Adding AW features to a MAK 90?

[femoralis]

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?

 

[ny32182]

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.

 

[femoralis]

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?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

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.

 

[femoralis]

Is a norinco MAK 90 an AW or not?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

No.

 

[grendelbane]

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.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

It's a little more than just temporarily removing the stock....

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20226

NOV 1 6 2001

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXX:

This refers to your letter of March 19, 2001, in which you ask about
the status of certain semiautomatic assault weapons which have been
altered to another configuration.

As defined in section 921(a)(30), of Title 18, United States Code
(U.S.C, the term "semiautomatic assault weapon" includes certain
named weapons and certain semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns
that have a combination of enumerated features. Title 18 U.S.C.
section 922(v)(1) prohibits manufacture, transfer, and possession of
semiautomatic assault weapons; however, section 922(v)(2) provides
that any semiautomatic assault weapon that was lawfully possessed
under Federal law on September 13, 1994, is excluded from the
prohibition.

A frame or receiver of a semiautomatic assault weapon, meets the
definition of a "firearm" in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(3); however, a
firearm frame or receiver alone, without the additional qualifying
features, does not meet the definition of a "semiautomatic assault
weapon" in section 921(a)(30). Therefore, a firearm frame or receiver
does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2).

We have also determined that a semiautomatic assault weapon in
knockdown (unassembled) condition consisting of a receiver and all
parts needed to assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon are
subject to regulation if the parts are segregated or packaged
together and held by a person as the parts for the assembly of a
particular firearm.

You describe an AR15 type rifle that met the definition of a
semiautomatic assault weapon and was lawfully possessed on September
13, 1994. At some subsequent time the rifle was temporarily
reassembled in a configuration such that it no longer had the
qualifying features of a semiautomatic assault weapon. You asked if
the original components could then be lawfully reinstalled on the
rifle.

Provided that the original components were held by the owner and
reinstalled on the rifle, it is our opinion that the rifle would
still qualify as an exempted semiautomatic assault weapon even though
it had been temporarily assembled in a different configuration. We
note, that mere disassembly of a semiautomatic weapon by an owner
would not remove the firearm from the definition of a semiautomatic
assault weapon nor would the reassembly constitute manufacture of a
prohibited semiautomatic assault weapon.

Your second question concerns a semiautomatic assault weapon that
also meets the exemption in section 922(v)(2). However, this firearm
was disassembled and the receiver, without other components, was
sold. Since the receiver is no longer possessed with all parts
necessary to assemble a complete semiautomatic assault weapon, it no
longer meets the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon. The
receiver does not meet the exemption in section 922(v)(2) and
assembly of this firearm in the configuration of a semiautomatic
assault weapon would be prohibited under section 922(v)(1).

If you are interested in determining the status of a particular
receiver or semiautomatic assault weapon, you should contact the
manufacturer or importer and ask about the date that it was
manufactured and the configuration at the time of sale. It may also
be necessary to contact subsequent dealers and owners who possessed
the firearm.

We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. If you have
further questions concerning this matter, please contact us.


Sincerely yours,

Curtis H.A. Bartlett
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

I will be glad when September gets here.

Me too!!

 

[grendelbane]

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!

 

[Hkmp5sd]

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).

 

[No4Mk1*]

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.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Nope.

is an "assault weapon" by name

Certain firearms including the MAK 90 semiautomatic rifle were prohibited from importation, on April 6, 1998, and they cannot now be assembled from imported parts as provided in the cited sections. Such firearms which were imported or assembled prior to April 6, 1998, in compliance with the cited section may still lawfully be possessed.

Adding a pistol grip and buttstock to a MAK 90 rifle using more than 10 imported parts would still constitute assembly of a semiautomatic rifle subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 922(r) and 27 CFR section 178.39.

Adding a thumbhole stock to an AK style semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 imported parts would now also constitute assembly of a semiautomatic rifle subject to the cited sections.

A MAK 90 style rifle having a thumbhole style stock with a pistol grip, but none of the other features listed in the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)(B), would not meet the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon. The "grandfather" exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)(2) applies only to a semiautomatic assault weapon which was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the statute. A rifle which did not meet the definition of a semiautomatic on September 13, 1994, does not qualify for this exemption. A firearm which became a semiautomatic assault weapon after September 13, 1994, is subject to the prohibition in section 922(v).

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

 

[femoralis]

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?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

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.

 

[riddleofsteel]

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.

 

[DMK]

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.

 

[Gewehr98]

But will it go away in September?

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

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?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

They will still have to do the "10 parts count" dance to get around the '89 import ban.