PDA

View Full Version : MAK 90 legal?


GronHog
11-08-2008, 6:30 PM
Hello folks,

I would like to start this off with a big thank you to all for the mass amount of info at my finger tips.
I have been reading through several posts of intrest since finding this forum, and a question has come to mind that i havn't found clear answer too.
The senario: Bob bought MAK 90 back in 1993, filled out all the paper work needed to purchase this legal rifle in cali. He then waited the 15 days required by law before taking possession of said firearm. Well to get to the piont, Bob has been in the dark about the gun laws since then. He has read about the 2000 AW registar deadline, did he need to reg his MAK or is it already reg because he is the reg'd owner since '93.

Thanks again

69Mach1
11-08-2008, 6:37 PM
Yes, he needed to register it as an assault weapon because it is banned by name. The 15 day wait from the FFL does not equal AW registration. It's a separate step to register it as an AW.

goober
11-08-2008, 6:40 PM
+1
yes, lame as it sounds, he needed to do that. the weapon is now an illegal AW.
(wrestled with the decision myself at the time but went the legal route and reg'ed mine)

GronHog
11-08-2008, 6:44 PM
So as the story goes, Bob now is the reg'd owner of an unreg'd AW. This means he is in possession of an illegal firearm?

What endings can this story have?

DiscoBayJoe
11-08-2008, 6:44 PM
At this point I believe his choices are either to keep the rifle outside of CA or to rebuild the rifle on a off-list receiver w/a mag lock (while keeping the banned receiver outside of the state).

JDay
11-08-2008, 6:46 PM
Hopefully bob has stored that out of state since before 1/1/2000.

JDay
11-08-2008, 6:47 PM
So as the story goes, Bob now is the reg'd owner of an unreg'd AW. This means he is in possession of an illegal firearm?

What endings can this story have?

There's no record of it in the state after 30 days, there is still an ATF record of first sale but the state cannot access those.

jamesob
11-08-2008, 6:47 PM
i have a mak90 sitting in by brothers safe in oregon, man i wish i would have registered it.

GronHog
11-08-2008, 6:51 PM
ok so as I read the story, there was no firearm reg'd to the state in Bob's name.

Quiet
11-08-2008, 7:03 PM
ok so as I read the story, there was no firearm reg'd to the state in Bob's name.

Correct.

He is the owner of an unregistered assault weapon, which would net him a felony if is caught with it in CA.

69Mach1
11-08-2008, 7:10 PM
Actually, anything from a felony to an infraction.

GronHog
11-08-2008, 7:19 PM
So as the story goes Bob has not lived outside of cali, and to bring the MAK back home to cali would be a big no-no. Unless he would brake the rifle down to parts minus thr reciever, and build a new to him with a oll reciever

69Mach1
11-08-2008, 7:22 PM
So as the story goes Bob has not lived outside of cali, and to bring the MAK back home to cali would be a big no-no. Unless he would brake the rifle down to parts minus thr reciever, and build a new to him with a oll reciever

Correct. As an AK collector I have to have a Chinese one in my collection. The only one I can get is the BWK-92 (.223) AK.

GronHog
11-09-2008, 6:19 AM
If Bob was to rebuild a MAK 90, could it be built as original (thumbhole stock)or is there special things to be done.

Again Thank You

Have read that MAK recievers are thicker (1.5) compared to others(1.0) is this true.

bwiese
11-09-2008, 7:39 AM
The senario: Bob bought MAK 90 back in 1993, filled out all the paper work needed to purchase this legal rifle in cali. He then waited the 15 days required by law before taking possession of said firearm. Well to get to the piont, Bob has been in the dark about the gun laws since then. He has read about the 2000 AW registar deadline, did he need to reg his MAK or is it already reg because he is the reg'd owner since '93.

Before we get to the AW stuff, regular rifles do not have registered owners unless a voluntary registration was completed. DROSing a rifle at a CA FFL generally does not result in info being associated with that rifle. (There may be some deep audit trail record that might reveal a non-pistol transaction occurred in 1993.)

Also, in 1993 the waiting period was 10 days.

Yes, a MAK90 is a listed AW on the "Kasler" list - a formally-identified AK series member. Bob had until Jan 23, 2001 to register it as a "series"-based AW.

Clueless Bob is in criminal possesson of an illegal unregistered AW (12280(b)) - a wobbler felony/misdemenaor. If he tries to move it out of the house he's even worse off since transport is covered under 12280(a).

Bob has a couple of limited options...
(1) disassemble the gun down to the stripped receiver and destroy receiver. This does not erase prior crime but at least stops its ongoing progression.

(2) Call an attorney and arrange for a surrender to an LE agency. I don't think he should try this himself.

Bob should NOT take the stupid approach and try to drive it to Reno or Phoenix and sell it there due to the transport issues regardless of what any idiot tagging onto this thread says - one broken taillight in CA and he could be in trouble.

Bob cannot take it to a CA or other gun dealer even without regards to the transport issue: CA FFLs need separate special CA permits to handle AWs, and none of these guys will touch an illega unreg'd AW and will probably run Bob's *** out of their shop in a very quick manner.

If the MAK90 were *already* stored outta state that's fine - he can continue to use & enjoy it there. He can't bring it back into CA no matter what he does with it.

There are no ways to convert (via "features" changes") a 'listed' AW into a CA-legal configuration (other than via receiver destruction and replacement with an 'off-list' receiver, and then using a 10rd fixed mag or going 'featureless' with a MonsterMan grip).


Oh - given that there really is no privacy on the Net, Bob has been 'outed' as a felon and should take immediate precautions/measures outlined above.

GronHog
11-09-2008, 9:19 AM
Thank you bwiese for your time. Bob's little senario started in a post in the gunsmith & how to section on a MAK 90 build that raised these questions but in my little mind where not clearly answered. I thank you all for your time, and apologize for my ignorance

zuchaka
12-03-2008, 3:06 PM
what if bob sold gun to his friend and before clinton ban he registered the weapon back in 94 ?

CHS
12-03-2008, 3:31 PM
So as the story goes, Bob now is the reg'd owner of an unreg'd AW.


NO!

How many times must it be said?? Long guns ARE NOT registered in CA. When you buy them you fill out a 4473 and they get DROS'ed, but this IS NOT REGISTRATION.

He is the owner of an unreg'd AW, period. He can:

1.) Remove it from the state ASAP. He can still legally own it and use it outside of CA.
- Edit: Bob does this at his own peril since he will also be transporting an illegal unreg'ed AW.
2.) Contact a lawyer ASAP to have it turned over to police for destruction without any charges being filed.

CHS
12-03-2008, 3:33 PM
what if bob sold gun to his friend and before clinton ban he registered the weapon back in 94 ?

What the hell are you talking about? Guns were never registered as part of the Clinton AW ban.

zuchaka
12-03-2008, 4:08 PM
i may be thinking about bob registering the gun for change of ownership before a deadline before the ban went into effect, to be in compliance with that law

bwiese
12-03-2008, 4:49 PM
what if bob sold gun to his friend and before clinton ban he registered the weapon back in 94 ?

How does this relate to the Clinton 1994 AW ban?

That's FEDERAL, while the matter discussed here is a CALIFORNIA crime.

Also, the Fed ban just stopped new mfg of firearms described Federally as assault weapons (which often differ from CA's definition and vice versa). There was no registration required Federally.

The relevant cutoff date for MAK90s in CA was Jan 23, 2001.


i may be thinking about bob registering the gun for change of ownership before a deadline before the ban went into effect, to be in compliance with that law

I don't really understand what you're saying, and I don't see what I think you're trying to say is even relevant to CA matters.

zuchaka
12-03-2008, 7:53 PM
i think its clear to me, and i think its not rellavent i believe you are correct, does not adress current state law

Tallship
12-03-2008, 8:55 PM
If I am not mistaken, was there not a model called a "MAK-90 Sporter" and wouldn't this rifle fall under the OLL designation, as it was a variant of the MAK-90? Maybe his rifle was one of these?

zuchaka
12-04-2008, 3:54 PM
possibly it could have been that one with the thumbhole stock, milled receiver, no bayonet lug, no flash supressor (course sorta moot point 47 usually dont have)

bwiese
12-04-2008, 3:55 PM
If I am not mistaken, was there not a model called a "MAK-90 Sporter" and wouldn't this rifle fall under the OLL designation, as it was a variant of the MAK-90? Maybe his rifle was one of these?

A MAK90 Sporter could be a risky thing. I'd not own one.

Even though it's a defendable case, you don't wanna go there.

Why risk $$$ for legal fees for a $250 crap AK?

CSACANNONEER
12-04-2008, 3:58 PM
There's no record of it in the state after 30 days, there is still an ATF record of first sale but the state cannot access those.

Without a warrant! They can and do legally look at old 4473s if the need arises.

zuchaka
12-04-2008, 5:20 PM
A MAK90 Sporter could be a risky thing. I'd not own one.

Even though it's a defendable case, you don't wanna go there.

Why risk $$$ for legal fees for a $250 crap AK?

i dont think anyone could come up with a resonable defense for taking that kind of risk, i would agree