Bennelli M4 mag extentions

[Girodin]

Thanks for posting those letters. It helps to illustrate a few key points.

I think the take away lessons from this are:

1. The extended tube alone IS a violation of the law.

a) this is not changed by wide spread ignorance of the law

2. What is required for 922(r) compliance is unclear.

a) You definitely need 10 or fewer foreign parts from the list of countable parts

b) The ATF has given differing interpretations of how many countable parts the M4 has. That means it is unclear how many you need to remove (typically this means replacing them with a US made part) in order to be in the clear.

3. Better safe than sorry

a) the ATF is probably not going to kick down your door tomorrow. Many in law enforcement are not even aware of the violation. They do not seem to be actively seeking out instances of this violation to prosecute (at least not right now).

b) You could be prosecuted though, it could be because you somehow attracted attention to yourself or simply because some guy beyond a desk somewhere decides he wants to start going after this. Should you be prosecuted it would be costly at best and a nightmare at worst.

I think this has been a useful thread. People need to make their own choices about what they do, but they ought to make them with a knowledge as to what the facts are.

 

[MAX100]

The letter should have asked why they choose to look the other way and not pursue the shotguns they know that are illegal. Also why did they approve the importation of thousands of FN SLP and Winchester Practical X2 with fixed full length hi cap mag tubes. Some of the imported SLP shotguns are still being sold.


GC

 

[Girodin]

Also why did they approve the importation of thousands of FN SLP and Winchester Practical X2 with fixed full length hi cap mag tubes.

The secretary is allowed to decide what constitutes a sporting gun and what does not. They are also allowed to change those decisions. Further there is not a fixed criteria for making the decision. I do not have that much knowledge about regulatory agency law, but once congress delegates the authority to a agency to make decisions they have a great deal of latitude and can receive a fairly deferential standard of review, the exact standard depends on exactly how the secretary comes to his decisions.

So to give the short answer to both your questions, because they can.

 

[MAX100]

It would be very hard to prosecute anyone for a tube extension on a imported shotgun when others are walking around with illegal shotguns that the ATF had a say in letting into the country. This explains why they don't care about tube extensions on imported shotguns.

GC

 

[Girodin]

It would be very hard to prosecute anyone for a tube extension on a imported shotgun when others are walking around with illegal shotguns that the ATF had a say in letting into the country.

Not really. That defense might work about as well as saying the cop that pulled you over let dozens of other cars that going just as fast go right by and only pulled over you. So what, who cares? You don't need logical consistency in the application of the law, the "system" actually allows for a considerable degree of discretion in enforcement of the law.

But your point really misses the more important matter of what the law actually says. Read it again and look for what the actual violations are. Do you think those shotguns were illegal if they were allowed to be imported? Do you really think their import status affects your assembly of a foreign gun into a non sporting weapon even one iota?

If you wind up in court your arguments will not likely win the day. They don't speak at all to what the prosecution would have to prove.