Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Adding AW features to a MAK 90?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by BTR, Jan 19, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BTR

    BTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    730
    I read about this idea elsewhere, and would appreciate your thoughts on it- Is is legal to add AW features (bayonet lug, folding stock, flash suppressor) to a MAK 90, provided that the US made parts rule is complied with? The rational for the idea being that the AW ban says:

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

    "(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

    AND

    (b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON.--Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

    "(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means-- "(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as -- "(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); ....

    AND

    "(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and 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 bayonet mount; "(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and "(v) a grenade launcher;

    So, if a MAK 90 was legally possessed prior to the ban, it would seem to be classified as an pre-ban AW, regardless of a lack of evil features. So it would presumbaly be legal to add a folding stock, if you added enough US made parts. Is this logic correct or am I misunderstanding something?
    :confused:
     
  2. ny32182

    ny32182 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,756
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    I believe that technically, the gun had to be assembled with evil features prior to the ban... i.e, buying a stripped lower a month before the ban and assembling it with evil features after the ban would be illegal. However, the burden of proof is on the gubermint to be able to prove that your rifle WAS NOT assembled with evil features prior to the ban. The only way to do this reliably is to trace the serial number and find that the lower was produced after the ban. If your reciever is preban... well... have at it, I say.
     
  3. BTR

    BTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    730
    Yes, I know that's what they say, but "Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models)" are defined as AW weapons regardless of what features they have... so is there any reason one couldn't add the evil features later?
     
  4. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    No can do....until September, that is.

    According to ATF, your rifle must have been configured as a complete assault weapon at the time of the laws enactment in 1994. In addition, ATF had ruled that your rifle must have remained in that configuration ever since the enactment. It is possible for a pre-ban configured rifle to lose its pre-ban status.

    You cannot now add the American parts and then add 2 or more evil features. The only benefit of the US made parts is replacing a thumbhole stock with a standard pistol grip stock.

    In September, provided you have changed the parts, you can do what you want.
     
  5. BTR

    BTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    730
    Is a norinco MAK 90 an AW or not?
     
  6. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
  7. grendelbane

    grendelbane Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    KY
    Well, this does not affect me directly. My preban AR15 has a Car stock. So, even with the upper gone, I still have 2 evil features, a telescoping stock, and a pistol grip.

    However, I find it hard to believe that if one removes an upper from a preban AR15 with a fixed stock that it then loses its preban status.

    I am not trying to start an arguement, but it sounds like you are saying that if you put a post ban upper on a preban lower, it would destroy the preban status of the lower receiver.

    Or, for another example, if I remove the Choate folding stock from my legal, preban Ruger Mini-14, and put the original stock back on, my Ruger loses its preban status. (It has an aftermarket flash suppressor, in addition to the folding stock).

    I will be glad when September gets here.
     
  8. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    It's a little more than just temporarily removing the stock....

    Me too!! :)
     
  9. grendelbane

    grendelbane Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    KY
    OK, that is good to hear. I don't have to worry about the fact that I removed the stock and pistol grip from my preban AR15 when I decided to go with green furniture instead of black.

    I still don't know how I would prove that my Mini-14 is pre-ban. While my friends are still alive, I suppose I could subpoena them to provide evidence that they had seen my Ruger in AW status before 1994. This is especially upsetting since that gun was not produced as an AW, but was made such by myself, in the '80s.

    It is not a big problem for me, but it could become one for my heirs. How would they prove that my Mini-14 was a legal pre-ban rifle? The funny thing is, I had the sales receipts, and invoices, for the stock and flash suppressor that I installed. I moved in 1991, and now I can not find them.

    September 2004 can not come too quickly!
     
  10. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    The duplicity of ATF is amazing...

    They claim a pre-ban AW receiver can lose its pre-ban status. On the other hand, a machinegun receiver, rifle receiver and shotgun receiver retain their designation forever. If you strip all parts from a MG receiver, it's still a MG. If you use a completed rifle or shotgun to convert into a short barrel firearm, they have to be registered as a SBR/SBS ($200 transfer fee) instead of an AOW ($5 transfer fee).
     
  11. No4Mk1*

    No4Mk1* Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    I know this thread is 2 months old, but I believe the original poster is correct, the NORINCO MAK-90 is an "assault weapon" by name and therefore can have all the evil features added. Just comply with the import ban / parts count.

    The law is written clearly and all you would have to prove is that your MAK 90 was made by NORINCO, and it is a type of Avtomat Kalashnikov.
     
  12. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    Nope.

    http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter32.txt
     
  13. BTR

    BTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    730
    Is the ATF legally correct in regards to not considering the mak90 an aw weapon (that is, under the 94 aw ban)? That is what I would like to know... in reference to the ban, why would it not be one?
     
  14. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    ATF decided that only semiautomatic rifles which accept detachable magazines and having 2 or more evil features on September 13, 1994 are grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons. Any other semiautomatic rifles which accept detachable magazines, regardless of when manufactured, are not considered pre-bans. They totally disregard the "named" weapons included in the law.

    In my non-lawyer opinion, any firearm named on that list and manufactured prior to 9/13/94 are pre-bans. Since ATF considers receivers to be firearms, that would even include all Colt AR-15 stripped recievers in existence at that time.

    So there are two options available. Either fight them in court or wait until September and the whole issue goes away.
     
  15. riddleofsteel

    riddleofsteel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    389
    Location:
    NC
    It has slowly dawned on me that the ATF is like an 2000 lb. bull. They think they are right and act. What they do to you may or may not be legal or accoeding to the letter of the law. But the real question is;

    "Can you afford the ride on those horns?"

    Unless you enjoy being a test case or just never take your rifle off of your property why bugger the bull.
     
  16. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,797
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    From reading a number of these ATF letters on various subjects, it seems to me that the ATF will usually choose the most restrictive stance in it's interpretation of the regulations. Probably just the typical CYA mentality of a beaurocratic organization.
     
  17. Gewehr98

    Gewehr98 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,988
    But will it go away in September?


    The September sunset of the '94 AWB will take care of a lot of that. But what about the '89 Importation thingie that forced butthole thumbstocks on imported AK variants? It wouldn't be out of character for the BATFE to just fall back to that previous ruling. Or am I missing something here?
     
  18. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    They will still have to do the "10 parts count" dance to get around the '89 import ban.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page