PDA

View Full Version : delete


c good
09-09-2008, 4:26 PM
deleted

Guntech
09-09-2008, 5:01 PM
I have never heard of it being a problem and seeing as the lower is listed, not the upper, you shouldn't have any problems.

Young Version
09-09-2008, 5:10 PM
Regardless of whether it's listed or not, you should check out White Oak Armament uppers before you pull the trigger (pun intended :p) on a Rock River.

Lateralus
09-09-2008, 6:40 PM
Regardless of whether it's listed or not, you should check out White Oak Armament upper before you pull the trigger (pun intended :p) on a Rock River.

I have a WOA varminter 24" upper and Ive never looked back.

asgalindez
09-09-2008, 6:56 PM
Technically, the LAR-15 is okay to have in CA. The apparent "problem" arises when you plan to put a RRA upper on your LAR-15 lower.

Because Rock River (the brand) is listed by name on the Ban List, it is believed that your LAR-15 OLL with a RRA upper could/would be mistaken for a banned rifle. People are advised to put a non-RRA upper on a LAR-15 to avoid this confusion. This is what I was told when I was looking for a LAR-15 myself.

I would just find a non-RRA upper you like and be done with it. I did the opposite - I put a RRA upper on a Doublestar lower.

You can build a full RRA rifle if you want, but be prepared to catch hell from the uninformed.:D

ETA: You said your buddy has a 20" RRA upper with no markings. Does it have a flip-up rear sight? My RRA upper has RRA markings that are covered by my flip-up rear sight. I think that's the only place I remember seeing any RRA markings.

jamesob
09-09-2008, 7:19 PM
people say that you will run into problems with a rra upper on a rra lower, bullcrap. the rra lower is marked lar15,9 or 8 depending wich one you have. with that being said where would one associate the banned rifles with the legal ones? they can't. people say if you put a m4 or whatever banned model upper on your legal lower you just created a banned aw.this is not true, the lower is the firearm not the upper. i have a rra lower with a rra upper and im not worried a bit.

Young Version
09-09-2008, 10:11 PM
I have a WOA varminter 24" upper and Ive never looked back.

I've got a 20" in the mail :D

aplinker
09-10-2008, 12:13 AM
people say that you will run into problems with a rra upper on a rra lower, bullcrap. the rra lower is marked lar15,9 or 8 depending wich one you have. with that being said where would one associate the banned rifles with the legal ones? they can't. people say if you put a m4 or whatever banned model upper on your legal lower you just created a banned aw.this is not true, the lower is the firearm not the upper. i have a rra lower with a rra upper and im not worried a bit.

There are two ways to look at it and you need to consider your comfort level.

I agree that, should it come to it, you should be safe. However, if one were to mate an upper that matches one of the listed rifles there's the potential it could cause more issues than another brand... and could lead to having to fight another Harrot like case.

tenpercentfirearms
09-10-2008, 5:20 AM
I disagree with everyone here. If you have a RRA lower and it is in any of these configurations

Standard A-2
Car A2
Standard A-4 Flattop
Car A4 Flattop
NM A2 - DCM Legal
LE Tactical Carbine

then I believe you have an assault weapon on your hands. I wouldn't even risk a RRA lower and any other brand upper that puts it into this configuration.

The only RRA lower and upper combo I would ever do is a varmint gun however! As you can clearly see, the RRA lists do not include anything about a varmint gun.

So you are talking about building the only RRA that I would ever touch because it is not listed.

To build any of the other configurations is just not smart as this is actually a gray enough area, you could spend a lot of money defending it and still lose. With so many other lowers out there, it simply is not worth the risk.

Again, if you are going to build a varmint gun with a varmint upper, you are 100% safe. You still might end up spending some time and money on legal bills if you "win the lottery" (aka the odds of you being a test case are about the same as winning the lottery), but that is what Calguns and the Calguns Foundation are for. Assuming you didn't get busted with 10 lbs of meth at the same time, we would love to have a test case about a RRA varmint gun and we would financially support anyone in that situation. It could potentially over turn all of SB-23.

CWatson
09-10-2008, 5:46 AM
I disagree with everyone here. If you have a RRA lower and it is in any of these configurations

The only RRA lower and upper combo I would ever do is a varmint gun however! As you can clearly see, the RRA lists do not include anything about a varmint gun.

So you are talking about building the only RRA that I would ever touch because it is not listed.


How about a RRA lower with a midlength upper?



CW

tenpercentfirearms
09-10-2008, 6:17 AM
How about a RRA lower with a midlength upper?
CW

Could you call it a Standard A-4 Flattop? Try it and if you get popped, that might be a really good test case. I wouldn't call it a CAR as it is pretty standard that a CAR Is the carbine length handguard.

There is some room to play on this issue should it ever get challenged, but you need to still be careful. I would not have anything with a RRA lower and what most people would consider those configurations. A mid-length is definitely gray. A carbine length handguard with a 16" barrel with either a flattop or A2 carry handle is not gray in my opinion. Using a RRA upper is definitely troublesome, but using a Stag might be a good test case.

Again, with so many other lowers out there, why take the risk unless you are ready and willing to spend a lot of time and money for the fight?

c good
09-10-2008, 7:43 AM
Were the old RRA receivers actually marked "Car A2, Car A4 Flattop, etc"? Or were they marked LAR-15 even then, when the list was created? Thanks for the input so far guys. c good

CWatson
09-10-2008, 7:53 AM
Could you call it a Standard A-4 Flattop? Try it and if you get popped, that might be a really good test case. I wouldn't call it a CAR as it is pretty standard that a CAR Is the carbine length handguard.

Again, with so many other lowers out there, why take the risk unless you are ready and willing to spend a lot of time and money for the fight?


I am not planning on building a OLL with a RRA lower, mine are Ameetecs. I was just curious on what parts define the upper in this conversation. You mentioned a varmit upper would be ok but would that complete upper assemply still use a A4 or other named upper? I wonder if caliber would make a difference,9mm ? Barrel length is not mentioned.

Just pondering,
CWatson

jamesob
09-10-2008, 8:21 AM
I disagree with everyone here. If you have a RRA lower and it is in any of these configurations

Standard A-2
Car A2
Standard A-4 Flattop
Car A4 Flattop
NM A2 - DCM Legal
LE Tactical Carbine

then I believe you have an assault weapon on your hands. I wouldn't even risk a RRA lower and any other brand upper that puts it into this configuration.

The only RRA lower and upper combo I would ever do is a varmint gun however! As you can clearly see, the RRA lists do not include anything about a varmint gun.

So you are talking about building the only RRA that I would ever touch because it is not listed.

To build any of the other configurations is just not smart as this is actually a gray enough area, you could spend a lot of money defending it and still lose. With so many other lowers out there, it simply is not worth the risk.

Again, if you are going to build a varmint gun with a varmint upper, you are 100% safe. You still might end up spending some time and money on legal bills if you "win the lottery" (aka the odds of you being a test case are about the same as winning the lottery), but that is what Calguns and the Calguns Foundation are for. Assuming you didn't get busted with 10 lbs of meth at the same time, we would love to have a test case about a RRA varmint gun and we would financially support anyone in that situation. It could potentially over turn all of SB-23.
i know what your saying but you know the upper doesn't make the firearm. nowhere on the rifle will it say anything about the banned models. its a lar15 and not
aStandard A-2
Car A2
Standard A-4 Flattop
Car A4 Flattop
NM A2 - DCM Legal
LE Tactical Carbine
even if it was true about the upper, if any other brand of upper was on the rra lower and it was a a2 or a cara4 would also be illegal.

c good
09-10-2008, 9:11 AM
Just answered my own question and reply above confirms this. I just got off the phone with RRA directly. They never marked their lowers "Car A2", "Car A4 Flattop" etc. It's been LAR-15 for a long time. Kinda makes me feel a little better. I think it's still prudent to not push it too far. No RRA uppers and lower combos that even slightly resemble the descriptions for me! Interesting thread all. Thanks for the input. c good

armandolo
09-10-2008, 9:26 AM
c good, what did you decide then. I was also considering the RRA lower with the 24in varmint upper. Is that a good configuration? Since DOJ did not specify LAR-15, does that mean they are looking for the resemblence to the mentioned models?

tpliquid1
09-10-2008, 10:28 AM
i looked at my rra upper and i do not see any RRA marks on it.

c good
09-10-2008, 3:26 PM
c good, what did you decide then. I was also considering the RRA lower with the 24in varmint upper. Is that a good configuration? Since DOJ did not specify LAR-15, does that mean they are looking for the resemblence to the mentioned models?

I haven't decided what I'm going to do right now. I went to the RRA website and looked up each individual model that's listed. They look nothing like my configuration will be with the Varmint upper and so I'm feeling more comfortable with the RRA Varmint Upper and LAR-15 lower with the MMG configuration. At this point I'm not going to worry about it. I am going to print out a copy of each RRA on the "list" so I can show anyone that might have a problem with it. c good

bwiese
09-10-2008, 4:23 PM
10% and some of the other folks here are showing appropriate caution.

If you have an RRA LAR15 lower don't have an RRA upper that could lead to being considered one of the Kasler-listed RRAs.

Having a non-RRA upper that looks like one of the RRAs could be a confusing situation to LE too.

c good
09-10-2008, 4:28 PM
I agree. Caution is a good thing and rightfully so. I think the 24" Varmint Upper is about as far away from trouble as one could get. But I'm still keeping some print outs of the RRA "listed" models with me just in case. Thanks all for the great info in this thread. c good
P.S. My more "Tactical" type of build will be on the Stag. :)

aplinker
09-10-2008, 4:42 PM
My RRA Varmint is lasered as a RRA

c good
09-10-2008, 4:43 PM
Where are the markings on that?

nobs11
09-10-2008, 5:04 PM
i looked at my rra upper and i do not see any RRA marks on it.

If it is a flattop, look at the rail. Should say "RRA" on it.

aplinker
09-10-2008, 5:10 PM
If it is a flattop, look at the rail. Should say "RRA" on it.

yup... top of rail, rear.

IIRC some of the mil/leo do not have this.

c good
09-10-2008, 5:22 PM
Mine has no markings. :):)

PIRATE14
09-10-2008, 6:58 PM
The RRAs aren't marked anywhere at anytime w/ what is listed.....period.
We sell them all and people buy them all.......LAR-15s....

I mean there are dealers around selling COLT AR-15A3s.....now that, I would exercise some caution with..........:eek: Since it's on the RCVR....

PIRATE14
09-10-2008, 7:00 PM
Mine has no markings. :):)

They are all marked.........if it's RRA....well maybe it might be an old one......;) they started etching them about two years ago.....or somewhere around there.....

c good
09-10-2008, 8:19 PM
I bought it used from an older gentleman. It's probably from before they started marking them. c good

tenpercentfirearms
09-10-2008, 9:08 PM
Good luck to those of you who think the make and model number will protect you when you possess a rifle in the exact configuration of a listed firearm. In the end your service to the cause will be commended. Just be ready to alter your life style while you fight it and lets hope you don't lose. You definitely will have the potential of overturning all of SB23.

PIRATE14
09-11-2008, 12:03 AM
Good luck to those of you who think the make and model number will protect you when you possess a rifle in the exact configuration of a listed firearm. In the end your service to the cause will be commended. Just be ready to alter your life style while you fight it and lets hope you don't lose. You definitely will have the potential of overturning all of SB23.

Well, isn't that what go us here today.....it's not what the rifle looks like, tastes like, smells like, feels like, shoots like, acts like.....

Unless it's listed by make and model......

Comply w/ SB23 and you're good ta go.......or are we just blowing smoke up our *** in the last 3 years.........;)

tenpercentfirearms
09-11-2008, 5:07 AM
Well, isn't that what go us here today.....it's not what the rifle looks like, tastes like, smells like, feels like, shoots like, acts like.....

Unless it's listed by make and model......

Comply w/ SB23 and you're good ta go.......or are we just blowing smoke up our *** in the last 3 years.........;)

I think it is unwise for us to just blow off that a RRA CAR A4 Flattop might actually be a RRA CAR A4 Flattop. I think it is irresponsible to not let people know that it could be argued before or once you get into court that the firearms you possess is actually listed because it meets the definition of a RRA CAR A4 Flattop. Sure you would have a good defense to say how were you supposed to know since it says LAR-15 on the side. And in front of some liberal judges they might have a good defense that the rifle you built meets those exact specifications and you can clearly see the name of the firearms right out of the catalog.

So if the consumer wants to take this risk, that is fine. I don't think we should just say, "Don't worry about it. Harrott protects you!" I am saying, "There is a risk of you getting arrested, being charged with a felony, and having a year or two of your life in the legal system before we find out for sure how far Harrott goes." If a consumer after that warning wants to take on that risk, I respect that. Again, I think it might do good for all of us.

Just note I don't own any RRA lowers myself, so I am not going to urge anyone forward with this challenge.

PIRATE14
09-11-2008, 8:38 AM
So if the consumer wants to take this risk, that is fine. I don't think we should just say, "Don't worry about it. Harrott protects you!" I am saying, "There is a risk of you getting arrested, being charged with a felony, and having a year or two of your life in the legal system before we find out for sure how far Harrott goes." If a consumer after that warning wants to take on that risk, I respect that. Again, I think it might do good for all of us.
Just note I don't own any RRA lowers myself, so I am not going to urge anyone forward with this challenge.

That risk is carried w/ any OFF LIST Rifle of any type.......as I usually state, if you don't want the risk......don't buy.....

Does anyone actually have a RRA CAR-A4 in the state of CALI made in 2000 to judge against one that's readily available today....NO. So, what will the state do to make it's definition....

You don't want to arbitrarily toss in your own defacto series law.....

I am pretty sure the next test will be against the (ALL) model. As stated in the KASLER LIST....

Your either all the way in or your not giving her all you got.........:43:

jamesob
09-11-2008, 10:26 AM
lets say you have a colt hbar match elite lower bb installed that is off list, and you put a colt car a3 upper on that lower. did you just create an assault weapon?

PIRATE14
09-11-2008, 1:05 PM
lets say you have a colt hbar match elite lower bb installed that is off list, and you put a colt car a3 upper on that lower. did you just create an assault weapon?

Or for that matter a 6920 upper.......you are a fast learner.......

In a word.......NO...

aplinker
09-11-2008, 1:11 PM
lets say you have a colt hbar match elite lower bb installed that is off list, and you put a colt car a3 upper on that lower. did you just create an assault weapon?

No.

There's no colt hbar match elite car a3 listed.

This is why RRA is unique. I'm of the opinion, like Hector, that this is a winnable case, as it's equally or even more confusing than the issues introduced by Harrot, but you're looking for potential trouble, time in jail, and lawyer cost by doing it.

God bless anyone who does and can afford the lawyers. :)

jamesob
09-11-2008, 6:27 PM
Or for that matter a 6920 upper.......you are a fast learner.......

In a word.......NO...im not a quick learner i just know that the rra upper on a rra lower is a crock. hell who knows someday i may be the test bed for this.:)

thomasanelson
10-25-2008, 3:59 PM
If this is true (about the RRA Lower and RRA Upper), why isn't it listed on the CA AW ID Flowchart?

AR_underdog
10-25-2008, 8:05 PM
http://www.coldwarshooters.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=11&products_id=554

I guess the DOJ hasn't found this website yet...
:)

Or... Maybe it is OK to have all RRA. something to think about...

tyrist
10-25-2008, 8:40 PM
Just use the midlength uppers instead of the carbine/rifle ones.

windsheer
10-25-2008, 8:46 PM
Before reading this I was gonna buy a saiga , but .. saiga is listed , now what............

rtlltj
10-25-2008, 9:02 PM
The potential for problems with LEO is bad enough as it is with a legal configured OLL in this state. For peace of mind I wouldn't use a RRA upper on a RRA lower but to each his own since we already know what the law states isn't necessarily what's enforced considering the amount of people wrongfully arrested.

tenpercentfirearms
10-26-2008, 6:46 AM
Before reading this I was gonna buy a saiga , but .. saiga is listed , now what............

Russian American Armory Saigas are not listed.

This Rock River Arms case is really unique and cannot be applied to anything else in the list.

javalos
10-26-2008, 7:17 AM
That risk is carried w/ any OFF LIST Rifle of any type.......as I usually state, if you don't want the risk......don't buy.....

Pirate 14's comment is the most accurate. Gun owners have been stopped and challenged by LE about the legality of their rifle regardless of make and model which is a risk carried by any owner of OLL configured into a rifle. The upper receiver is not the focus, but the lower one is and that is the one that must be brought to the attention to those that question its legality, almost everyone here is focused on both. The law is the law, and it states that all lower receivers not on the list are legal for sale, purchase, and possession in the state of California. Granted in appearance there is no difference the way lower receivers generally appear, but to the law there is a difference when on the etching on the OLL it says Rock River Arms LAR-15, according the Harrott vs. Kings County and Department of Justice, particularly Bill Lockeyer's letter of September 1, 2006.

That being said all gun owners with OLL's do not risk anything from DOJ who approves the sale of OLL's because they are legal, its your local LE and DA that will attempt to put you through the ringer if they have a wild hair up their behind, but that's a risk all of us take regardless of make and model and I for one came to that conclusion when I picked up my first OLL, a STAG model 15. Yup, you'll get your gun back, but that rifle that originally cost you $700 to build will end up costing more with attorney fees added. You can bet when I go shooting, I'll have copies of documents in a binder when some flunky cop comes up to me and asks questions regarding my AR.

javalos
10-26-2008, 9:04 AM
I disagree with everyone here. If you have a RRA lower and it is in any of these configurations

Standard A-2
Car A2
Standard A-4 Flattop
Car A4 Flattop
NM A2 - DCM Legal
LE Tactical Carbine

then I believe you have an assault weapon on your hands. I wouldn't even risk a RRA lower and any other brand upper that puts it into this configuration.

The only RRA lower and upper combo I would ever do is a varmint gun however! As you can clearly see, the RRA lists do not include anything about a varmint gun.

So you are talking about building the only RRA that I would ever touch because it is not listed.

To build any of the other configurations is just not smart as this is actually a gray enough area, you could spend a lot of money defending it and still lose. With so many other lowers out there, it simply is not worth the risk.

Again, if you are going to build a varmint gun with a varmint upper, you are 100% safe. You still might end up spending some time and money on legal bills if you "win the lottery" (aka the odds of you being a test case are about the same as winning the lottery), but that is what Calguns and the Calguns Foundation are for. Assuming you didn't get busted with 10 lbs of meth at the same time, we would love to have a test case about a RRA varmint gun and we would financially support anyone in that situation. It could potentially over turn all of SB-23.

Good discussion, but if on the list it doesn't say:
Rock River Arms LAR-15 Standard A-2
Rock River Arms LAR-15 Car A2
Rock River Arms LAR-15 Standard A-4 Flattop
Rock River Arms LAR-15 Car A4 Flattop
Rock River Arms LAR-15 NM A2 - DCM Legal
Rock River Arms LAR-15 LE Tactical Carbine

You should be okay. I can see that someone will point out that in RRA's case, Harrott throws this situation with RRA back into Kasler, but still the LAR-15 keeps that from fully happening. Opinions?

supersonic
10-26-2008, 9:44 AM
people say that you will run into problems with a rra upper on a rra lower, bullcrap. the rra lower is marked lar15,9 or 8 depending wich one you have. with that being said where would one associate the banned rifles with the legal ones? they can't. people say if you put a m4 or whatever banned model upper on your legal lower you just created a banned aw.this is not true, the lower is the firearm not the upper. i have a rra lower with a rra upper and im not worried a bit.

I'm right with you! I have 2!!!!:D

supersonic
10-26-2008, 10:15 AM
[QUOTE=tenpercentfirearms;1511595]I disagree with everyone here. If you have a RRA lower and it is in any of these configurations

Standard A-2
Car A2
Standard A-4 Flattop
Car A4 Flattop
NM A2 - DCM Legal
LE Tactical Carbine

then I believe you have an assault weapon on your hands.[/ QUOTE]

You are definitely entitled to what you believe, however NONE of the above is a LAR-15 (unless I'm blind). I've voluntarily displayed both of my LAR-15's (one is mated to a RRA A2 HB 20" upper; the other is mated to an A-4 flattop Varmint 24" SS bull barrel) to 4 random LEO's *each from different, distant counties* with the AWCA list in hand, with the premise being "The LAR-15 was not added when this list was made. Oh, and here's the "OFF-LIST" LIST." .....................I wasn't treated with any scorn; wasn't detained; and my beautiful RRA "pair" still rest comfortably in the safe. Lucky, you think? I think not. If That lower and that upper were legally imported into this state (because they are both...well.....legal); and they were both constructed in compliance with California PC's ("legally")......then that simply means one thing: I'm legal, GTG, etc., etc., etc.. until someONE or someENTITY can prove otherwise. - just my $0.25!;)

bwiese
10-26-2008, 10:38 AM
Bottom line, you should NOT take an RRA upper and put it on an RRA LAR15 lower IF the combination can be regarded as creating one of the Kasler-listed RRA entities (11 CCR 5499).

Yes, this is unlikely to happen as most DAs/crime labs generally don't have the ability/skill to tell an RRA upper from a Colt or Bushmaster upper, and they're probably not even aware of the issue, and would only look at the rifle model as written on the side of the receiver.

BUT IT COULD HAPPEN. The case IS somewhat of a defendable case (due to creation of a "subseries", matters regarding clarity of listing, and the fact that a homebuilt rifle is not an RRA <prohibited_model>, which is a factory-assembled rifle) but there demonstrably is some risk. Why subject yourself to that risk? RRA uppers aren't THAT desirable anyway.

PIRATE14
10-26-2008, 11:54 AM
Bottom line
BUT IT COULD HAPPEN.

BOTTOM LINE.....it's up to the guy that wants to buy a Rock River......LAR-15

ANYTHING can happen w/ an off list Rifle......most of it's already happened......but there is usually some new combo waitng.....

daerror12
10-26-2008, 1:28 PM
I also have a RRA LAR15 lower that I built. I am now looking for an upper to finish my project. I was going to go with a RRA Entry Tactical Upper to complete this project. But after going over the flow chart this leads me to belive I could be asking for a problem. but using this same logic it also looks like I should not have chosen a lower that has a manufacture that is listed on the ban list, even though it is marked RRA LAR15. So anyone want to give an opinion on what upper/direction one would go with on a new build. so as to stay as far away from that gray area as possible. PS (not trying to hijack this post,im just in the same boat)

supersonic
10-26-2008, 5:57 PM
RRA uppers aren't THAT desirable anyway.

Maybe sub 1/2 MOA performance isn't THAT desirable in some circles , but I tend to find it extremely desirable!:D

javalos
10-26-2008, 7:58 PM
I also have a RRA LAR15 lower that I built. I am now looking for an upper to finish my project. I was going to go with a RRA Entry Tactical Upper to complete this project. But after going over the flow chart this leads me to belive I could be asking for a problem. but using this same logic it also looks like I should not have chosen a lower that has a manufacture that is listed on the ban list, even though it is marked RRA LAR15. So anyone want to give an opinion on what upper/direction one would go with on a new build. so as to stay as far away from that gray area as possible. PS (not trying to hijack this post,im just in the same boat)

What a great discussion..here's my thought...
I believe it is legal to build a complete rifle out of a RRA OLL because the Rock River Arms lower is a LAR 15 which is make and model. Here's the confusion and what's going on....some people are thinking that if you take a Rock River Arms lower and mate it with a Rock River Arms upper, you create an illegal rifle, some people go even further and say regardless of what manufacturer upper you put on the top of the LAR-15, you have an illegal rifle. Now lets slow down on this....on the AW list, it does list (for example) a Rock River Arms CAR A4 Flatop. Now is this a make and model or make and description? This is the issue right here. Some people are thinking its make and description (are you following me so far?)....they are saying that if you take a Rock River LAR-15 even though its a OLL, and put a CAR A4 flattop (regardless of manufacturer), you have an illegal rifle because on the list you have Rock River Arms CAR A4 Flatop and when you mated a CAR A4 Flattop upper on the OLL you thus have a description of having something that is on the list. It would seem that you have build an illegal assault weapon if it weren't for the fact that the list recognizes and lists assault weapons by MAKE AND MODEL, not by description. On the Rock River Arms OLL receiver is the inscription "LAR-15", Rock River Arms is the manufacturer, LAR-15 is the model. Rock River Arms LAR-15 is NOT on the AW list. Some people will jump in and say: "Okay, but now the rifle falls under Kasler because Kasler declared all AR's regardless of nomenclature are assault weapons by description. However Harrot superseded Kasler and threw it back saying that an assault weapon to be on the list must be recognized by make and model (not make and description), Rock River Arms LAR-15 is not on the list. Granted its confusing, but what is confusing is this whole law and that is why the AG doesn't want to deal with it. Peoples thoughts and challenge?

supersonic
10-26-2008, 10:11 PM
What a GREAT contribution. I can't comment, because what you wrote already--I know to be FACT. However, I'll be curious to see how anyone can argue with what you've said. Bravo!:clap:
-Scott

daerror12
10-26-2008, 10:46 PM
I do believe I will continue with a RRA lower/upper . I feel that if you keep all appropriate documentation with your rifle,and you are educated with the current laws/restrictions that this will give me a fighting chance if I ever have any encounters with any LEO.

So now who has the best deals on a RRA Entry Tactical Upper.

hotwls13
10-27-2008, 7:38 AM
I for one will NOT buy a RRA OLL. Why would you when there are sooo many other options that are not listed in any way?

I have also decided to NOT buy any RRA uppers as well. I KNOW that it would be LEGAL to config say a Stag lower with a RRA upper. But, in the off chance I get hassled by LEO and I pull out my flowchart to show him WHY my particular AR is LEGAL, I don't want him reading the list and seeing RRA and then looking at my upper and seeing RRA. No offense against LEO's, but most I have met don't like to be PROVEN wrong by civilians. If he has gone so far as to look at the flowchart, he WILL spend time reading it over. I figure it's worth the extra insurance to avoid ANY listed name in my configurations. It's too bad too cause RRA has some nice uppers. :)

javalos
10-27-2008, 5:43 PM
I for one will NOT buy a RRA OLL. Why would you when there are sooo many other options that are not listed in any way?

I have also decided to NOT buy any RRA uppers as well. I KNOW that it would be LEGAL to config say a Stag lower with a RRA upper. But, in the off chance I get hassled by LEO and I pull out my flowchart to show him WHY my particular AR is LEGAL, I don't want him reading the list and seeing RRA and then looking at my upper and seeing RRA. No offense against LEO's, but most I have met don't like to be PROVEN wrong by civilians. If he has gone so far as to look at the flowchart, he WILL spend time reading it over. I figure it's worth the extra insurance to avoid ANY listed name in my configurations. It's too bad too cause RRA has some nice uppers. :)

and too each is own, most LEO's won't be looking at a list anyway, few do. Most of the LEO focus will be on that magazine whether it detaches or not, thus we go back to the Prince 50 and the Bullet Button

ColdDeadHands1
11-13-2008, 11:22 PM
I'd like to keep this thread alive considering I just scrambled to buy a RRA LAR-15 lower. Probably should have done a bit more homework and just avoided the whole potential situation with a different brand lower, but nevertheless here I am.

I have got to think there are lots of LAR-15 lowers in use in CA right now. Anyone else want to give an opinion on the subject? For now, I plan to continue my build but not with RRA uppers. I'll pick another brand.

aplinker
11-14-2008, 12:13 AM
I'd like to keep this thread alive considering I just scrambled to buy a RRA LAR-15 lower. Probably should have done a bit more homework and just avoided the whole potential situation with a different brand lower, but nevertheless here I am.

I have got to think there are lots of LAR-15 lowers in use in CA right now. Anyone else want to give an opinion on the subject? For now, I plan to continue my build but not with RRA uppers. I'll pick another brand.

this is what I would suggest is the best advice, unless you're deep pocketed and feel like the risk is worth it to you:
Bottom line, you should NOT take an RRA upper and put it on an RRA LAR15 lower IF the combination can be regarded as creating one of the Kasler-listed RRA entities (11 CCR 5499).

Yes, this is unlikely to happen as most DAs/crime labs generally don't have the ability/skill to tell an RRA upper from a Colt or Bushmaster upper, and they're probably not even aware of the issue, and would only look at the rifle model as written on the side of the receiver.

BUT IT COULD HAPPEN. The case IS somewhat of a defendable case (due to creation of a "subseries", matters regarding clarity of listing, and the fact that a homebuilt rifle is not an RRA <prohibited_model>, which is a factory-assembled rifle) but there demonstrably is some risk. Why subject yourself to that risk? RRA uppers aren't THAT desirable anyway.

cryptkeeper
11-17-2008, 7:26 PM
I'd like to keep this thread alive considering I just scrambled to buy a RRA LAR-15 lower. Probably should have done a bit more homework and just avoided the whole potential situation with a different brand lower, but nevertheless here I am.

I have got to think there are lots of LAR-15 lowers in use in CA right now. Anyone else want to give an opinion on the subject? For now, I plan to continue my build but not with RRA uppers. I'll pick another brand.

I too bought the LAR-15, now wishing I had read this thread. I'll plan accordingly I guess. I'm thinking if I mate it to a Stag 4H with the RRA A2 buttstock then I'll have less trouble on my hands. My other option is to build the varminter with all RRA parts and let the black rifle bug hit me and build a Stag Model 1 to compliment it.:D