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

[sreiter]

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]

sticky! please!

[sreiter]

BTW -

how would one KNOW it's a RRA upper?

Is it marked RRA ?

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by sreiter

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]

Originally Posted by sreiter

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]

Originally Posted by vf111

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]

Originally Posted by sreiter

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by rod

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.

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]

Originally Posted by bwiese

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!

[sreiter]

Originally Posted by Vtec44

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]

Originally Posted by rod

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by wash

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]

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]

good read... better to swap then where cute bracelets.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by wash

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.

Originally Posted by wash

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.

Originally Posted by wash

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.

Originally Posted by wash

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.

Originally Posted by wash

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

Yes - they're called OLLs.

[Vtec44]

Originally Posted by bwiese

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?f...ategory_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]

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]

Good point Tim, I don't think anyone has.

[sreiter]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bwiese

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]

Originally Posted by sreiter

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] isnt

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.

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by bwiese

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]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=161890

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

[cactustactical]

Originally Posted by tenbrook

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.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]

Originally Posted by bwiese

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

Originally Posted by bwiese

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%!?!?

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]

Originally Posted by AYEAREFIFTEEN

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

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]

Originally Posted by AYEAREFIFTEEN

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]

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]

Originally Posted by FLATL1NE

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]

Originally Posted by FLATL1NE

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.

[Someoneelseok]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

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]

Originally Posted by Gottlieb

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]

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]

Originally Posted by cactustactical

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.