 |
Posted: 12/18/2009 2:51:51 PM
Originally Posted By RomanianSniper:
Originally Posted By 4Kilo12:
Here guys http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3271/mak90kindergentle.jpg This POST IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, and you have no reason to trust free advice from the internet, But I though the verboten picture was confusing so a picture of a kinder gentler mak would help THIS is what a legal one looks like, if there is a hole,or could have been a hole in the area with the red circle then you have a problem That Rivet Is The Cross Member Bar And Is Totally Legal... He's talking about the area BELOW the center support rivet, where the pin for the auto/safety sear would be. Some Chinese rifles were made with the hole, which was then filled with a rivet. Those rifles were declared to be "machine guns". |
|
|
|
RenegadeX
Member
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2002  TX, USA
 Posts: 12241 Feedback: 100% (12) Link To This Post |
Posted: 12/18/2009 3:01:17 PM
Originally Posted By Cacinok: flavdevmeister, that utterly sucks. and you are right ignorance is no defense. No he is wrong. Ignorance is a defense. The Prosecution must prove you knowingly violated the law: (2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2009 3:27:18 PM
Originally Posted By limeytwo:
he said he called the ATF and the rifles are fine as long as you dont take the pin out ! No. century recalled some PSL that were made on the original receivers with the hole for the safety sear. The Romanians WELDED the holes closed before shipping them. BATFE found out and forced Century to recall the rifles. Third pin hole = "machine gun". Once a "machine gun" always a "machine gun". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2009 3:52:02 PM
[Last Edit: 12/18/2009 3:53:28 PM by RomanianSniper]
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By RomanianSniper:
Originally Posted By 4Kilo12:
Here guys http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3271/mak90kindergentle.jpg This POST IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, and you have no reason to trust free advice from the internet, But I though the verboten picture was confusing so a picture of a kinder gentler mak would help THIS is what a legal one looks like, if there is a hole,or could have been a hole in the area with the red circle then you have a problem That Rivet Is The Cross Member Bar And Is Totally Legal... He's talking about the area BELOW the center support rivet, where the pin for the auto/safety sear would be. Some Chinese rifles were made with the hole, which was then filled with a rivet. Those rifles were declared to be "machine guns". No He Called The Picture In Question A Picture Of An Illegal Gun Which It Was Obviously Not......Reread His Posting...You'll See What I Mean.. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2009 4:42:58 PM
[Last Edit: 12/18/2009 4:47:35 PM by POLYTHENEPAM]
Originally Posted By RomanianSniper:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By RomanianSniper:
Originally Posted By 4Kilo12:
Here guys http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3271/mak90kindergentle.jpg This POST IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, and you have no reason to trust free advice from the internet, But I though the verboten picture was confusing so a picture of a kinder gentler mak would help THIS is what a legal one looks like, if there is a hole,or could have been a hole in the area with the red circle then you have a problem That Rivet Is The Cross Member Bar And Is Totally Legal... He's talking about the area BELOW the center support rivet, where the pin for the auto/safety sear would be. Some Chinese rifles were made with the hole, which was then filled with a rivet. Those rifles were declared to be "machine guns". No He Called The Picture In Question A Picture Of An Illegal Gun Which It Was Obviously Not......Reread His Posting...You'll See What I Mean.. nO hE sAID: "THIS is what a legal one looks like, if there is a hole, or could have been a hole in the area with the red circle then you have a problem". pLEASE nOTE tHE wORDS iN rED  wHEN yOU rEREAD hIS pOST. tRY aND dISTINGUISH bETWEEN lEGAL aND iLLEGAL.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2009 3:25:57 PM
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Originally Posted By Cacinok:
flavdevmeister, that utterly sucks. and you are right ignorance is no defense. No he is wrong. Ignorance is a defense. The Prosecution must prove you knowingly violated the law: (2)Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Ah, sir, and you and I both know I can make a case saying I didn't knowingly do anything wrong as well as the US Attorney/Prosecuter can make a case saying I did knowingly infract a law. A situation like this would come down to my word against theirs. Sure, I had no clue I had committed a felony but the ATF will be all too happy to testify that I knew exaclty what I was doing. I may be able to win that case. Then again, I may not. Taking that gamble is a simple as gambling with my life which I am NOT prepared to do. Long story short: I've tangled with those guys once and I certainly don't want to fuck with them a second go-round. I make damn sure I have my ducks in a row. Now, admittedly, I've since procured a Concealed Permit and NFA weapons but I'm a lot more educated than I was. I understand the point you're making but we have to remember that a case has to be made in a Federal court of law before a jury both by myself (defense) and the US Government (plaintiff). The outcome, as with any jury trial, can go either way. This is a position I sure as shit wasn't prepared to fight the ATF with. I could have made plenty of points and they'll simply say, "No problem, we'll send the indictment and you'll sit in jail while the trial proceeds and you can make your case before the judge." If it was easy as telling the two ATF agents that filed the paperwork, "I didn't knowingly break any laws," don't you think I would have tried that? Would have saved me $15K and about 5 years of my life expectancy I lost in the process. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2010 5:54:24 PM
Originally Posted By FlaDevmeister:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Originally Posted By Cacinok:
flavdevmeister, that utterly sucks. and you are right ignorance is no defense. No he is wrong. Ignorance is a defense. The Prosecution must prove you knowingly violated the law: (2)Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Ah, sir, and you and I both know I can make a case saying I didn't knowingly do anything wrong as well as the US Attorney/Prosecuter can make a case saying I did knowingly infract a law. A situation like this would come down to my word against theirs. Sure, I had no clue I had committed a felony but the ATF will be all too happy to testify that I knew exaclty what I was doing. I may be able to win that case. Then again, I may not. Taking that gamble is a simple as gambling with my life which I am NOT prepared to do. Long story short: I've tangled with those guys once and I certainly don't want to fuck with them a second go-round. I make damn sure I have my ducks in a row. Now, admittedly, I've since procured a Concealed Permit and NFA weapons but I'm a lot more educated than I was. I understand the point you're making but we have to remember that a case has to be made in a Federal court of law before a jury both by myself (defense) and the US Government (plaintiff). The outcome, as with any jury trial, can go either way. This is a position I sure as shit wasn't prepared to fight the ATF with. I could have made plenty of points and they'll simply say, "No problem, we'll send the indictment and you'll sit in jail while the trial proceeds and you can make your case before the judge." If it was easy as telling the two ATF agents that filed the paperwork, "I didn't knowingly break any laws," don't you think I would have tried that? Would have saved me $15K and about 5 years of my life expectancy I lost in the process. I am glad you made it out ok, thanks for sharing your terrible experience with ATF it proves that they are slime balls looking to screw people over especially gun owners. I went to a gunstore one time to buy a new Marlin rifle through Gallery of Guns and the owner said this to me "The ATF is our friend and is only trying to enforce the gun laws that we must all follow." after hearing that I picked my rifle up a few days later and vowed never to return again to that traitor. |
|
|
|
evlblkwpnz
Gunshine State Native
Team Member
Joined: Aug 2008 FL, USA
Posts: 614 Feedback: 100% (74) Link To This Post |
Posted: 1/14/2010 9:51:29 PM
What about third pin Norincos marked AK47S? What about semi-auto Claycos with the third pin? Are these illegal too?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2010 10:25:51 AM
Excuse my ak newbness (dont have one yet) but is there some kind of "full auto detent" or groove that the safe/fire lever fits into to make it full auto? Or is the full auto a completely different lever from the safety lever?
In other words, is the 3rd hole above the mag release the only thing to watch out for when trying to make sure not to purchase one of these " Once machine guns"? Any pics would help. I would like to get a mak 90 soon, but dont want to screw myself, as I'm new to ak's. |
|
|
|
ishoot2live
Stay in a Round Room You'll Never get Cornered
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2002 NV, USA
Posts: 5589 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/18/2010 8:47:50 PM
Tag for reference.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2010 8:01:52 PM
Over the years I have seen a couple of MAK90 "kits", there is one on gunbroker now or recently. Basically the receiver was cut. I always wondered why someone would cut one, assuming they were cleaning up a bit mistake, but this makes a lot more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2010 4:54:35 AM
Originally Posted By 98_1LE:
Over the years I have seen a couple of MAK90 "kits", there is one on gunbroker now or recently. Basically the receiver was cut. I always wondered why someone would cut one, assuming they were cleaning up a bit mistake, but this makes a lot more sense. Im not sure. About 7 years ago, Centerfire was selling MAK90 kits that, they claimed, were rifles caught up in the ban in 1994. After setting for years in storage, the rifles were cut up into parts kits so they could be legaly sold. I bought 2 of them, and all parts looked brand new, so this is probably true. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2010 9:11:07 PM
[Last Edit: 9/1/2010 9:12:20 PM by Maximum1]
...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2010 7:45:17 AM
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Originally Posted By Cacinok:
flavdevmeister, that utterly sucks. and you are right ignorance is no defense. No he is wrong. Ignorance is a defense. The Prosecution must prove you knowingly violated the law: (2)Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. I agree. No judge or jury in their sane minds would find someone guilty of knowing the presence of a rivet-head = NFA. Don't fear the ATF rivet inspectors, I'd have to think they have better things to do than show up at the ranges counting rivet heads and checking locations of same - which explains why SOOOOO many were in circulation. Gotta remember we are dealing with the FEDS; Ya know, the same Sept 10th feds that can't find their ass with both hands in the dark? Can't spot the illegals serving them their burgers at a Vienna, VA fast-food joint, the ones who sweat FFL zoning laws as opposed to closing the borders, the ones who let a little gay private leak billions of classified docs, the ones who are off on every-freakin holiday that they even make the bankers jealous? Yeah; THOSE feds. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2010 9:27:24 PM
Originally Posted By rcbif:
Excuse my ak newbness (dont have one yet) but is there some kind of "full auto detent" or groove that the safe/fire lever fits into to make it full auto? Or is the full auto a completely different lever from the safety lever? In other words, is the 3rd hole above the mag release the only thing to watch out for when trying to make sure not to purchase one of these " Once machine guns"? Any pics would help. I would like to get a mak 90 soon, but dont want to screw myself, as I'm new to ak's. There is an auto detent, but that alone is not illigal and will not make an AK FA. It's internal parts. The third hole is basically all you have to watch out for. I always look over AK's every time I'm at gunshows and gun stores. I've not seen one in person yet that had the third hole and wasn't supposed to. They are not terribly common. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:36:44 AM
[Last Edit: 5/16/2011 3:40:40 AM by JackBurton]
Is this one of the contraband rifles???
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=230414158 |
|
|
|
phurba
Redneck nerd
Life Member
Joined: Apr 2009 CA, USA
Posts: 16142 Feedback: 100% (6) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/16/2011 3:45:49 AM
Originally Posted By JackBurton:
Is this one of the contraband rifles??? http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=230414158 Very much looks like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2011 11:12:33 PM
Yep sure is, even has the semi and full selector detents.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2011 1:37:14 PM
Wow! Sold openly on G-Broker!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2011 10:51:43 PM
[Last Edit: 6/13/2011 10:53:50 PM by xm177e2687]
So is the third hole the only thing that actually makes the rifle more readily convertable to selective fire? Is the 3rd hole the only difference between these receivers and full auto AK receivers or is there some kinda block in the semi auto receiver that these rifles lack? I only ask because it sure seems like a major waste of time for the ATF to crack down so hard on the importation of a rifle simply because it has a hole drilled into it that anyone could do in their garage in less than a minute with a drill.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2011 12:23:36 AM
There would be some additional drilling/cutting work needed to convert it beyond drilling the hole that already exists in the "contraband" guns.
It would suck to be stuck with one of these, but I'd rather cut and it and GB the kit, which would recoup much of the value, than risk a day in prison. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2011 10:29:14 PM
Buyers Beware-
3rd Pin Mak underfolder http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=252275952 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2011 4:24:01 PM
Originally Posted By FlyLeaf:
Buyers Beware- 3rd Pin Mak underfolder http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=252275952 Is it illegal because it has the third pin hole? or is the rails cut for the sear too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2011 2:11:23 AM
Originally Posted By FlyLeaf:
Buyers Beware- 3rd Pin Mak underfolder http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=252275952 That's messed up an FFL selling that! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2011 6:45:55 PM
Looks like there might be more than one thing wrong. You can see where the tang for the thumbhole stock was removed to put the underfolder on.
Theres no retainer pin for the front break. Also I have never seen a third hole that the pin was not sticking out past the receiver on the safety side. The two I have seen were both thumbhole guns that were made for underfolder stocks but had a tang welded on them to screw the stock to and a pin with little plates through the receiver were the underfolder pivot pin goes through. They also had the barrel threads knocked down a little but still usable and no retaining pin installed for the break. |
|
|
KWT
