Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/16/2003 7:04:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2003 7:10:32 PM EDT by rickinvegas]
Talking to a buddy of mine in California the other day and as usual the topic turned to guns. He and I bought MAK 90's around 91-92 on the same day from the same shop. We pulled the thumbhole off of his and converted it to pistol grip and an underfolder almost immediately (bought the parts at the Pomonoa Gun Show, Jeez those were the days!). Yes I know that was a violation of 922 etc. but this was 1992 and who knew and who cared. I go on....I found out that he still has this thing in his safe. Question: This is obviously a pre 94 ban complete rifle in violation of the 89 ban. If he bolts on a US pistol grip and handguard, RSA FCG and US gas piston (5 parts) is he good to go with the folder??

Link Posted: 8/16/2003 7:14:10 PM EDT
i would almost think No.

When the AWB passed, LEGAL weapons in AW configuration at that time were grandfathered. I do believe, IIRC, it specifically stated weapons in a legal status. So, if you cna prove you put the correct number of US parts in there before 1994, you're in the clear. Hard problem is proving that, since US made parts were a bit harder to find then.
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 7:24:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2003 7:24:59 PM EDT by rickinvegas]
Good point NAM, Thats what first came to my mind too. The applicable section reads as follows

"`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer
of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed
under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

Does the "lawfully possessed" apply to configuration? Where the hell is a lawyer when you need one?!?

Link Posted: 8/16/2003 7:33:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
I have no doubt that ATFs technical guys would be able to tell the manufacturer and therefore approximate date of manufacture of parts.

Here lies the issue, Would he even have to "claim" anything other than what he does and that is add the US made parts now. Does a violation of the 89 ban constitute a weapon illegally "possessed" at the time of the 94 ban?
BTW, ATF actually made a raid on this guys place of business that he shared with two other businesses about 4-5 years ago. They were serving a warrant on one of the other guys but searched his safe as well and said nothing nothing about the MAK folder and bid him a good day and left.

Link Posted: 8/16/2003 8:15:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Not sure I understand the question. Add the requisite US parts now and it will still be an illegal weapon.

This is my point, He aknowledges that the parts have to be added to comply with the 89 ban. No argument there. But is it an illegal weapon under the 94 ban given the circumstances outlined above? Probably so but it still is an interesting question to me. I am not so sure.

I'd be reallllly careful about saying that you helped him put a folder on it....

In fact if I were you I'd consider deleting this entire thread ASAP.

I have no intention of deleting this thread as I am not a paranoid person and I did nothing wrong in 1992.

Link Posted: 8/16/2003 9:28:10 PM EDT
My intention with my question was not to get into a semantics war. I hear what you are saying but the question still stands. I posted this question because it is unique. I could care less one way or another. I am not looking to buy this rifle and my friend is not interested in selling it....It is an exercise from my perspective. For you to just say that it is "ILLEGAL AS HELL" ignores the gray areas here.

I will say it again: The "crime" committed in 1992 was not adding the US parts at the time of the pistol grip conversion. Remember, in 1992, the folder issue (or any other evil feature) was not an issue as the 94 ban was 2 years away. The only question left is: Did the fact that the rifle was not in compliance with the 89 ban when the 94 ban took effect make it ineligible to be grandfathered and would adding the parts today recover its eligibility? Gray, gray, gray.

Why don't we let some of the guys give their opinion.

Link Posted: 8/16/2003 9:47:43 PM EDT
I asked a similar question awhile back. Your buddy's rifle is a bit more interesting since it was in fact in naughty configuration prior to the ban, but as you have said it was illegal per the '89 import ban. I would say that since the rifle was not in a legal configuration, the AWB restrictions are in force because to make the rifle import, ie., adding the US made parts, legal you would be doing it after the AWB was enacted.

Similar logic was used on the stripped AR preban uppers advertised after the ban. But in this case since the rifle was not lawfully possessed in 9/94 - I would say hes SOL until (hopefully) 9/04.

Just my opinion

I'm not a lawyer, just a gynecolgist..

P.S. hows the upper running?
Link Posted: 8/16/2003 10:53:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2003 10:59:25 PM EDT by rickinvegas]

Originally Posted By 4gma:
P.S. hows the upper running?

Like the proverbial bat out of hell! I've got close to 3000 rounds through it with out missing a beat. Everyone wants to see it up close after they see the stens sticking out of the middle of the well. Thanks again for a job well done!

BTW, I meant to email you back the last time when I sent you that video. I was bump firing it in that video. This thing is tuned so well that it runs better at 800 rpm bumping than some of the guys with FA 9's! You Da Man!!

Did you catch the video from our last shoot??


P.S. Oklahoma?

Link Posted: 8/16/2003 11:14:42 PM EDT
Well aware of my own resistance to the AWB and its enforcers....and conspirators in our OWN RANKS...I can offer my advice to you- pin the stock, replace the internal spring with a bit of steel rod to keep it from folding. Then replace the handguards and FCG with American parts. The rifle then will be ATF kosher. Hope he still doesnt live in CA. One of the places your likehood of getting busted skyrockets.

The biggest problem with the AWB isnt the bill itself, or even the morons who wrote it, its the people in our own ranks who are quick to bow to it because "it comes from the government"....resistance must come from the heart and be 100% otherwise it is doomed forever to fail.
Link Posted: 8/17/2003 10:10:28 AM EDT

I debating into building another with a few improvements or buying a preban Colt 9mm and SBR'ing it. The problem with the SBR thing is the wait - I am NOT very patient about toys (or much else for that matter!)

The 9mm AR's are so much fun, zero recoil, fast shooting - they are fun.

OK - hot as the fires of hell! Not much for ranges - they are here but they are lacking. Lots of super nice people though and that more than makes up for the heat. Of course if I wasnt stuck remodelling the Brady bunch house I'd have more time to shoot. Hopefully, I'll get done this week end - 9 more door frames to paint and glaze.

Well, back to the latex...
Link Posted: 8/17/2003 10:44:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2003 10:46:37 AM EDT by rickinvegas]
4gma, Congrats on your move..........I think.
I hear you on the SBR thing. I am impatient too but my local SOT is really bugging me to SBR the 9 upper in time for the sub-gun matches that start next month. He also wants to do my new AR47 build. The advantage there is that he can do it immediately and bring it with him to the range so I can shoot it legally and when the Form 4 (I would be xfering it from him and not building it on a form 1) comes back I can take it home. We shall see. Good luck on the door frames and say to Greg and Marcia for me.

Now, back on topic...........

This thing is going to make my head explode. In thinking more about this issue of the MAK folder, I agree that drjarhead has a VERY valid point. Forgetting the issue of the 89 ban violation for the sake of argument I am having trouble with one scenerio: Using this interpretation already set forth, does this mean that someone who has, lets say, a Colt AR that he bought new in 1985 and he has had it sitting in his safe since then with a target upper on it (no bayo lug, no hider and A2 stock etc.) cannot pull it out today and hot rod it with all the evil features he wants to? Both this AR and the MAK 90 that another guy has had sitting in his safe since 1991 (in stock configuration but a "complete rifle" before 1994) are in the same configuration right now. One can be modified while the other can't? I know I am missing something but I can't find it in the text of the law.

This is why no one has ever been prosecuted for this shit! Just one more year and all this crap will be over.

Link Posted: 8/17/2003 3:21:04 PM EDT
THe rules are somewhat confusing.

However, regarding grandfathering, it's pretty simple. In order for it to be grandfathered, it had to be LEGALLY in ASSAULT WEAPON configuration when the law passed.

So, if you had an AR with no flash hider, no thread for such, no bayonet lug, and jsut a psitol grip as a banned feature, you're screwed. It is un-grandfatherable.

One portion of the AW bill to remember; it also outlawed several firearms by name. one such banned name was Colt AR-15. So, if your rifle was stamped Colt AR-15, it is legally a pre-ban AW.

As for the MAK-90, it appears as if the folding stock was put on illegally. THerefore, when the bill passed in 94, it was illegally in AW configuration. So, i would guess that would make it legally a post ban, and the folking stock should be removed ASAP.

I'm no lawyer, and i don't pretend to be one. But i have looked pretty deeply into the topic, and i did stay in a motel 6 the other night.
Link Posted: 8/17/2003 3:58:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2003 4:03:10 PM EDT by rickinvegas]

Originally Posted By NAM:
So, if you had an AR with no flash hider, no thread for such, no bayonet lug, and jsut a psitol grip as a banned feature, you're screwed. It is un-grandfatherable.

I have also since come to the same conclusion.

Now for the real kicker....In the past year, I have literally seen HUNDREDS of posts on many forums including here on AR15.com that state that for an AR to have preban status, it must be in "complete rifle" status at the time of the ban (no stripped receivers etc). I have specifically read, ESPECIALLY here on AR15.com, that if it was a complete rifle prior to 9/94 then you have a "preban" rifle and anything goes. Shit, there is a thread running like crazy right now just BLASTING some poor guy for putting a preban upper on a post lower just to take a picture by guys that have NO idea what configuration their "pre-bans" were in on 9/13/94!

This is all just nuts, because the 94 ban was never codified, it is ALL just non-legally binding interpretation bullshit.

Link Posted: 8/17/2003 4:22:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:
In the past year, I have literally seen HUNDREDS of posts on many forums including here on AR15.com that state that for an AR to have preban status, it must be in "complete rifle" status at the time of the ban (no stripped receivers etc).


a stripped receiver can not hold pre-ban status, unless it is stamped Colt AR-15.

A receiver in itself, while legally a rifle, doesn't make it an assault weapon. But since the name Colt AR-15 was specifically named, if it's stamped Colt AR-15 it's automatically pre-ban, no matter what the configuration.
Link Posted: 8/17/2003 4:47:37 PM EDT
Forget the Colt's, I have a Bushmaster that I have a letter addressed to me from Bushmaster stating that it left their factory in 1993 as a "complete rifle". I was told by many on this board that that is good enough to verify its "preban" status. I know when it left the factory but I have no idea where this rifle was between then and early 1999 when the friend I bought it from bought it. Hey, maybe the guy who owned it on Sept. 13th 1994 started cleaning it that evening but did not finish till the next day and left the upper off all night.........OHMYGAWD!!! I might be a felon in possession of an illegal AW! Anyone want to buy a bushy......CHEAP?

I am of course being sarcastic here. I am just illustrating that NO ONE (not even the various "gurus" with 578,000 post under their names) know anything FOR SURE.

Link Posted: 8/19/2003 4:13:52 PM EDT
Here's a thread along the same line I found on Falfiles that seems to answer your question and cites the actual laws involved.

Link Posted: 8/19/2003 4:52:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 4gma:
Here's a thread along the same line I found on Falfiles that seems to answer your question and cites the actual laws involved.


Very interesting thread, 4gma. I think I'll make a hard copy.

Seems to say that the assembly was illegal of Rick's friend's rifle in question but that the statute of limitations has been exceeded which is not unexpected. However, it goes on to say that there is no prohibition to the possession of said weapon providing construction into AW status ocurred prior to 9/94, AND that, in fact, it would not even be considered contraband subject to government removal. This is the murky area clearly and though I hope Ekie is correct I am not convinced that either a fed prosecutor or jury would buy it. I think he would be an interesting character to meet to say the least and his legal opinions definitely seem out of mainstream. He does, however, usually do a pretty good job of constructing his argument.

That whole thread is worth reading carefully and saving on a hard copy as there are several "gems" within it.
Link Posted: 8/19/2003 5:22:24 PM EDT
Dr, my thoughts as well. My read is that at the worst the 3 letter folks could snatch your rifle as contraband, but, at least by this arguement, you wouldnt end up the 'peace pipe of the prison block'.

Of course trying to explain the law to a 'jack booted thug' with an MP5 in your face or after theyve fitted you in an orange jumper and stylish chrone bracelets would be neither fun not likely very sucessful..

I will send $$ to the legal aid of the test case if any one wants to volunteer...
Top Top