I came across a post ban Chinese Norinco MAK-90 Sporter AK-47 brand new in the box and my question is if it's legal to own in California if not how can it be made into a Cal compliant rifle? It has wood buttstock with a thumb hole.
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norinco MAK-90 Sporter AK-47
Collapse
X
-
Norinco MAK-90 is banned by make and model in CA.
Parts kit on a CA legal receiver and featureless or fixed mag is only legal option.Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right.
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin
"Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack." -Stanze -
Nope.
Yup.Expert firearms attorney: https://www.rwslaw.com/team/adam-j-richards/
Check out https://www.firearmsunknown.com/. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.Comment
-
It is make/model banned in CA as an assault weapon.
They were required to be registered as assault weapons before 01-01-2001.
If it is not a registered assault weapon, then it's an illegal assault weapon.
Making it illegal to import, advertise for sale, transfer, [PC 30600(a)] and possess [PC 30605(a)] in CA.
Nothing can be done to make the firearm CA legal.
If the receiver is destroyed per BATFE specifications, then the parts can be legally possessed and transferred in CA.
Those parts can then be utilized to make a CA legal firearm.sigpic
"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).Comment
-
Roberti-RUSE!-----------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LibrarianWhat compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)
If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?Comment
-
Cut into parts kit then rebuild on new receiverComment
-
On the DOJ Kasler v. Lockyer Assault Weapon List these are all the Norinco banned AK....nothing listed by name for the MAK90 Sporter only MAK90 and NHM Sport
Norinco
* 86 S
86 (all)
* 84 S
81 S (all)
* 56
RPK Rifle
NHM 90, 90-2, 91 Sport
AK-47 (all)
MAK 90
* 56 S
Hunter RifleComment
-
How much does the guy want for it? I'm not in Kali.Comment
-
-
The problem is the names cited include "MAK90".
Now if they had done what many other manufacturers had done and changed the rollmark to an entirely different name without that first qualifier, say Norinco "Sporter" or the Norinco "Shirley" only, no MAK90 at all, it would then have been excluded from the Robert-RUSE list, the very reason the career-politicians ran with SB23 "Features" ban, and why we were also able to get clone items years later - even Colt-made AR15s.
Adding to the name did not apparently take away from a ban on any part of the name.
My take away from this? Thinking about that, now I really want an AK/AKM-based rifle rollmarked "Shirley" and an AR rollmarked "Laverne" - in a fluffy, swoopy script.
-----------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LibrarianWhat compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)
If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?Comment
-
They are very desirable and have become pretty valuable in the rest of the country.
Be a shame to cut it up for parts.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkComment
-
MAK 90's did not exist until the early 90's. They were Norinco's answer to Bush's import ban of AK47's when he was president. Reagan had nothing to do with it. Neither Reagan or Bush had anything to do with CA's Roos/Roberti AWB. That was a CA thing. The MAK90 did not exist on the original list of the Roos/Roberti AWB in 1989 because they did not exist at that time. You could buy MAK90's in CA throughout the 90's. They were added to the list of banned assault weapons when CA updated the AWB in the year 2000.I bought my MAK 90 in 1986? For $149.00 (gasp) the UZI was much more.
The Roberti-Roos happened. Several attention seeking libtard politicians with the
Support of BUSH and Reagan started banning guns by name. Soon I had a gun safe filled with “illegal “ guns that I had register as “assault” weapons.
Can’t sell them. Can’t give them to my adult kids even. Transporting assault weapons have destination requirements. Plus locked case.
Most of our members here at Calguns known this but I am only mentioning this for the education of our younger gun enthusiasts. Your generation is the future of
Responsible freedoms.
Be well
Bob

Now I could be wrong about their existence before the '89 AWB but I would think that if they did exist, they would have been on the original ban list. And, back in the 80's, if you wanted an AK, you bought an AK. Who would buy an ugly thumbhole stock version when normal AK's were available, and were cheap. Norinco's were $269, maybe less.Last edited by george223; 08-31-2020, 3:19 PM.Comment
Calguns.net Statistics
Collapse
Topics: 1,865,326
Posts: 25,129,169
Members: 355,945
Active Members: 3,867
Welcome to our newest member, glocksource.
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 6306 users online. 98 members and 6208 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 10:39 PM on 02-14-2026.

Comment