shall apply relative to defining assault weapons: (1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device. (2)"Capacity to accept more than ten rounds" shall mean capable of accomodating more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accomodate more than ten rounds. G/L in your search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecross27 Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 Sorry. I am not in California and I was asking as it relates to Federal Statutes and/or rulings. No disrespect, but it appeared the Benelli site that discusses M4's and one piece extention tubes would be appropriate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clansoup Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I was told This law was dropped in 2006 but I can't find the current document on it, if I do, I will post it. http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/18usc_chap44.pdf Page "26" Section 18 U.S.C. 921 Item "D" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggan Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 This topic has been researched and debated to death on these boards. http://www.benelliusa.com/forum/search.php?searchid=360931 Research away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggan Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I see now the main thing I wanted you to see, m4madness' letter from the atf a few years ago is no longer hosted, so let me link it here: http://s3.supload.com/free/412235.jpg/view/ http://s3.supload.com/free/412237.jpg/view/ Long story short: The theory is that if you make the gun have less than 10 imported parts, 922r no longer applies, and everyone lives happily ever after. Benelli stopped selling full length tubes/collapsible stock for fear of the ATF, but the ATF has done nothing beyond stating that these modifications would technically be illegal under certain laws. Long story even shorter: 922r is a crock, and there's no reason to worry about vague "sporting purposes" clauses written by people who have no clue about guns, or to worry that the ATF is going to break down your door and arrest you for having a stock that lets you adjust your length of pull. Long story the shortest: The ATF, to my knowledge, does not prosecute 922r offenses. The accessories are available and easy to install. You're more likely to get sued by the RIAA for mp3 downloads or charged by the DMV for using a catless exhaust than you are likely to be hassled for not being in compliance with 922r. YMMV Have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecross27 Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone now or past; however, unless the response is specific to the part added and from ATF, then there is no answer yet--at least for my use. Ad nausum debates are fun; however, generally dont provide anything but our "opinions"--mine is worthless for the most part, without supporting data. Again no disrespect at all to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggan Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 That's the point. Vague, confusing, unenforceable laws are very good at keeping the majority of people in line, while allowing the minority to do what they want to an extent. If you're really caught up on the technicalities ... I don't know what to tell you. You won't find a clear answer. You're not supposed to. Since when have gun laws had to make sense to get put into effect? On one hand imported shotguns can't have over a certain number of random features ... but it takes a certain number of imported parts to make it an imported gun ... so people have been replacing imported parts with US made parts in hopes of dropping under 10 imported parts and thus making 922r null and void. On the other hand, the benelli is obviously made up of more than the 11 parts listed in the ATF letter, and the ATF could "realize" and revise their supposed list at any time, making the people who have replaced stock imported parts with US made parts possessors of now illegal weapons. Plus there are local laws to comply with, and the "sporting purposes" clause. My opinion: Don't fret over it. Enjoy your gun. Take it or leave it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecross27 Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 It was apparently an inappropriate question. Having said that, since I had not been on this site for quite a while, I would have assumed/hoped someone would have gone to the trouble to make the specific request to ATF in the past long time. Would have seemed a pretty simple thing to do for one of the more knowledgable members. From past experience, U S Attorneys do not subscribe to the theory that "forgiveness is easier to get than permission"! I have no interest in even being in a "gray" area of the law--not worth it to me. Either way, I appreciate the thoughts and responses. 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.