Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:30 PM
GronHog GronHog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: cameron park
Posts: 19
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default MAK 90 legal?

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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:37 PM
69Mach1's Avatar
69Mach1 69Mach1 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 14,867
iTrader: 397 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________

69Mach1
munkeeboi
TURBOELKY
antix2
WTSGDYBBR
tujungatoes
jmpgnr24K
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:40 PM
goober's Avatar
goober goober is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: da sloo
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

+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)

Last edited by goober; 11-08-2008 at 6:41 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:44 PM
GronHog GronHog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: cameron park
Posts: 19
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default story continues

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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:44 PM
DiscoBayJoe's Avatar
DiscoBayJoe DiscoBayJoe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Discovery Bay, CA
Posts: 1,331
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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).

Last edited by DiscoBayJoe; 11-08-2008 at 6:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:46 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,869
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Hopefully bob has stored that out of state since before 1/1/2000.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:47 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,869
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GronHog View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:47 PM
jamesob's Avatar
jamesob jamesob is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: exeter
Posts: 4,764
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

i have a mak90 sitting in by brothers safe in oregon, man i wish i would have registered it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-08-2008, 6:51 PM
GronHog GronHog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: cameron park
Posts: 19
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

ok so as I read the story, there was no firearm reg'd to the state in Bob's name.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-08-2008, 7:03 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 18,887
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GronHog View Post
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.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-08-2008, 7:10 PM
69Mach1's Avatar
69Mach1 69Mach1 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 14,867
iTrader: 397 / 100%
Default

Actually, anything from a felony to an infraction.
__________________

69Mach1
munkeeboi
TURBOELKY
antix2
WTSGDYBBR
tujungatoes
jmpgnr24K
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-08-2008, 7:19 PM
GronHog GronHog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: cameron park
Posts: 19
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-08-2008, 7:22 PM
69Mach1's Avatar
69Mach1 69Mach1 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 14,867
iTrader: 397 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GronHog View Post
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.
__________________

69Mach1
munkeeboi
TURBOELKY
antix2
WTSGDYBBR
tujungatoes
jmpgnr24K
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-09-2008, 6:19 AM
GronHog GronHog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: cameron park
Posts: 19
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.

Last edited by GronHog; 11-09-2008 at 6:22 AM.. Reason: forgot something
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-09-2008, 7:39 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,787
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GronHog View Post
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.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 11-09-2008 at 8:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-09-2008, 9:19 AM
GronHog GronHog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: cameron park
Posts: 19
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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

Last edited by GronHog; 11-09-2008 at 9:21 AM.. Reason: grammer
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-03-2008, 3:06 PM
zuchaka's Avatar
zuchaka zuchaka is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 902
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

what if bob sold gun to his friend and before clinton ban he registered the weapon back in 94 ?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-03-2008, 3:31 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GronHog View Post
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.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"

Last edited by CHS; 12-03-2008 at 3:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-03-2008, 3:33 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuchaka View Post
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.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-03-2008, 4:08 PM
zuchaka's Avatar
zuchaka zuchaka is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 902
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-03-2008, 4:49 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,787
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuchaka
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zuchaka View Post
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.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-03-2008, 7:53 PM
zuchaka's Avatar
zuchaka zuchaka is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 902
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

i think its clear to me, and i think its not rellavent i believe you are correct, does not adress current state law
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-03-2008, 8:55 PM
Tallship's Avatar
Tallship Tallship is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 536
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-04-2008, 3:54 PM
zuchaka's Avatar
zuchaka zuchaka is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 902
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-2008, 3:55 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,787
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallship View Post
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?
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-04-2008, 3:58 PM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 40,519
iTrader: 125 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-04-2008, 5:20 PM
zuchaka's Avatar
zuchaka zuchaka is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 902
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:09 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.