ATTENTION: Rock River Arms rifle & LAR-15 lower owners (AND FFLs!)
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....
|
Timely and relevant.
These individual FAQs are important. Thanks for laying this out again. |
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). |
Thanks 383green, hacked it up a bit per your suggestion.
|
thanks again for the update Bwiese. Thank God you are watching over us.
|
Thanks Bill, and Mods shouldn't this be a sticky?
|
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!
|
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...... |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
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...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/k...MVC-004S-1.jpg |
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. Quote:
|
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.
|
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. Their catalog image of the kit I ordered is below. http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/s...gidy/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). 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. |
Quote:
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.)] |
How about the Armalite AR-180A (or thereabouts) that one popular FFL is offering?
Any risk there? |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 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) 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? |
WHY am I Soooo confused with this whole thread? :) It is late but is anyone else confused? haha :)
|
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 |
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.
|
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. |
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?
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
We're bettah off just defending the odd case, they'll go away fast/cheap. Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
In Kasler v. Lockyer the court said the list only passed constitutional muster because the law provided: Quote:
Quote:
|
BWIESE for Governor!
|
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. |
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 ? |
Quote:
That has *some* pictures, usu just of Roberti-Roos guns. Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.