Benelli M4 MD Legality?

Occam said:

I was pretty ignernt about the import-vs-domestic-parts thing when it comes to this. Bought an M4 not long ago (man, what a nice shotgun), and decided to make the tube normal (Italian-wise) length/capacity. I was rather surprised to find I'd have to replace X number of unrelated parts with domestically made ones in order to stay cool with the gubmint. Was truly absurd. Still, what a great gun. Second Benelli in the household, but not the last.

Click to expand...

Yep, I am a big fan of Benelli and Beretta. Have had the SBE since 1997 and bought the M4 in 2014. Will most likely buy a Benelli Super Vinci once my son grows into 12 gauge.

Yes, 922(r) is absurd, but it is what it is. Replacing completely good components on a firearm to be able to make other mods is just INSANE. Politicians pass stupid laws, and then the attorneys figure out how to dance around them and get to where the client needs to be legally.

fabsroman said:

Oh my Lord. You actually linked a video from Freedom Fighter Tactical and still took this position that the Benelli M4 is not 922(r) compliant. Did you read the article? If you add a collapsing stock to the gun, you need to change out an additional 4 parts with Made in the USA parts for the gun to be 922(r) compliant, and guess what, Freedom Fighter Tactical sells the Made in the USA parts that are needed. Change the mag tube for more capacity, and you have to change out 3 parts with Made in the USA parts. Mind you, the parts that one can change to Made in the USA are specifically set forth by ATF and they are included in the Freedom Fighter Tactical FAQ write-up about the M4 and making mods to it while staying compliant with 922(r).

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. He would have to change out parts to make the shotgun 922(r) compliant and legal at a federal level. Look try this. Call MSP give them the exact model of the shotgun and ask them if it's legal. I'm not MSP and I'm not the ATF. Like I said do whatever you want at the end of the day.

StanleyJobson said:

Like anyone can make sense of the laws coming out in Maryland. It changes like a fart in the wind of any given politician on any given day. You can call MSP one day ask if something is legal, they will tell you yes. You call the next day, speak to someone else and they tell you that it's not. It's clown world. More people than I can count have been arrested and charged for weapons that are "supposedly" legal in Maryland.

Click to expand...

This I agree with. Thing is, I do not rely on MSP or many others for interpretation of laws.

My last mistake on relying on others was to buy new stripped lowers and put them on a Form 1 to SBR them because this would allow me to use pencil barrels on them. Once I got to reading the black and white letters of the law, I don't see anything in the actual law that makes an SBR not subject to the list of banned weapons. So, my SBRs are going to be HBAR.

The vast majority of Maryland firearm laws does not make common sense, but they can be interpreted and worked with.

It just isn't easy for the average person to read through the pile of trash and figure it out correctly.

Just a couple weeks ago, I had an NRA certified instructor telling me that there was no HQL training exemption for people that owned handguns prior to FSA2103 going into effect. Meanwhile, it is there in black and white in the law. Anybody that owned a regulated firearm before FSA2013 went into effect, is exempt from the HQL training. Very few people even know that.

StanleyJobson said:

Exactly my point. He would have to change out parts to make the shotgun 922(r) compliant and legal at a federal level. Look try this. Call MSP give them the exact model of the shotgun and ask them if it's legal. I'm not MSP and I'm not the ATF. Like I said do whatever you want at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

When I am representing a client, do you think I rely on the Assistant State's Attorney's view on the matter?

A letter from the ATF is great for mitigation of sentencing, but it does not absolve somebody of guilt. Same goes for reliance on the MSP.

Let's just take a look at the ATF's waffling on pistol braces. They weren't legal, then they were legal. Bump stocks were legal, then they were not legal.

MSP and ATF follow the wind.

StanleyJobson said:

Exactly my point. He would have to change out parts to make the shotgun 922(r) compliant and legal at a federal level. Look try this. Call MSP give them the exact model of the shotgun and ask them if it's legal. I'm not MSP and I'm not the ATF. Like I said do whatever you want at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

not quite. There is no issue with possessing or transferring a Benelli M4 once its in the country.

fabsroman said:

When I am representing a client, do you think I rely on the Assistant State's Attorney's view on the matter?

A letter from the ATF is great for mitigation of sentencing, but it does not absolve somebody of guilt. Same goes for reliance on the MSP.

Let's just take a look at the ATF's waffling on pistol braces. They weren't legal, then they were legal. Bump stocks were legal, then they were not legal.

MSP and ATF follow the wind.

Click to expand...

Right and they still will willingly waste taxpayer dollars to ruin ones life if they so choose to do so even if they are clearly in the wrong. For them it's nothing it's not like they are going to get fired or even held accountable....

StanleyJobson said:

Exactly my point. He would have to change out parts to make the shotgun 922(r) compliant and legal at a federal level. Look try this. Call MSP give them the exact model of the shotgun and ask them if it's legal. I'm not MSP and I'm not the ATF. Like I said do whatever you want at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

No, he doesnt. The gun IS legal in its current configuration. Period. Full stop. 922 only comes into play if he wants to change things on it.

fabsroman said:

Just a couple weeks ago, I had an NRA certified instructor telling me that there was no HQL training exemption for people that owned handguns prior to FSA2103 going into effect. Meanwhile, it is there in black and white in the law. Anybody that owned a regulated firearm before FSA2013 went into effect, is exempt from the HQL training. Very few people even know that.

Click to expand...

I had a MD HQL and W&C instructortell me that it was illegal for me to transport handguns in a case with loaded mags in the case, even though we were in WV and I hold a WV carry permit. The handguns were my carry guns that I had to secure before going into a building that I'm prohibited from carrying in. Yea, I was going to the local sheriff's office.

I told the guy we were in WV and I have a valid WV carry permit. His respone was that he is a MD HQL and W&C instructor and he knows what the law is and that I'm breaking the law in WV.

fabsroman said:

Just a couple weeks ago, I had an NRA certified instructor telling me that there was no HQL training exemption for people that owned handguns prior to FSA2103 going into effect. Meanwhile, it is there in black and white in the law. Anybody that owned a regulated firearm before FSA2013 went into effect, is exempt from the HQL training. Very few people even know that.

Click to expand...

You don't need to have owned it prior to FSA 2013.

You could, today, buy a C&R handgun (no HQL needed) or a stripped lower (no HQL needed) then use that serial number to be training exempt.

fabsroman said:

Anybody that owned a regulated firearm before FSA2013 went into effect, is exempt from the HQL training. Very few people even know that.

Click to expand...

Mrs. Smokey was officially gifted my P99as back before FSA2013 just for this reason. Not gunna lie though, I've been so salty about HQLs existing that I have refused to bother getting one. I decided to switch my collecting efforts over to evil black rifles/pistols(from stripped lowers) instead.