PDA

View Full Version : ATTENTION: Rock River Arms rifle & LAR-15 lower owners (AND FFLs!)


bwiese
01-01-2009, 7:16 PM
Various matters relating to Rock River Arms rifles and the poor construction of the Kasler list keep rearing their ugly heads.

And some newbie CA FFLs and/or their friendly out-of-state suppliers are getting a bit casual. (I think the original early-on OLL Leadership FFLs 'get it', and are not part of this issue.)

This is a very interesting situation where trivial cosmetic features that are not even related to 'characteristic features' in 12276.1PC could come into consideration.

Let's analyze and fix the situation....



Rock River Arms ("RRA") AR lowers are truly 'off-list' and legal to possess, acquire and to construct
various legal rifle configurations upon.



The Kasler list (11 CCR 5499) of formally-identified, 'banned-by-name' AR/AK 'series' members includes the
following banned RRA rifles, which nevertheless have OLL receivers marked with "Rock River Arms LAR-15"- Rock River Arms, Inc. Car A2
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Car A4 Flattop
- Rock River Arms, Inc. LE Tactical Carbine
- Rock River Arms, Inc. NM A2 - DCM Legal
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Standard A-2
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Standard A-4 FlattopSuch exact rifle configurations are regardable as 'named' assault weapons even though the receiver itself
is an OLL ('off list'). Mere addition of a 'bullet button' may well not be effective at changing its status,
though it could be argued that these specific models refer to rifles with fully-functional magwells & mag
catches ;)




FFLs should be wary of these matters and not ship/accept these specific rifles into CA regardless of BB
installation or one minor change like a MonsterMan grip. It appears there are quite a few current RRA
'generically described' models that differ from the banned items above and which would truly be 'off
list' in the whole (as well as the receiver continuing to be off-list.) In the future, it'd be helpful if
receipts and FFL books were to reflect the exact nature of a rifle (providing it's not one of the above
'listed' items!)




Tons of other homebuilt 'parts guns' built on RRA receivers are also marked the same way ("RRA LAR-15").




There is no issue (other than the usual OLL-vs.-AW concerns) when RRA uppers are used on
a non-RRA lower.




If one of the banned rifles above were questioned by busy LEOs, DAs/crime labs, etc. it's pretty likely
they'd go with markings on magwell sideplate (RRA "LAR-15") - and not necessarily as one of the above.
However, the chance does exist and it's not an infinitessimally small risk.




For safety's sake, one should simply not install one of the RRA upper assemblies on an RRA LAR15 lower
receiver such that the end result would produce an exact duplicate of one of the Kasler-banned entities
listed above.




Given that busy cops/DA/crime labs may have great difficulty in determining RRA uppers from identically-
configured uppers from other mfgrs, it probably makes sense to not mimic the exact configuration one of
the RRA banned rifles with a non-RRA upper assembly that looks really, really similar.




The RRA models banned on the Kasler list have specific features suites. (These may have had minor
variations over time in their catalog/product line, I am not sure: a 2001 RRA, say, CAR A2 may have
some differeces than, say, a 2004 or 2005 CAR A2.) To be absolutely pure, your rifle would need to
be different than all prospective individual expressions by RRA of a given model - otherwise there's
risk of "oops, your configuration is identical to that model back in 2002", etc.


However, use of different stocks, handguards, muzzle devices, sights and grips from different mfgrs with
the end result of visibly different appearing rifle would make such an RRA LAR15 rifle most certainly NOT
one of the banned entities: those models refer to an exact configuration as sold/inventoried by RRA.

(It can also be argued - at least tenuously - that an RRA 'parts gun', even though exactly duplicating a
banned entity, is not the banned item because these RRA model names refer to factory-manufactured,
factory-warranted guns. This would only be an element of a defense, and you shouldn't get here in the
first place anyway!!)

Note that Harrott requires clarity and make/model specificity, and if those names were to apply to multiple
gun models with varying features, those banned entities would become in essence multiple "sub-series".
However, we simply do not need divert ourselves to fight a "son-of-Harrott".



If you find yourself with a LAR15 rifle closely (or even closer!) approximating one of the named Kasler-banned
entities above, immediately separate the upper from the lower. Make various changes to the upper: maybe a
different sight set, change out flash hider vs. brake vs. thread protector, and differing handguards. The fact
the bolt assy, barrel and upper receiver are still the same shouldn't be worrisome, as it appears these items
are shared across multiple non-banned RRA platforms as well. Also, put a different grip and/or buttstock on the
LAR15 lower. Just change out things so overall configuration is visibly different from the banned-by-name rifles.




For a fast solution, just swap an RRA upper with an upper of a different brand with a shooting buddy who
owns a non-RRA lower, and compensate any price difference with, say, some ammo or some steaks ;)

aplinker
01-01-2009, 8:42 PM
Timely and relevant.

These individual FAQs are important.

Thanks for laying this out again.

383green
01-01-2009, 10:39 PM
Bill, your post confused me at first, and I had to read it a few times until I understood it. On my first reading, the situation wasn't immediately apparent (i.e., several RRA models are listed, but none of them actually had the listed model name marked on the receiver).

I think that the second bullet item ("Some newbie CA FFLs [...]") should be moved later in the posting, so that the "above 'listed' items" are actually above it. On my first reading, it just seemed to contradict the first bullet item. I don't think that the "Some newbie CA FFLs [...]" makes sense until the reader has digested some of the other details (that is, unless they already know about RRA's lowers and listed rifles).

bwiese
01-02-2009, 12:02 AM
Thanks 383green, hacked it up a bit per your suggestion.

savageevo
01-02-2009, 12:25 AM
thanks again for the update Bwiese. Thank God you are watching over us.

GenLee
01-02-2009, 8:25 AM
Thanks Bill, and Mods shouldn't this be a sticky?

dawson8r
01-02-2009, 10:19 AM
So, a "quick" solution would be to just swap a similarly configured upper with one of your other non-RRA OLL rifles, right? Because we all have more than one OLL rifle. What's that? The RRA was your only OLL rifle? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU! You should have 2 or 3 by now!

PIRATE14
01-02-2009, 10:23 AM
Such exact rifle configurations are regardable as 'named' assault weapons even though the receiver itself
is an OLL ('off list'). Mere addition of a 'bullet button' may well not be effective at changing its status,
though it could be argued that these specific models refer to rifles with fully-functional magwells & mag
catches ;)

You're reading way to much into w/ this statement......

Cru Jones
01-02-2009, 11:10 AM
Thanks Bill. I actually started a thread earlier this week concerning the RRA's being listed by type and not make/model and the confusion it caused. I appreciate your replies and this thread to clarify the situation.

bwiese
01-02-2009, 11:11 AM
Such exact rifle configurations are regardable as 'named' assault weapons even though the receiver itself
is an OLL ('off list'). Mere addition of a 'bullet button' may well not be effective at changing its status,
though it could be argued that these specific models refer to rifles with fully-functional magwells & mag
catches ;)

You're reading way to much into w/ this statement......


Hi Pirate,

I'm unclear about what you're implying. (??)

The issues of which I wrote do exist - perhaps they're not huge, but the risks do exists and they are best avoided, especially as it's simple to do.

Yes, these cases are defendable. I'd just like to keep people well away
from the issue since it's readily avoidable. No sense in having a fight that doesn't need to be fought.

Cpl. Haas
01-02-2009, 11:28 AM
Thanks for the heads-up, Bill! I own an OLL RRA LAR-15, but it's got the Entry Tactical upper on it. Am I okay? I don't see Rock River Arms, Inc. Entry Tactical... just the LE Tactical Carbine...

bwiese
01-02-2009, 11:44 AM
Thanks for the heads-up, Bill! I own an OLL RRA LAR-15, but it's got the Entry Tactical upper on it. Am I okay? I don't see Rock River Arms, Inc. Entry Tactical... just the LE Tactical Carbine...

Sounds to me like you're clear, esp if the two guns look somewhat different, different stocks (or whatever) etc.

BroncoBob
01-02-2009, 12:01 PM
Sounds to me like you're clear, esp if the two guns look somewhat different, different stocks (or whatever) etc.

Bill; since people are asking for your opinion I have a RRA Varmint A4 with a U-15 buttstock. Would my rifle be in the clear also in your opinion? Picture below.
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk75/223Bob/MVC-004S-1.jpg

bwiese
01-02-2009, 12:13 PM
Bronc,

Note that I do not have full historical info on RRA catalog items or how they varied over time. I can only give you a reasonbly informed personal opinion.

The RRA 'Varmint A4' is not a listed entity.

I'll also add that a U15 stock also offers such a substantially different profile - plus a somewhat functionally-different buffer system - that even if rifle were listed, I believe the newly-configured rifle would no longer be equivalent to the banned entity.




Bill; since people are asking for your opinion I have a RRA Varmint A4 with a U-15 buttstock. Would my rifle be in the clear also in your opinion? Picture below.

BroncoBob
01-02-2009, 12:24 PM
Bill; your reasonbly informed personal opinion is a lot better then mine. The only reason I asked is that the upper is a flat top and was concerned about it being mistaken for an Standard A4 flat top. Thank you very much for your input.

rdiggidy
02-24-2009, 11:07 PM
I'm new to the AR-15 scene and have been reading up as much as I can in prepeartion for my first build.

I just purchased a kit from M&A (http://www.mapartsinc.com/). Their catalog image of the kit I ordered is below.

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/rdiggidy/Upper.jpg

(I ordered the 16" flatop M4, w/bayonet lug, and A2 flash suppresor)

I was planning on getting a RRA LAR-15 stripped lower (was going to call this Calguns seller tomorrow: RRA Lower (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=157056)).

Would others feel comfortable with this configuration or would you suggest looking at another lower to avoid the possiblity of perceived "mix ups" listed in this post?

Thanks for any opinions.

bwiese
02-24-2009, 11:47 PM
I'm new to the AR-15 scene and have been reading up as much as I can in prepeartion for my first build.

I just purchased a kit from M&A (http://www.mapartsinc.com/). Their catalog image of the kit I ordered is below.

(I ordered the 16" flatop M4, w/bayonet lug, and A2 flash suppresor)

I was planning on getting a RRA LAR-15 stripped lower (was going to call this Calguns seller tomorrow: RRA Lower (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=157056)).

Would others feel comfortable with this configuration or would you suggest looking at another lower to avoid the possiblity of perceived "mix ups" listed in this post?

Thanks for any opinions.


An RRA LAR15 lower with an M&A upper cannot not form any Rock River Arms banned (or otherwise) rifle, as long as features are properly configured to avoid SB23 configurations.

[Aside from legal matters, why you're buying an M&A upper puzzles me, however, as they're not high up on the list (LMT, Bushmaster, Armalite, Colt, etc.)]

akguy999
02-25-2009, 12:02 AM
How about the Armalite AR-180A (or thereabouts) that one popular FFL is offering?

Any risk there?

DedEye
02-25-2009, 12:58 AM
How about the Armalite AR-180A (or thereabouts) that one popular FFL is offering?

Any risk there?

Yes, potentially plenty.

The Armalite AR180 is banned by name, but the 180A is not. I suppose a legal defense could be mounted based on that distinction, but is it really worth the potential risk involved?

evollep3
02-25-2009, 1:05 AM
Hi Pirate,

I'm unclear about what you're implying. (??)

The issues of which I wrote do exist - perhaps they're not huge, but the risks do exists and they are best avoided, especially as it's simple to do.

Yes, these cases are defendable. I'd just like to keep people well away
from the issue since it's readily avoidable. No sense in having a fight that doesn't need to be fought.
:thumbsup:

rdiggidy
02-25-2009, 1:11 AM
An RRA LAR15 lower with an M&A upper cannot not form any Rock River Arms banned (or otherwise) rifle, as long as features are properly configured to avoid SB23 configurations.

[Aside from legal matters, why you're buying an M&A upper puzzles me, however, as they're not high up on the list (LMT, Bushmaster, Armalite, Colt, etc.)]

Thanks for the reply.

I claim no personal knowledge of the M&A uppers (as I said I'm new to the whole game); my decision to purchase was based on several positive reviews I read about the M&A kits. Additionally numerous posts on AR15.com and other similar websites indicated that M&A uses LMT uppers and Wilson barrels for their kits. Apparently they ocassionaly use RRA uppers as well. Again this is not personal experience, but most of the people making the statements seemed to have personal experience and be fairly knowledgeable.

The most recent post I could find (without doing too much digging and just looking on AR15.com) was here: M&A Kits (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=4&t=425678&page=1)

A note on M&A's website in the FAQ also seems to indicate that they use LMT uppers. They state that they can't list specific lower receivers to recommend but that a list of lowers (including RRA) will match LMT uppers?? (Full FAQ here (http://www.mapartsinc.com/anything.asp))

Again, according to others, the RRA uppers that do go out from M&A are stamped as RRA (whereas the LMT aren't stamped but do have LMT markings), if I did receive an RRA upper, would my configuration then constitute worry based on this thread?

Seesm
02-25-2009, 2:34 AM
WHY am I Soooo confused with this whole thread? :) It is late but is anyone else confused? haha :)

mydogsmonkey
02-25-2009, 2:55 AM
nope, just can't configure to the way they come from the factory in those variants, this should be a sticky since i asked this question before

Ernest

Cpl. Haas
02-25-2009, 10:25 AM
Does anyone have a screenshot or specs on the Rock River Arms LE Tactical Carbine? I've been trying to figure out how it differs from the Rock River Arms Entry Tactical that I own, but so far I've found nothing about it.

bwiese
03-05-2009, 10:42 AM
Bumping again.

Appears people may still be screwing up and ordering banned guns.

IF IT'S ON THE KASLER LIST DON'T FRIGGIN' TRY TO BUY IT - whether or not the receiver says LAR15.

These are defendable cases but we just don't need to fight Son of Harrott, etc.

PatriotnMore
03-05-2009, 10:47 AM
I just want to be clear. If I have a RRA LR15 lower, but the rest of the build is non RRA components, you're GTG?

Matt C
03-05-2009, 11:08 AM
Why is this still an issue? AB2728 killed Kasler YEARS ago. The courts have CLEARLY said that the list would violate equal protection if the was no mechanism to add new manufactures/models to the list, and we eliminated that mechanism (thanks Jason!), YEARS ago.

This seems like a fight that is very much worth fighting, and almost a guaranteed victory with no factual issues to try (read: cheap lawsuit). When will it be time to go on the offensive? It should not be hard to get an out of state manufacturer to stand as a plaintiff. So wtf?

I'm looking at you Calguns Foundation.

bwiese
03-05-2009, 11:54 AM
I just want to be clear. If I have a RRA LR15 lower, but the rest of the build is non RRA components, you're GTG?

Yup.

If your non-RRA upper looked too close to a banned RRA combination I'd keep the receipt for the upper. I doubt a cop/DA/crime lab is smart enough to differentiate between brands of uppers.

bwiese
03-05-2009, 12:00 PM
Why is this still an issue? AB2728 killed Kasler YEARS ago.

Yes, but there's still risk of drama around 'subseries' and the RRA situation.

The courts have CLEARLY said that the list would be violate equal protection if the was no mechanism to add new manufactures/models to the list, and we did that (thanks Jason!), YEARS ago.

The question revolves around how well the Kasler list requires identification.

Even though RRA LAR15s are off-list, the RRA Standard A2 Carbine may well pass muster for listing's sake: it's an identifiable make/model that can be avoided.


This seems like a fight that is very much worth fighting, and almost a guaranteed victory with no factual issues to try (read: cheap lawsuit).


The problem is the case will likely revolve around a client popped for AW violation. The case will most likely go away, and the client's interests come first so there's no ethical way of stretching the case out that far.

We're bettah off just defending the odd case, they'll go away fast/cheap.

When will it be time to go on the offensive? It should not be hard to get an out of state manufacturer to stand as a plaintiff. So wtf?

I'm looking at you Calguns Foundation.

Rather than fighting over details of series/subseries matters it'd be WAY more effective to take out the whole Roberti-Roos list. Let's hold til Nordyke and see how the world gets shaken up. We may well not have to fight fights that don't need to be fought.

rtlltj
03-05-2009, 12:02 PM
Basically, the safest way to go about this is do not use a RRA brand lower. RRA uppers are fine on any brand lower except RRA and ones on the list. I have noticed there have been some complete RRA rifles being sold in the marketplace. Maybe this shouldn't be allowed as well to protect our members.

Vtec44
03-05-2009, 12:03 PM
Why is this still an issue? AB2728 killed Kasler YEARS ago. The courts have CLEARLY said that the list would violate equal protection if the was no mechanism to add new manufactures/models to the list, and we eliminated that mechanism (thanks Jason!), YEARS ago.

This seems like a fight that is very much worth fighting, and almost a guaranteed victory with no factual issues to try (read: cheap lawsuit). When will it be time to go on the offensive? It should not be hard to get an out of state manufacturer to stand as a plaintiff. So wtf?

I'm looking at you Calguns Foundation.

Yep, I'm also curious.

Cpl. Haas
03-05-2009, 12:05 PM
Here's my problem with this issue:

I built my rifle over two years ago... it's a custom-built firearm using a RRA LAR-15 lower, RRA single-stage LPK, RRA 6-position stock, RRA Entry Tactical upper with the lightweight R4 barrel, and an RRA Dominator mount. So basically, the gun is about 95% identical to the RRA entry Tactical model offered in the company's catalogue (the barrel and LPK is the only non-cosmetic thing that differs).

My issue that this thread has raised is whether my Cali-compliant rifle is too similar to the listed RRA LE Tactical Carbine. I've tried to get an answer to this, but so far have hit dead ends...

I checked the RRA website and their Fall '08 catalogue for the LE Tactical Carbine, but there is no such gun listed anymore...

I've asked here, but got no direct response from any other member...

I've searched online, but there is no detailed mention of the LE Tactical Carbine; image searches turn up current photos of the Entry Tactical model similar to what I own, and document searches turned up one old review of the LE Tactical Carbine which refers to it as a pre-'04 post-ban LE-only model.

My fear here is that the LE Tactical Carbine was phased out when the '94 Crime Control bill expired and was replaced by the currently offered Entry Tactical model... but I can't find any actual evidence of this!

As I said earlier though, my RRA is custom built... technically it's not even a true RRA Entry Tactical model; it's an RRA Whodunit model.

Obviously I don't wanna take unnecessary risks... but I also don't wanna shell out > $600 for a new upper when it's really not necessary.

How big of a risk am I really running here? :confused: I'm hoping this is reading way too far into the situation, but I wanna be sure.

Vtec44
03-05-2009, 12:08 PM
Obviously I don't wanna take unnecessary risks... but I also don't wanna shell out > $600 for a new upper when it's really not necessary.

Or you can purchase a stripped lower receiver of an unlisted model of a different brand.

rtlltj
03-05-2009, 12:16 PM
Or you can purchase a stripped lower receiver of an unlisted model of a different brand.

Definately the cheapest and easiest route if your worried.

Cpl. Haas
03-05-2009, 12:21 PM
Or you can purchase a stripped lower receiver of an unlisted model of a different brand.

True... but with the going rate of decent lowers these days, that's still a few hundred dollars that could go to ammo or another gun.

I'm not asking if there's any risk... that's a given with OLLs these days. What I'm wondering, however, is if there's a large enough risk here to necessitate paying a few hundred dollars.

Matt C
03-05-2009, 12:47 PM
Yes, but there's still risk of drama around 'subseries' and the RRA situation.

The question revolves around how well the Kasler list requires identification.

Even though RRA LAR15s are off-list, the RRA Standard A2 Carbine may well pass muster for listing's sake: it's an identifiable make/model that can be avoided.


I think you are missing what I'm saying here, I am in fact talking about nullifying all of the Roberti-Roos list. Nordyke may help as it would allow us to argue that the equal protection violation also burdens a protected right, but we can and should pursue this independent from Nordyke and regardless of its outcome.

In Kasler v. Lockyer the court said the list only passed constitutional muster because the law provided:

a mechanism for adding others [weapons not on the list] "which are only variations of these weapons, which are the same weapon but manufactured or sold by
another company under a licensing agreement, or which are new
models manufactured or sold by any company with just minor
modifications or new model numbers in order to circumvent the
[AWCA's] prohibitions"

That mechanism no longer exists.



The problem is the case will likely revolve around a client popped for AW violation. The case will most likely go away, and the client's interests come first so there's no ethical way of stretching the case out that far.

We're bettah off just defending the odd case, they'll go away fast/cheap.

Criminal court is a terrible place to make case lase, I'm talking about a civil suit (hence going on the offensive).

thomasanelson
03-05-2009, 6:03 PM
BWIESE for Governor!

Intimid8tor
03-05-2009, 9:22 PM
I had a rifle that looked like one of the listed so I swapped the upper to another lower. I preferred the upper and lower matching, but it wasn't worth the risk.

I think in due time I will do a foliage green, OD or FDE build using that upper and some other accessories.

sreiter
03-06-2009, 1:20 PM
Do Leo's have pictures of ALL the listed guns, and in particular the listed RRA's?
If not,who does?

Do the listed RRA's have "LAR-15" markings ?

bwiese
03-06-2009, 1:42 PM
Do Leo's have pictures of ALL the listed guns, and in particular the listed RRA's? If not,who does?

The DOJ has the outdated AWIG, sometimes known as the "DOJ Coloring Book".

That has *some* pictures, usu just of Roberti-Roos guns.

Do the listed RRA's have "LAR-15" markings ?

As far as we know, all RRA rifles use RRA lowers marked with LAR-15.

If an encounter results in querying the gun, it most likely will be regarded as a LAR15 and not one of the Kasler-banned entities.

Should further drama ensue - let's assume BB'd 10rd mag or featureless + MonsterMan grip - it would behoove the owner to not be too close to one of the banned entity's feature lists with a real RRA upper. If it's a non RRA upper, even though it looks about the same as one of the banned entities, it's not an RRA <banned_gun>, it's an parts gun thrown on an RRA lower.

sreiter
03-06-2009, 3:26 PM
thanks

i'm planning a build on a RRA lower, but with a mish-mash of other parts - NO RAA upper - i'll have a BB mag release, but i will have evil feature (pistol grip, flash hider, maybe a telescoping stock as long as my weapon remains over 30"

thank you for taking the time to answer

mydogsmonkey
03-09-2009, 3:06 PM
sticky! please! :D

sreiter
03-09-2009, 4:58 PM
BTW -

how would one KNOW it's a RRA upper?

Is it marked RRA ?

bwiese
03-09-2009, 5:03 PM
BTW -

how would one KNOW it's a RRA upper?

Is it marked RRA ?


You raise a good point, it's *unlikely* to be known that it's an RRA upper should legal questioning ensue. Many are not marked, I'd guess.

However, there are distinct markings/toolmarks/colorations that could probably indicate it. And certainly your VISA card statement for $700 bucks spent at RRA might indicate that too ;)

But bottom line, this is an edge issue that could have severe results so I want to let folks know they need to Walk With Caution.

vf111
03-09-2009, 7:01 PM
BTW -

how would one KNOW it's a RRA upper?

Is it marked RRA ?

My RRA 9mm upper has the Rock River Arms logo painted (not stamped) on the top rail. Not sure if RRA does the same on their 5.56 uppers.

Cpl. Haas
03-09-2009, 11:33 PM
My RRA 9mm upper has the Rock River Arms logo painted (not stamped) on the top rail. Not sure if RRA does the same on their 5.56 uppers.

They do... my 5.56 upper has the logo, but it's currently hidden underneath my EOTech mount.

Vtec44
03-09-2009, 11:39 PM
BTW -

how would one KNOW it's a RRA upper?

Is it marked RRA ?

I have the RRA marking on the flat top rail on my 5.56 upper. It's toward the back of the rail.

rod
03-10-2009, 5:16 AM
If someone were to use the same criteria CABOF uses for their safe handgun list, all one would have to do is put a different pistol grip on their listed AR and they would have a completely different rifle. :D

Bill is right though, this is a fight where it is better to walk away. I'm sure there will be a test case along any minute though.

bwiese
03-10-2009, 9:32 AM
If someone were to use the same criteria CABOF uses for their safe handgun list, all one would have to do is put a different pistol grip on their listed AR and they would have a completely different rifle. :D

Bill is right though, this is a fight where it is better to walk away...

You actually bring up a very interesting point/attack.

Why should there be two separate methods or standards of listing or Roster membership? Whether it's handguns or AWs is not that important, unified behavior should be the goal. Harrott says AW listings should have clarity (as we've seen, this RRA stuff is an edge case) - so shouldn't the Roster?

Why does the Roster get to be unclear? :)

fairfaxjim
03-10-2009, 10:53 AM
You actually bring up a very interesting point/attack.

Why should there be two separate methods or standards of listing or Roster membership? Whether it's handguns or AWs is not that important, unified behavior should be the goal. Harrott says AW listings should have clarity (as we've seen, this RRA stuff is an edge case) - so shouldn't the Roster?

Why does the Roster get to be unclear? :)

Damn! I hear wheels turning all the way from here! :D

sreiter
03-10-2009, 4:14 PM
I have the RRA marking on the flat top rail on my 5.56 upper. It's toward the back of the rail.

thanks

i've seen LMT uppers with marking, but i dont recall colt having any markings on their uppers (IIRC)

artherd
03-11-2009, 2:48 AM
If someone were to use the same criteria CABOF uses for their safe handgun list, all one would have to do is put a different pistol grip on their listed AR and they would have a completely different rifle. :D

Bill is right though, this is a fight where it is better to walk away. I'm sure there will be a test case along any minute though.

A very good point. What reason, other than partisanship, are two lists held to different criteria? Your Honor???

wash
03-11-2009, 8:53 AM
I like the sound of this.

I would love to buy a Belgian FN FAL with a U.S. pistol grip!

That would complete my collection of imported commercial metric FAL rifles.

bwiese
03-11-2009, 9:55 AM
I like the sound of this.

I would love to buy a Belgian FN FAL with a U.S. pistol grip!

That would complete my collection of imported commercial metric FAL rifles.

IIRC many Beligan FN FAL rifles are likely considered as "FN FAL" if "FAL" is marked on them, and thus banned by name. No parts changes will render such rifles CA-legal.

However, some FN FAL-like rifles have odd model desginiators, something akin to "50.03" or other similarly-formatted number, and if they don't say "FAL", "LAR" or "FNC" on them they should be OK.

wash
03-11-2009, 10:31 AM
Well, hang on, if a small difference makes a pistol not on the list, shouldn't a small difference on a named AW take it off the list?

If the same standard was applied, the U.S. pistol grip should make it not listed.

Of course I might have to follow 922(r) after modifying a pre-ban imported rifle, but that would just mean more difference from the listed FN FAL.

Any way, I wish we could make things work that way, perhaps the roster of safe handguns isn't something we want to kill just yet.

Lastly, if it did work this way, why would it be illegal to bring in bare named receivers?

I hope there could be "Assault Weapon" NERF's too.

swhatb
03-11-2009, 8:36 PM
good read... better to swap then where cute bracelets.

bwiese
03-11-2009, 8:52 PM
Well, hang on, if a small difference makes a pistol not on the list, shouldn't a small difference on a named AW take it off the list?

The laws are constructed differently in relation to the listed items vs what can be done.

Yes, there should be equal standards in clarity. But how the lists operate against the actual codifed laws is a bit different.


If the same standard was applied, the U.S. pistol grip should make it not listed.

You're arguing interesting theory that could possibly have some relevance in a deep court case we don't need to fight.

General consensus is that most all 'listed' semiauto AWs are AWs regardless of features changes or deletion ('characteristic' or otherwise) - and which don't pull it out of that 'listed' category.

The RRA discussion in this thread is specifically a bit different because their entries on the list are, um, 'weird': the gun is banned-by-name for the 'whole named entity' rather than what's marked on the receiver ("LAR15", which is off-list).

Your example about FN FALs likely involves receivers that are listed/marked. There is at least one FN FAL-type rifle from the 60s (?) not marked with "FAL" or "LAR" or "FN Sporter" (whatever) and has some model# that is not listed. Thus that rifle is not a banned FN FAL etc. and can be possessed as long as SB23 evil features are not present.


Of course I might have to follow 922(r) after modifying a pre-ban imported rifle, but that would just mean more difference from the listed FN FAL.


Again, irrelevant here. This RRA situation is different than other listing situations - that's why I've been bringing it up for special attention here because even though the receivers are off-list, construction of certain guns with RRA components in certain configurations may not be. It's kinda the "full converse" of a listed AW where features changes are irrelevant.

The RRA list naming is just particularly weird.

Any way, I wish we could make things work that way, perhaps the roster of safe handguns isn't something we want to kill just yet.

No, it's going away.



Lastly, if it did work this way, why would it be illegal to bring in bare named receivers?

It is technically not illegal - or rather better put, 'defendable but not recommended' - to possess listed receivers. These receivers are neither (1) semiautomatic, nor (2) centerfire, nor (3) a rifles or pistol or shotgun, as appropriate. (This was mentioned in a footnote in the legislative analysis to 2006' AB2728, which "froze the lists" starting in 2007.) Certainly these named receivers can't be built up into semiauto firearms in CA. They're pretty radioactive, and there's more competence here on Calguns than in most PD or DA offices and that's something you have to hammer into them - post-arrest, post-bail.

These cases aren't worth fighting given that the whole AW ban is a bigger fatter target, and that plenty of non-listed receivers for most styles of guns are available.


I hope there could be "Assault Weapon" NERF's too.

Yes - they're called OLLs.

Vtec44
03-11-2009, 11:04 PM
The RRA list naming is just particularly weird.

It is VERY weird because RRA uses those descriptions as their model names, http://rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=213. Althought "Standard A2" may describe a particular feature on an AR15/M16, but RRA uses it as their model name also.

sniper_tim
03-11-2009, 11:18 PM
So, one thing I've noticed about this site is there is lots of information about what is legal/illegal, however it is also backed up by letters/e-mails from the DOJ. Has anyone actually seen a legal case where someone has been arrested with a "RRA A2" or challenged this information, something similar to what is being implied on this thread? Has anyone actually contacted the DOJ to find out if this is potentially an issue? Just don't want to get anyone in a frenzy over nothing.

Just curios,
Tim

Vtec44
03-11-2009, 11:19 PM
Good point Tim, I don't think anyone has.

sreiter
03-12-2009, 7:16 PM
in that case, would be it worthwhile to write to DOJ and ask about the LAR15 as a lower (sans evil features)?

if one cant have a banned lower with no features, it would stand to reason that a approved "OLL" should be able to be made into a Cal legal "Ar"

bwiese
03-12-2009, 7:56 PM
At this point a DOJ reply will be somewhat irrelevant. Alison will likely stay quiet and let a 'staffer' reply - and that person will not understand all the nuances we do here.

Other people could get some kinda answer but it's not worth the grief for such a trivial edge case for a single brand that's replaceable by tons of others.

So:

1. The case is fairly defendable.
2. Don't put yourself in that position.

Please configure your rifles appropriately given my original posts here.

If you really really want an RRA upper in a certain configuration that might be similar to one of the banned RRA rifle entities on the Kasler list, switch to a non-RRA lower.

sreiter
03-12-2009, 9:19 PM
At this point a DOJ reply will be somewhat irrelevant. Alison will likely stay quiet and let a 'staffer' reply - and that person will not understand all the nuances we do here.

Other people could get some kinda answer but it's not worth the grief for such a trivial edge case for a single brand that's replaceable by tons of others.

So:

1. The case is fairly defendable.
2. Don't put yourself in that position.

Please configure your rifles appropriately given my original posts here.

If you really really want an RRA upper in a certain configuration that might be similar to one of the banned RRA rifle entities on the Kasler list, switch to a non-RRA lower.

Thanks - i was kinda worried about the other way.

I bought a stag too, but this thread got me thinking about the 300.00 RRA lower I bought, and what might happen even if I have a non-RRA upper -

defensible ? I'll trust smart minds and conventional wisdom, however, does just using the lower open yourself up more then using another OLL ? meaning given the same circumstances, same LEO, would he look at both weapons and decide the stag is ok but the RRA [lower] isnt

i was just thinking, that a "OK" letter by the DOJ might add some weigh if someone was to get charged

So, you think it isnt worth my time to send a letter to the DOJ? Meaning that a "OK" letter wouldnt add any weight in a case?

bwiese
03-12-2009, 10:10 PM
Thanks - i was kinda worried about the other way.

I bought a stag too, but this thread got me thinking about the 300.00 RRA lower I bought, and what might happen even if I have a non-RRA upper

Save your receipt, and just don't have it look like one of the banned Kasler entities.

This is an edge case - most LE entanglements will just result in this being regarded as an RRA LAR15. I just want to prevent the odd 'outlier' case.


using the lower open yourself up more then using another OLL ? meaning given the same circumstances, same LEO, would he look at both weapons and decide the stag is ok but the RRA [lower] isntNo because like I said 99+% of the time he's gonna see RRA LAR15 = off list.

For the other fractional case if the gun has a non-RRA upper and/or is not built to look like any RRA *listed* gun in Kasler list, you'll be OK.


i was just thinking, that a "OK" letter by the DOJ might add some weigh if someone was to get chargedYou're apparently new here.

These days DOJ doesn't give out cr*p of any use without careful planning by requester.

This also involves some concepts & weapons familiarity & history I'm not sure any DOJ BoF staffer has, and the person replying will just be a glorified secretary/clerk.


So, you think it isnt worth my time to send a letter to the DOJ? Meaning that a "OK" letter wouldnt add any weight in a case?You won't get an OK. You'll get something about 58 DAs :)

DOJ BoF refuses to talk about MonsterMan grips, Bullet Buttons, U15 stocks, etc. They (she) wants silence to render confusion.

If a legitimately-configured RRA LAR15 lower with an upper whose combination does not resemble a banned Kasler entity leads to legal drama, CGF would get behind that case (barring malfeasance, drugs, violence, etc.)

sreiter
03-13-2009, 10:08 AM
Save your receipt, and just don't have it look like one of the banned Kasler entities.

This is an edge case - most LE entanglements will just result in this being regarded as an RRA LAR15. I just want to prevent the odd 'outlier' case.


No because like I said 99+% of the time he's gonna see RRA LAR15 = off list.

For the other fractional case if the gun has a non-RRA upper and/or is not built to look like any RRA *listed* gun in Kasler list, you'll be OK.


You're apparently new here.

These days DOJ doesn't give out cr*p of any use without careful planning by requester.

This also involves some concepts & weapons familiarity & history I'm not sure any DOJ BoF staffer has, and the person replying will just be a glorified secretary/clerk.


You won't get an OK. You'll get something about 58 DAs :)

DOJ BoF refuses to talk about MonsterMan grips, Bullet Buttons, U15 stocks, etc. They (she) wants silence to render confusion.

If a legitimately-configured RRA LAR15 lower with an upper whose combination does not resemble a banned Kasler entity leads to legal drama, CGF would get behind that case (barring malfeasance, drugs, violence, etc.)

thanks again

the big problem with not making a weapon that looks like on thats on the list (RRA specific) is pretty much any configuration you can think of (except a U15) looks like one of the "listed" RRA's

i've seen the recent letters about "58 DA's" but i was thinking more along the lines of the Iggy letter


I would write something like:

Please tell me if it is legal to import a RRA lar15 lower receiver to build a california compliant rifle [within the meaning of PC 12276(a)(b)(c) (e)(f), and PC 12276.1, SB 23].

I notice it isnt on the Kasler/ roberti-roos list. Please advise me if this lower receiver is legal to import "


but this also brings up a interesting point. RRA now has many more "models"
varmit A4, etc.) so i guess they'd be ok??

thanks again - i dont want to take up too much time as you've asnwered this several times

tenbrook
03-16-2009, 1:56 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161890

Would this be legal? (with BB and mag block installed)

cactustactical
03-16-2009, 2:03 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161890

Would this be legal? (with BB and mag block installed)


I have been checking things out and it is not listed here:

- Rock River Arms, Inc. Car A2
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Car A4 Flattop
- Rock River Arms, Inc. LE Tactical Carbine
- Rock River Arms, Inc. NM A2 - DCM Legal
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Standard A-2
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Standard A-4 Flattop

And the lower is marked "Pistol Only" so it is actually looking better and better to me.

AYEAREFIFTEEN
03-20-2009, 4:13 PM
No because like I said 99+% of the time he's gonna see RRA LAR15 = off list.

Save your receipt, and just don't have it look like one of the banned Kasler entities.

Are you, of all people, giving cops too much credit? 99%!?!? :p

Keeping a receipt on your person for your LAR-15 lower and Stag 20" upper combination isn't going to keep a misinformed cop from hauling you in anyway.

A Stag Model 4 looks EXACTLY like a Rock River Standard A4 Flattop. If 99% of cops are smart enough to know an LAR-15 from a Standard A4 Flattop, that doesn't keep the other 1% from hauling you in for the Stag. Are we to now reconfigure EVERY rifle that might resemble a listed Rock River because there are and always will be misinformed cops? We have Harrott for a reason right?

I completely agree that if your receipt says you bought a Rock River Standard A4 you just bought an assault weapon, but this LAR-15 reguardless of how its configured seems ridiculous.

HK91 = not cool but HK911 = good to go? God forbid we have an upper on an LAR-15 that MIGHT resemble something Rock River sells complete.

bwiese
03-21-2009, 12:01 AM
Are you, of all people, giving cops too much credit? 99%!?!? :p

Keeping a receipt on your person for your LAR-15 lower and Stag 20" upper combination isn't going to keep a misinformed cop from hauling you in anyway.


If that happens it's because the cop thinks it's an AR AW and doesn't know the details. I do not think this stuff would happen normally, but I want folks to avoid it.

Vtec44
03-28-2009, 7:48 PM
Keeping a receipt on your person for your LAR-15 lower and Stag 20" upper combination isn't going to keep a misinformed cop from hauling you in anyway.

Unfortunately, this is true and many agencies are not trained to identify. I have friends in the law enforcement community, and they will not hesitate to take your rifle then let the judge sort it out if the officer can't identify the compliance status of the rifle. And unfortunately, most smaller local agencies do not have the training for their officers and usually go through a rangemaster for identification.




I completely agree that if your receipt says you bought a Rock River Standard A4 you just bought an assault weapon, but this LAR-15 reguardless of how its configured seems ridiculous.

I totally agree with this too.

FLATL1NE
07-02-2009, 9:19 PM
Now this has got me all worried. I just recently purchased an RRA lower, and am just now finding out about the bans on RRA. To me it seems like almost all uppers are going to resemble the RRA uppers because they are "AR" uppers. Do you have any suggestions on an upper to purchase? I dont want to get a new lower since i just put out the cash for the RRA. BTW i want to stick with a 16" barrel.

Thanks in advance for all answers

wildhawker
07-03-2009, 1:16 AM
Now this has got me all worried. I just recently purchased an RRA lower, and am just now finding out about the bans on RRA. To me it seems like almost all uppers are going to resemble the RRA uppers because they are "AR" uppers. Do you have any suggestions on an upper to purchase? I dont want to get a new lower since i just put out the cash for the RRA. BTW i want to stick with a 16" barrel.

Thanks in advance for all answers

If you're concerned, steer clear of building something that closely resembles the listed configurations, avoid situations that would lead to drama and enjoy your rifle.

brassburnz
07-03-2009, 6:55 AM
Now this has got me all worried. I just recently purchased an RRA lower, and am just now finding out about the bans on RRA. To me it seems like almost all uppers are going to resemble the RRA uppers because they are "AR" uppers. Do you have any suggestions on an upper to purchase? I dont want to get a new lower since i just put out the cash for the RRA. BTW i want to stick with a 16" barrel.

Thanks in advance for all answers

I just bought an RRA LAR-15 lower and a bullet button. I'm putting my LEFT-HANDED Stag upper on it. Hopefully even the "dumbest" LEO won't get confused over that.:TFH:

Someoneelseok
07-08-2009, 12:08 AM
Would a RRA LAR-15 with a National Match A4 w/ Detachable Carry handle be too close of a risk?

Its not an A2 National Match. Would the shiny stainless steel barrel not make the cut for "looking different" from a Rock River Arms A4 Flattop model?

Gottlieb
04-06-2010, 4:20 AM
May I ask a dumb question? I have a RRA LAR-15 lower, with a RR upper. This is how I bought it from a dealer (I bought it before I became a dealer myself). The gun was purchased completely assembled. Do I have a problem?

tacticalcity
04-06-2010, 2:35 PM
It seems really risky to me to own an RRA LAR-15 lower. You are relying that the police officer, district attorney, and/or judge you encounter will understand the letter of the law or not have an agenda of their own. In my experience they rarely understand the law, and almost always have their own agenda.

Owning an AR from a brand not on the list at all seems a heck of a lot safer to me. It leaves as little room for misinterpretation as possible while still allowing you to own an AR.

There is nothing special about Rock River Arms or any other listed brand. You can find as good or better quality from a different brand. So why risk it? Just seems like a really dangerous idea to me.

I understand that they are legal, I also understand they cause a lot of confusion. When my freedom is at stake, the less confusion the better.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Joe
04-06-2010, 7:53 PM
It seems really risky to me to own an RRA LAR-15 lower. You are relying that the police officer, district attorney, and/or judge you encounter will understand the letter of the law or not have an agenda of their own. In my experience they rarely understand the law, and almost always have their own agenda.

Owning an AR from a brand not on the list at all seems a heck of a lot safer to me. It leaves as little room for misinterpretation as possible while still allowing you to own an AR.

There is nothing special about Rock River Arms or any other listed brand. You can find as good or better quality from a different brand. So why risk it? Just seems like a really dangerous idea to me.

I understand that they are legal, I also understand they cause a lot of confusion. When my freedom is at stake, the less confusion the better.

Just my $0.02 worth.

This is exactly how I feel also.

Joe
04-06-2010, 7:57 PM
May I ask a dumb question? I have a RRA LAR-15 lower, with a RR upper. This is how I bought it from a dealer (I bought it before I became a dealer myself). The gun was purchased completely assembled. Do I have a problem?

It is not recommended.

I think its explained in this thread, but I believe some of the RRA rifles are on the list by configuration. Therefore even if it pans out to be legal, you may still get arrested or be messed with by LEO.

Personally, I would never own a RRA lower because of this. Many own them and would say otherwise, but I'd rather stick to stag, noveske, cmmg, and other offlist lowers.

jamesob
04-06-2010, 9:59 PM
i have a rra lower with a bushmaster cara3 upper and a registered rra pistol with a rra pistol upper, i'm not scared.

fevillago
04-06-2010, 10:28 PM
I have been checking things out and it is not listed here:

- Rock River Arms, Inc. Car A2
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Car A4 Flattop
- Rock River Arms, Inc. LE Tactical Carbine
- Rock River Arms, Inc. NM A2 - DCM Legal
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Standard A-2
- Rock River Arms, Inc. Standard A-4 Flattop

And the lower is marked "Pistol Only" so it is actually looking better and better to me.

Can someone please clarify if is safe to own a RRA LAR pistol lower marked "RRA PISTOL ONLY"

Refer to the picture below I borrowed from another post.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w31/darrenatsfo/ARPistols.jpg

thefinger
04-06-2010, 11:40 PM
Can someone please clarify if is safe to own a RRA LAR pistol lower marked "RRA PISTOL ONLY"

Refer to the picture below I borrowed from another post.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w31/darrenatsfo/ARPistols.jpg

As long as you DROS'd it as a pistol in CA and you have a BB on it its legal to own here.

thefinger
04-06-2010, 11:42 PM
i have a rra lower with a bushmaster cara3 upper and a registered rra pistol with a rra pistol upper, i'm not scared.

+1. LAR-15 is a pretty common OLL found here in CA. I don't see how you run any greater risk with an LAR-15 than any other OLL. Either the cop understands the concept of "off-list" or he doesn't.

Gottlieb
04-07-2010, 6:37 PM
I tend to agree - if "LAR15" is not on the list, then it should be legal, right?

Intimid8tor
04-07-2010, 6:51 PM
I bought a factory built RRA A4 rifle many moons ago. When it came to California I simply swapped uppers and lowers so there was no possible confusion. When the time comes where the laws are struck down, I'll then not worry about it.

Other than that, there are simply too many other options to take the risk.

At least IMHO.

To each his own and do what you are comfortable with.

Gottlieb
04-07-2010, 7:01 PM
My problem is that I bought this gun as-is from a major show dealer, who had a whole table full, and who I figured would know better.

tacticalcity
04-08-2010, 11:23 AM
+1. LAR-15 is a pretty common OLL found here in CA. I don't see how you run any greater risk with an LAR-15 than any other OLL. Either the cop understands the concept of "off-list" or he doesn't.

I would be shocked if they made up even 5% of the OLL market place. But since I sell everything BUT the lower, I could be wrong. Happens to me all the time.

When it comes down to it, if it is legal to own then it is legal to own. Follow Bills advice to make sure you meet the letter of the law.

Perhaps it is because I was around when BlackHawkOps was arrested for owning OLLs, I tend to be more cautious than a lot of the newer OLL guys. That guy had to spend time in jail, lost a ton of money, had his military security clearance and thus his military police career messed with, never got all his belongings back, and was painted as a "nut" by news programs and newspapers across the country. All because someone saw a picture of him on his myspace page holding an OLL build. Bear in mind, he did not win. They reached a plea agreement. There is a big difference. They dropped most of the charges, but not all of them. The piled a lot of other bogus charges onto him, so the could strip a few things off later and still get him for at least something. Making it much wiser to plea out to something minor than go to court and fight each and every charge. Real life is definately not fair.

Odds are you will not encounter any problems at all. More and more police and DAs are becoming aware these things are out there and are legal. Back when BlackHawkOps got into trouble, these were no where near as common place and there was a lot of behind the scenes political games being played. The only real worry you have is confusion on the part of the arresting officer, DA or Judge or running into somebody with an agenda other than their win loss record. Both situations are a lot more rare than they used to be, if not almost non-existant.

I just would really hate to see you become the next BlackHawkOps. It would really suck. That's all I was trying to say.

bwiese
04-08-2010, 12:48 PM
While I do want people to "sweat the details", sufficient care can be taken to alleviate concerns even on an all-RRA gun.

The descriptions of the guns banned on the Kasler list are known. If your RRA LAR15 lower + RRA upper looks different than any of those, it's not a banned RRA model.

This is one of the rare cases where noncharacteristic features changes [such as putting a MagPul grip & buttstock on, plus (say) a VLTOR handguard can render the gun into a configuration not banned]. Since the various banned RRA entities differ in small trivial noncharacteristic features from other non-banned guns changing these out to have a visibly different gun profile & ergonomics renders it not a banned model.

Remember that RRA is also a determiner of what comprises one of their gun models, not the DOJ or local LE. Expert testimony can be garnered should an issue ever occur.

Again, I doubt this issue will arise:
- the RRA lower is marked "LAR-15", which is indeed off-list;
- investigations of such rifles 99.99% of time involve it as "LAR-15";
- few if any DA investigators or LE agencies would have the skill
set, time or budget to differentiate an RRA upper from Stag, Bushy, etc.

CGF can readily help if such issues came up. I just want to ensure nobody's on the edge with a gun they have since minor tweaks can ensure it's not in banned territory. We also have Harrott clarity issues to fall back on in addition to all the above.

What I'm saying, bottom line, is:
- don't panic;
- if you have a non-RRA upper that looks like one of the uppers on a banned configuration, keep the receiot.
- if an "all RRA" gun take precautions above such that gun profile does not match the banned entity in 2000
- and I don't think DOJ at this point will get crazy on this issue;


Relax, breathe deeply. It's not like it's marked "Colt AR-15" [and even that may well be defendable due to former DOJ staffer Iggy Chinn!]

tacticalcity
04-08-2010, 1:01 PM
Ah, Iggy! Bringing back memories by mentioning that name...and not very good ones.

HotIce
09-14-2010, 6:55 PM
Again, I doubt this issue will arise:
- the RRA lower is marked "LAR-15", which is indeed off-list;
- investigations of such rifles 99.99% of time involve it as "LAR-15";
- few if any DA investigators or LE agencies would have the skill
set, time or budget to differentiate an RRA upper from Stag, Bushy, etc.

CGF can readily help if such issues came up. I just want to ensure nobody's on the edge with a gun they have since minor tweaks can ensure it's not in banned territory. We also have Harrott clarity issues to fall back on in addition to all the above.

What I'm saying, bottom line, is:
- don't panic;
- if you have a non-RRA upper that looks like one of the uppers on a banned configuration, keep the receiot.
- if an "all RRA" gun take precautions above such that gun profile does not match the banned entity in 2000
- and I don't think DOJ at this point will get crazy on this issue;

Sorry to pull this up from the grave, but I am somehow interested in this.
I will be moving in CA with three RRA AR-15 (with BB and 10R mag installed), all marked LAR-15 in the lower, and for which I can provide some sort of receipt or email order confirmation which list a model name different from the listed ones ("Varmint", "Tactical CAR Rifle SS", "National Match A4").
What is the best course of action in case a discussion with LEOs comes up?
Would it be better to say they are LAR-15 (kinda hiding info, somehow), or supply the receipt/emails which show different model namings?

bwiese
09-15-2010, 8:17 PM
Sorry to pull this up from the grave, but I am somehow interested in this.
I will be moving in CA with three RRA AR-15 (with BB and 10R mag installed), all marked LAR-15 in the lower, and for which I can provide some sort of receipt or email order confirmation which list a model name different from the listed ones ("Varmint", "Tactical CAR Rifle SS", "National Match A4").

The specifically-banned RRA rifles on the Kasler list (11 CCR 5499) are...


Rock River Arms, Inc. Car A2
Rock River Arms, Inc. Car A4 Flattop
Rock River Arms, Inc. LE Tactical Carbine
Rock River Arms, Inc. NM A2 - DCM Legal
Rock River Arms, Inc. Standard A-2
Rock River Arms, Inc. Standard A-4 Flattop

All the above rifles have a receiver marked "LAR-15" and the receivers themselves are off-list.

It appears your complete rifles are not banned by name for the whole rifle either.



What is the best course of action in case a discussion with LEOs comes up? Would it be better to say they are LAR-15 (kinda hiding info, somehow), or supply the receipt/emails which show different model namings?

By standard ATF naming standards, they are LAR-15. You are not lying if you tell them it's an off-list LAR15. Don't volunteer information either - most people talk themselves into jail.

This is an edge condition that 99.9999% of cops, DAs / DA investigators won't even know about. The fact this concern even exists is the fault of the casual way the Kasler list (11 CCR 5499) was formulated. Frankly, I (along with a few others) are probably amongst the few folks that think of these things - but I am paranoid and want people to know of exposure (mostly for those that somehow got one of the 'wrong' guns and wanna keep it legal).

If you have some LE contact and one of your guns is looked up, the cop'll read off over the radio/MDT the "LAR-15" sideplate info.

These guns may be depicted in the outdated Calif. AW Identification Guide ("AWIG", also called "the DOJ's coloring book").

Keep your receipts just in case, and CGF can help you as long as you're legal (i.e, if what you've told me above is true) The key thing is to keep your rifles lawfully configured - using a BulletButton maglock, or going featureless with a MonsterMan grip or U15/ExileMachine stock, etc.

HotIce
09-16-2010, 7:30 AM
Thanks again for the info.
Would it help in any way, to stay more on the safe side, to keep upper and lower separated inside the case?