Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Democrat Violates Second Amendment with A Shaky “ Legal Opinion”
https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/ag-shapiro-gov-wolf-80-receivers-are-firearms/ ^ | 12/17/2019 | Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

Posted on 12/17/2019 9:20:30 AM PST by Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro – yet another authoritarian, wire-framed Democrat not content with following his own state’s long-established laws – decided that his personal opinion should supersede the statutes governing the state’s definitions of what a firearm actually is. Shapiro on December 16 issued a “legal opinion” to the Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner claiming that, in his view, a receiver blank – he was referring to the AR-15’s 80% lower, although there are other types – is a firearm because “it is designed or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” The only problem is the definition above has historically excluded receiver blanks. Shapiro is attempting to reinterpret this entire definition based on his own opinion, with no oversight from the state assembly, no ratification of any law, nor any other appropriate legal review by a bipartisan body or federal agency. What’s more, Josh Shapiro’s opinion disregards decades of established standards and definitions governed directly by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The ATF specifically outlines what separates a receiver blank from a firearm, including visual illustrations. The ATF’s own views are directly counter to Shapiro’s, and it’s safe to say the ATF knows more about firearms than a single liberal Attorney General.

Shapiro’s convoluted opinion attempts to say the same thing three or four different ways in a written statement provided by his office. Perhaps he wanted to make the document longer, to make his opinion appear more official and convincing. You can read his letter to Police Commissioner Robert Evanchick here. Shapiro’s views rest precariously on a simple argument: That the word “designed” and the phrase “may readily be converted” must be analyzed and, by his own departure from state law, reinterpreted based on his personal opinion.

Redefining Basic Words to Create a Legal Opinion

Let’s review what Shapiro wrote about the state’s operative definitions of a firearm. Then we’ll illustrate why he’s wrong. He first claims that, based on a prior definition of the word “designed”, found in the case Commonwealth v. Zortman, “a weapon designed to fire a projectile is a firearm regardless of whether it will actually fire a projectile… In order to be a ‘firearm’, a receiver need not be capable of firing a projectile; it needs only to be designed to do so.” Already, Shapiro’s on shaky ground and it doesn’t take much to see why: No reasonable person would look at an unfinished product intended to be significantly fabricated by the end user before it fulfills a particular purpose and say, “that thing is designed to fulfill the purpose that it will eventually be designed to fulfill.” In fact, that sentence free of context makes no sense, but it’s how Shapiro thinks to attempt to validate his opinion. Confusing? Of course, it is, you’re a normal human being. Let’s explain why with a simple real-world example or two.

Context and Common Sense: Why Shapiro is Wrong

If you’re building a racecar, you’re probably going to install a custom engine. And that engine will need to be manufactured before it’s built and put to use. Raw metal needs to be sourced from ore, refined, melted, and turned into an alloy. That alloy needs to be poured into a mold (or forged into a rough shape) to create a solid block of metal. Holes for the pistons, oil, and coolant then need to be drilled. Its final shape needs to be cut and refined to fit all its components – the air intake, heads, valves, camshafts and crankshaft, and so on. Let’s put a theoretical pause on our racecar engine project, right at the moment the engine is being cast or forged into a solid block of metal. None of those holes have been drilled, nor has any part of the engine been machined to accept all the parts required to function. You can’t fuel it up and turn the key. In fact, you can’t even install those parts to make it work. Would you say this solid block of metal is, “designed to power your racecar”? This writer wagers any reasonable person would look at such a thing and say, “that block of metal is designed for building an engine.” One more time, for the Democrats in the back: You can’t define something as the very thing it will eventually become, if such a thing requires most of its fabrication to still be completed. You can’t call an solid block of iron an engine. You can’t define a long, hollow metal tube as a rocket. You can’t call a pile of leather and rubber a boot. You can’t say a blank silicon board and some capacitors constitute a computer. You can’t call a solid chunk of aluminum a firearm. And you certainly can’t define the opinion of one man as law.

This is logic that any school-aged child would understand with just a few moments of instruction. It beggars belief that a politician with a degree in law would convolute such a simple concept – well, unless he had an ulterior motive. Like subverting the Constitution and the Second Amendment with his personal opinion, followed by attempting to cement it as state law with no oversight nor due process.

Shapiro’s Problem with “May Readily Be Converted”

Shapiro’s attempt to redefine the word “design” is incorrect, for obvious reasons. But even worse for him – and potentially helpful for Pennsylvanians who want to fight Shapiro – is his take on the phrase “may readily be converted.” Shapiro laid out specific standards and examples for defining the phrase. In fact, he used seven different factors to clarify whether something is “readily convertible”. Shapiro says something may readily be converted into another thing if it takes two minutes to eight hours’ time. He says that ease of use is important, it must be relatively simple. He also says that expertise and skilled is a measure, that it can’t require much of either. He says equipment must be readily available to the average person, as do the required parts. The conversion must be reasonably inexpensive to do and converting a thing into a weapon cannot damage or destroy the weapon or cause it to malfunction. To complete a receiver blank, one must invest in the blank itself, which typically costs $50 to $100. Then, one must also purchase a gunsmithing tool called an 80% jig. The jig is required to perform all work on the blank. Lastly, the builder must purchase a high-speed handheld router, a hand drill, or a drill press or milling machine. The typical cost for such a project averages out to a minimum of $75 to $200. Completing the standard AR-15 receiver blank with such tools takes about two to three hours, though it can be done in as little as one hour by experienced builders.

By Shapiro’s Logic, Home Depot is Now a Legally Firearm

Enter the zip gun! The zip gun is an improvised firearm. Zip guns were made popular in early wartime, when POWs would scavenge rough materials to make a functional single-shot handgun. The simplest design utilizes some plywood, a metal tube, a pipe plug, two metal couplers, some screws, a nail, and rubber bands. Total investment cost for creating this particular zip gun costs less than $100. Reviewing the basic design, it would take approximately 15 minutes to one hour to cut, drill, and fabricate this weapon. By Shapiro’s logic, the components used to build the zip gun must legally be defined as a firearm. They’re obviously designed to create a firearm based on the precedent set by the finished product and his legal opinion. Remember, Shapiro’s opinion is twofold: If something can be designed and readily converted into a firearm, it is already a firearm. And such parts may be readily converted to a functional firearm, as we plainly see. In fact, by Shapiro’s legal brief, there is no clear separation between a bunch of wood and metal tubes, and a billet or forged aluminum 80% lower receiver. So, by his logic, hardware stores should probably be redefined as gun stores.

How Pennsylvania’s Can Fight Shapiro

At the time of publication, Shapiro’s office says they are working closely with Pennsylvania State Police to further cement the Attorney General’s opinion into state processes and police enforcement. While no process currently exists for submitting designs for firearms and firearm parts, one will likely have to be created. Shapiro’s legal opinion necessitates the state of Pennsylvania set up a way for individual consumers and manufacturers to submit products or works for clarification of whether it is a firearm or not, considering existing definitions are no longer valid and the AG’s opinion is open to wild interpretation. And, given Shapiro’s incredibly vague “reinterpretations” of state law, it stands to reason that any parts used to make a zip gun or other improvised gun-making kit would have to be defined as a firearm in the state. That means labeling innocuous products (like hardware from your local department store) as firearms, too, lest the Attorney General backpedal on his issued opinion. Readers can contact Shapiro’s office here.


TOPICS: Government; Hobbies; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; guns; pennsylvania; secondamendment

1 posted on 12/17/2019 9:20:30 AM PST by Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

How does one take anyone named “Josh” seriously?????


2 posted on 12/17/2019 9:23:18 AM PST by RatRipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

Not “ghost guns”. Liberty guns.


3 posted on 12/17/2019 9:34:28 AM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (Slavery, the Confederacy, the KKK, and Segregation were all supported by the DemocRAT party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
How about this?

https://www.80percentarms.com/products/0-billet-ar-15-lower-receiver/

4 posted on 12/17/2019 9:40:55 AM PST by dmcnash (Back off! I'm a Scientist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

I wonder if Josh had relatives in Europe during the 1940s who wished they could get their hands on some firearms.

Why are people so blinded


5 posted on 12/17/2019 9:42:27 AM PST by Vaquero ( Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

Old aphorism:

A competent gunsmith can turn a VW Bug into a machinegun in about 8 hours.


6 posted on 12/17/2019 9:52:11 AM PST by ctdonath2 (Specialization is for insects.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmcnash

You illustrate the point perfectly with this product as an example: Where does the limit of vagueness end? By Shapiro’s own words, a firearm is to be defined by its physical shape. There is nothing else substantial — or even logical or measurable — in his brief. My hope is his office becomes inundated with examples of “homemade firearms”, because by his words, damn-near everything capable of withstand a little heat and pressure could be considered a firearm.


7 posted on 12/17/2019 10:08:48 AM PST by Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

Under his definition, a chunk of steel or aluminum could be considered a firearm.


8 posted on 12/17/2019 10:14:46 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Everyone who favors socialism plans on the government taking other people's money, not theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
There is a huge problem here that isn't being addressed.

It has been strongly suggested that the ATF had decided what constitutes an 80% lower, and what constitutes an 81% firearm, because of an arbitrary decision to designate an AR lower as the serialized part.

There was a case this past summer that let a California man go free rather than challenge the ATF's definition of a firearm with regards to the AR pattern of receiver.

9 posted on 12/17/2019 10:15:38 AM PST by Yo-Yo ( is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

This isn’t “shaky” it’s absolute insanity.


10 posted on 12/17/2019 10:20:19 AM PST by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith

Nothing dumber than a Democrat.
Except a journalist.
Or a “Studies” prof.
But, then again, both two and three are obviously a one.


11 posted on 12/17/2019 10:27:55 AM PST by Da Coyote (is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
I'm not a lawyer but I believe that SCOTUS has ruled on this general subject on at least 3 occasions. The first two are the famous rulings involving DC and the City of Chicago. However,there's a third one that hasn't received as much attention...Caetano v Massachusetts. That,too,was a ruling on just what is,and what isn't,protected by the 2nd Amendment.

In that decision SCOTUS overruled the Massachusetts state Supreme Court (the "Supreme Judicial Court") by a vote of 9-0.

It's worth reading.it's easily found through google (I'm too lazy to provide a link).

12 posted on 12/17/2019 10:51:03 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (The Rats Can't Get Over The Fact That They Lost A Rigged Election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

“Why are people so blinded”

He has an agenda and it includes you being totally disarmed so the Bolsheviks can put a boot on your neck without fear. We are dealing with the grandchildren of Bolsheviks that will not stop.


13 posted on 12/17/2019 10:59:16 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dljordan

I suppose you’re right.

Filthy pigs.


14 posted on 12/17/2019 11:05:58 AM PST by Vaquero ( Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
This is now a firearm?


15 posted on 12/20/2019 1:16:10 PM PST by Magnum44 (My comprehensive terrorism plan: Hunt them down and kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson