PDA

View Full Version : On Versus Off List


AKman
10-19-2007, 10:35 AM
Now that SFV Dealer has completed his sale of Urban Police Rifles, I wanted to raise an issue regarding some AR-15s.

There is no doubt for many AR-15s that they are off-list. There is no mention of Stag, S&W, POF, Noveske, Centermass, etc., thus making this determination fairly easy. However, how do people feel about AR-15s from manufactures that have models listed in the AW regulation?

Specific to the Metroshot sale was the Colt 6721 which is obviously an AR-15. While this model number is not listed, it would seem to be covered fairly well by the DOJ listing of "Colt AR-15 (all)." Technically speaking, the Colt 6721 is not listed, but I suspect it would be more difficult to argue this point when the regulation specifically identifies all Colt AR-15s.

Similarly, how comfortable are people with a configuration that has an OLL with an upper assembly that has the same exact name as a listed AW (e.g., Centermass lower with a Rock River Arms Car A4 Flattop upper). While the lower is not listed, which is the regulated component, the upper name could lead to some confusion since the name of the upper is the same as a regulated AW. In another example, would anyone here feel comfortable with a RRA LAR-15 lower with a Car A4 Flattop upper?

supersonic
10-19-2007, 10:42 AM
About the RRA "list" designation: I've often wondered the same about their uppers, because, as far as I know, NO RRA lower is, or was, stamped w/ ANY of the "Standard A2"/"A4 Flattop, etc. It makes for a very confusing dilemma.

XDshooter
10-19-2007, 11:55 AM
Similarly, how comfortable are people with a configuration that has an OLL with an upper assembly that has the same exact name as a listed AW (e.g., Centermass lower with a Rock River Arms Car A4 Flattop upper). While the lower is not listed, which is the regulated component, the upper name could lead to some confusion since the name of the upper is the same as a regulated AW. In another example, would anyone here feel comfortable with a RRA LAR-15 lower with a Car A4 Flattop upper?


Who cares what the upper says. The upper is not the receiver of the firearm so it doesn't even matter.

I know you are just thinking safe here, but there is no way that anyone is gonna get busted for a non-receiver.

It's like have a buttstock that says Colt AR-15 on it.

"Uh...."

See my point?


And as far as (all) is concerned, Harrot specifically stated that firearms MUST be listed by:

1) Make
2) Model

(all) is not a model.

So, unless you have a Colt (all) lower :rolleyes: you are fine with the 6721.

AKman
10-19-2007, 12:45 PM
Who cares what the upper says. The upper is not the receiver of the firearm so it doesn't even matter.

I know you are just thinking safe here, but there is no way that anyone is gonna get busted for a non-receiver.

It's like have a buttstock that says Colt AR-15 on it.

"Uh...."

See my point?


And as far as (all) is concerned, Harrot specifically stated that firearms MUST be listed by:

1) Make
2) Model

(all) is not a model.

So, unless you have a Colt (all) lower :rolleyes: you are fine with the 6721.

*****! I had better get the dremel tool out and remove the (all) from my Colt.

Actually, my concern isn't what would happen in court, but in a situation where you would have to explain the situation to a LEO. Having said that, the few LEO that I have met at the range or shooting at the dump in the E. Sierra couldn't care less and seemed quite content with the "CA Legal" configurations; although one seemed a little disturbed about the hassle of top loading when using a Prince50.

Regarding RRA uppers, it turns out that there are virtually no markings on the uppers. There is one small "RRA" with even smaller lettering spelling out the full name. No model number, so no confusion over upper model names and listed rifles.

So, I feel mo better about RRA, but am still not sure I would want to hang my @ss out with a Colt. I like the ability to point to the AW guide, Harrot Decision and BWISE memo (thanks Bill) to show people that my rifles are CLEARLY not listed.

I'm still hoping that someone comes out with an "Alison" or "Brady" lower similar to the Calguns SB23 series lowers.

mike452
10-19-2007, 1:15 PM
Similarly, how comfortable are people with a configuration that has an OLL with an upper assembly that has the same exact name as a listed AW (e.g., Centermass lower with a Rock River Arms Car A4 Flattop upper). While the lower is not listed, which is the regulated component, the upper name could lead to some confusion since the name of the upper is the same as a regulated AW. In another example, would anyone here feel comfortable with a RRA LAR-15 lower with a Car A4 Flattop upper?

I wouldn't worry about this since the model of the upper is never marked. The only model identification markings are on the lower and you have different manufacturers.

What worries me is when I put my OLL RRA lower with an RRA A4 20" upper together fitting the listed AW name. ie. “RRA Standard A-4 Flattop”
My only save is the lower model being LAR-15. Even RRA describes my rifle as their Standard A4.

I would avoid situations where I would have to explain that to a cop. In the range next to you they might not care, but when they are searching your vehicle might be different.
There are still gray areas that would need to spend money and time to prove to be white.

XDshooter
10-19-2007, 2:48 PM
... but when they are searching your vehicle might be different...



If they are searching your vehicle, you messed up already. PERIOD.

You either:

1) actually did do something wrong
2) consented to a search

bwiese
10-19-2007, 3:00 PM
Quite a few new Colts do not say "AR15" on them, nor "Match Target", "Sporter Target" or "LE6920".

These guns are thus not considerable as 'listed'.

The rule is "make and model".

dawson8r
10-19-2007, 7:27 PM
Yeah, this is the part of the law that has confused many, myself included. For example, the list also has the following entry:

Arsenal USA - SLR (All)

The make is Arsenal but the model, at least back then, was probably the SLR-95 or SLR-96. I think the latest models are the 106 and 107. So with a pinned mag can these be brought in or just the Arsenal SA M7's since they are the "SA" model not the "SLR" model?

bwiese
10-20-2007, 3:44 PM
.... the list also has the following entry:

Arsenal USA - SLR (All)

The make is Arsenal but the model, at least back then, was probably the SLR-95 or SLR-96. I think the latest models are the 106 and 107.

So with a pinned mag can these be brought in or just the Arsenal SA M7's since they are the "SA" model not the "SLR" model?

Nope, wouldn't risk it. Not worth pushing.

A court could say that that "SLR (all)" terminology is apparent enough that it defaults to SLR-1, SLR-1,... SLR-999, SLR-Monkeybreath, etc.

However, there is a defense that that this just really creates another "series" (or subseries) and voids specific listing required by Harrott. But this could turn into "son of Harrott" and I don't think anyone wants to go thru with that.

duenor
10-20-2007, 4:14 PM
While I am all for finding loopholes in the law, sometimes it is better to be less clever than cautious.

It is probably wiser to purchase receivers (and perhaps even uppers) that are clearly non-list, especially given the wide variety available today. Sabre Defense, STAG, Wilson, Smith & Wesson, Doublestar, Sun Devil are great choices for AR; EAI, DSA, FULTON, are great choices for FAL.

I would personally love to own a Bushmaster XM15-ABCDEFG, to replace the registered AW xm15 that was home invasion bugularized (another reason to spring for a safe before a gun, friends), but I'd rather go the safer route and build up a Sabre Defense OLL.

Of course, if everything goes well (fingers crossed) and Matt Corwin's AW case prevails in court, things may turn out differently. As well, the recent Saiga case shows that there is reason to believe that the specificity argument holds up well in court.

PIRATE14
10-20-2007, 6:31 PM
Well the COLT 6721 is marked.......

AR-15 A3......so, I guess you can push the (all) issue in court....

RRAs are marked LAR-15 which isn't listed....

AKman
10-20-2007, 10:51 PM
Well the COLT 6721 is marked.......

AR-15 A3......so, I guess you can push the (all) issue in court....

RRAs are marked LAR-15 which isn't listed....

:(:eek::mad:

Hence, I'll stick to completely offlist brands of lowers.

While I'm probably going to go for a Centermas "Infidel" lower (my middle name), I'm still hoping for an "Alison" or "Jerry Brown" lower. What collection would be complete without firearms with the Ed and Jerry Brown labels. An Ahnold lower with a micro label (say 0.0000000000000001 inch font) would also be a nice addition.

artherd
10-21-2007, 5:26 PM
Make and Model are on the bound book entires, (look at the entire paper trail from the 07 that origionated the firearm) not what is stamped on the lower.

Usually, they should coencide.

c good
10-21-2007, 6:01 PM
What WERE the old Rock River Lowers marked before the California AWB went into effect in 2000? Just curious. c good

PIRATE14
10-22-2007, 9:36 AM
What WERE the old Rock River Lowers marked before the California AWB went into effect in 2000? Just curious. c good

LAR-15..........

But I don't think they existed back than and they at first sold PWA rcvrs as their own first..........;)

PIRATE14
10-22-2007, 9:40 AM
Make and Model are on the bound book entires, (look at the entire paper trail from the 07 that origionated the firearm) not what is stamped on the lower.

Usually, they should coencide.

There aren't any COLT rifles marked 6920/6721/6520/6450.....etc.....
But that is a tough one to go in court.....ATF will more than likely tell you it's what stamped on the rcvr not the cardboard box......

Good issue....any test case takers.........;)

bwiese
10-23-2007, 2:49 AM
Well the COLT 6721 is marked.......

AR-15 A3......so, I guess you can push the (all) issue in court....

RRAs are marked LAR-15 which isn't listed....

I think there are some runs of 6721s out there without "AR15" markings, with "A3 Elite" or some such marking (i.e, OLL receiver).

tenpercentfirearms
10-23-2007, 5:07 AM
Yes, if you are going to buy Colt, you should be aware you might be a test case and be prepared for it.

The RRA LAR-15 might too turn into a test case, but one that you should win.

Uppers are in no way regulated, more than likely are unmarked, but if it makes you fell better don't put together an all RRA firearm.

This is about YOUR risk level. Be comfortable with what you do.

bwiese
10-23-2007, 8:16 AM
Yes, if you are going to buy Colt, you should be aware you might be a test case and be prepared for it.

The RRA LAR-15 might too turn into a test case, but one that you should win.


Wes, there's no way a Colt CAR-A3 Elite (I think I got it right) could remotely be considered to be listed.

Same way with RRA LAR15.

PIRATE14
10-23-2007, 8:28 AM
I think there are some runs of 6721s out there without "AR15" markings, with "A3 Elite" or some such marking (i.e, OLL receiver).

Maybe some old ones but not the new ones.........

The A3 ELITE is the COLT w/ a Stainless 24" Barrel.....

AJAX22
10-23-2007, 8:32 AM
An argument can be made that even listed AW lowers are not prohibited so long as they are not assembled into semi automatic rifles.

say, if they were built as straight pull bolt actions, or non AOW stockless guns (i.e. not rifles)

the specific passage which banns them states "12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms: "

not something I want to try myself, but its a viable argument.

bwiese
10-23-2007, 8:33 AM
Maybe some old ones but not the new ones.........

The A3 ELITE is the COLT w/ a Stainless 24" Barrel.....

Hmm, I thought that was a CR6724 (which often had at least in the past "Colt Match Target HBar Competition" and lowers) and which was sold under the name "Colt Accurized Rifle" - tube foreend and Hogue grip.

I do know one vendor here has 6721s that have no "AR15" text on the receiver.

PIRATE14
10-23-2007, 8:42 AM
Hmm, I thought that was a CR6724 (which often had at least in the past "Colt Match Target HBar Competition" and lowers) and which was sold under the name "Colt Accurized Rifle" - tube foreend and Hogue grip.

I do know one vendor here has 6721s that have no "AR15" text on the receiver.

Well.....I've got 20 6721 rifles marked w/ AR-15 in the box........but if the ones he has aren't marked AR-15.......you are GTG........:cool:

The last couple 6724 we had were marked "A3 ELITE".......

I do have a list of guys that want COLTs so, I do scrutinze the markings on all the ones we get............;)

PIRATE14
10-23-2007, 8:45 AM
An argument can be made that even listed AW lowers are not prohibited so long as they are not assembled into semi automatic rifles.

say, if they were built as straight pull bolt actions, or non AOW stockless guns (i.e. not rifles)

the specific passage which banns them states "12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms: "

not something I want to try myself, but its a viable argument.

Well, there is a DOJ memo....that states a CAT I weapon is a AW....regardless of configuration.......this is where they contridict themselves........

AKman
10-23-2007, 2:47 PM
There aren't any COLT rifles marked 6920/6721/6520/6450.....etc.....
But that is a tough one to go in court.....ATF will more than likely tell you it's what stamped on the rcvr not the cardboard box......

Good issue....any test case takers.........;)

Is this an offer for a FREE Colt 6920/6721/6520/6450 without an AR-15 marking to be a test subject?

PIRATE14
10-23-2007, 3:04 PM
Is this an offer for a FREE Colt 6920/6721/6520/6450 without an AR-15 marking to be a test subject?

Well if I had some marked as such.....ya......

The 6920 aren't marked but they are listed.....LMK.....:chris:

Addax
10-24-2007, 1:24 AM
This is what is marked on the Colt Model 6721

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r144/k43qve/ColtAR-15A3TacticalCarbine.jpg

I found this photo on one that is for sale on Gunbroker.

Wondering if I should get my deposit back that I have on one of these?

Don't want to be a test case... Any thoughts or advice guys?

Addax
10-24-2007, 1:40 AM
AW Guide Lists Colt AR-15 (Series)

Kasler vs. Lockyer states: Colt AR-15 (All)

From Bills AR/AK memo:
The original banned list of assault weapons is in PC 12276 2. AR15 and AK47 “series” members must also be specifically listed by make and model in California Code of Regulation §979.11: the June 2001
Harrott 4 decision reshaped the earlier 2000 Kasler decision, requiring specific listing by make and model to be considered a banned series member (aside from configured features, discussed below).
Harrott ruled trial courts, police, DAs, etc. cannot make determination of AR or AK “series” membership, only the DOJ can, and models must be formally listed before being considered banned.

So the Colt AR-15 Hbar is specifically listed, it is an AW

If Colt AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine is not specifically listed by make and model on the list, then it is legal and not a listed AW. Even though AR-15 is a part of the overall model#, it is not listed by its specific AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine, so I would say this is ok, unless I am missing something?

The question is, weather or not to take the risk that DOJ will come after me and others if we end up picking up one of these Colts (i.e. the Saiga Rifle issues lately).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Addax

Right?

grammaton76
10-24-2007, 2:05 AM
Personally, I'm happy enough with the performance of the Stag, CMMG, and other brands I've got, that I really don't care if I ever have a Colt. I'm not exactly risk-averse (heh, PS90CA...), but I just don't see that the Colt provides anything beyond what we've got already.

tenpercentfirearms
10-24-2007, 4:52 AM
This is why I am not even going to mess with the Colts. As a dealer it is too confusing so why have something brought in that might say the prohibited model on it? I know RRA LAR-15 is not listed for a fact. Colt is too confusing for me and I am going to stick to no Colts. That doesn't mean some dealers might not figure the Colt thing out and reap the rewards, I am just going to choose not to.

As a consumer, you need to make a similar decision. With so many other lowers out there, is this risk worth it to you? Are you ready to pay a lawyer to sit and argue this exact thing with your DA? You should be prepared if you are going to buy one. Then go buy one and have fun and let us know how it shoots. I think it is pretty clear, if any of the banned model number is on the firearm, I wouldn't touch it.

Well actually, I would import it because I have a registered .50 BMG so I am a person exempt from 12280(a). :43:

PIRATE14
10-24-2007, 6:20 AM
Well the COLT 6721 is marked.......

AR-15 A3......so, I guess you can push the (all) issue in court....

RRAs are marked LAR-15 which isn't listed....

As, I said before this is the (all) issue that will have to be brought up if you want to spend big $$$....

Some....I guess...are clearly marked COLT.....AR-15....A3.....what do you think a bunch of none gunowners on a jury will say....

You might slide under the radar for awhile but they'll catch up to you eventually....

Addax
10-24-2007, 8:00 AM
As, I said before this is the (all) issue that will have to be brought up if you want to spend big $$$....

Some....I guess...are clearly marked COLT.....AR-15....A3.....what do you think a bunch of none gunowners on a jury will say....

You might slide under the radar for awhile but they'll catch up to you eventually....

Thanks Guys..

Even though on paper or on the surface as a test cast you could go to court (if DOJ came after those who own these Colt Rifles) and split hairs and possibly win, but in the process spend at least 30 times the $$ amount of the Colt rifle, plus bring attention to yourself and collection which could be scrutinized, plust the disrutpion in life and possible damage to work and personal reputation is not really worth having to own a Colt because it says Colt on it.....

I hear you and I have made up my mind regarding this one....

Guess I will pick up another Vector V93 instead....:)

Regards,
Addax

AKman
10-24-2007, 8:00 AM
Personally, I'm happy enough with the performance of the Stag, CMMG, and other brands I've got, that I really don't care if I ever have a Colt. I'm not exactly risk-averse (heh, PS90CA...), but I just don't see that the Colt provides anything beyond what we've got already.

I would agree. I'm having too much fun with makes/models that are clearly off-list. I can't imagine that a Colt would be any better than my POF, Fulton, Stag or even Calguns builds. I'm a lousy shot, but with the POF I was consistently hitting a 12" metal plate at 200 yards using iron sights and with no misfires. I see no reason to stick out my neck and drain my bank account (at least on legal fees, ARs are another story).

Addax
10-24-2007, 8:05 AM
I would agree. I'm having too much fun with makes/models that are clearly off-list. I can't imagine that a Colt would be any better than my POF, Fulton, Stag or even Calguns builds. I'm a lousy shot, but with the POF I was consistently hitting a 12" metal plate at 200 yards using iron sights and with no misfires. I see no reason to stick out my neck and drain my bank account (at least on legal fees, ARs are another story).

+1

I agree

AJAX22
10-24-2007, 9:23 AM
The part of the rifle which affects how it shoots the LEAST is the lower.

I use alot of colt parts when I can scrounge them up in my guns, but I do just fine with the stag/gunsmoke/LAR etc lowers

Sure I'd like a colt, but its not substantially different enough for it to be worth it for me. YMMV

I'm still waiting for the saiga 12's :D

Pryde
10-25-2007, 9:18 PM
The part of the rifle which affects how it shoots the LEAST is the lower.

I use alot of colt parts when I can scrounge them up in my guns, but I do just fine with the stag/gunsmoke/LAR etc lowers


In fact the Colt lower is the only out of spec part on a Colt rifle.
The pin holes are over-sized (PITA) and there is a sear block web.

Why would you risk your arse for an inferior part?