Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro yet another authoritarian wire-framed Democrat not content with following his own states long-established laws decided that his personal opinion should supersede the statutes governing the states 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-15s 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."
When one AG Over-Steps the Feds and the ATF
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. Whats more Josh Shapiros 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 with visual illustrations. The ATFs own views are directly counter to Shapiros and its safe to say the ATF knows more about firearms than a single liberal Attorney General.
Shapiros 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. Shapiros 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
Lets review what Shapiro wrote about the states operative definitions of a firearm. Then well illustrate why hes 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 Shapiros on shaky ground and it doesnt 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 its how Shapiro thinks to attempt to validate his opinion. Confusing? Of course it is youre a normal human being. Lets explain why with a simple real-world example or two.
Context and Common Sense: Why Shapiro is Wrong
If youre building a racecar youre probably going to install a custom engine. And that engine will need to be manufactured before its 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. Lets 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 cant fuel it up and turn the key. In fact you cant 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 cant define something as the very thing it will eventually become if such a thing requires most of its fabrication to still be completed. You cant call an solid block of iron an engine. You cant define a long hollow metal tube as a rocket. You cant call a pile of leather and rubber a boot. You cant say a blank silicon board and some capacitors constitute a computer. You cant call a solid chunk of aluminum a firearm. And you certainly cant 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.
Shapiros Problem with May Readily Be Converted"
Shapiros 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 cant 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 Shapiros 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 zip gun is less than $100. Reviewing the basic design it would take approximately 15 minutes to one hour to cut drill and fabricate this weapon.
By Shapiros logic the components used to build the zip gun must legally be defined as a firearm. Theyre obviously designed to create a firearm based on the precedent set by the finished product and his legal opinion. Remember Shapiros 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 Shapiros 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 Pennsylvanians Can Fight Shapiro
At the time of publication Shapiros office says they are working closely with Pennsylvania State Police to further cement the Attorney Generals 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. Shapiros 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 AGs opinion is open to wild interpretation.
And given Shapiros 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 Shapiros office here.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro yet another authoritarian wire-framed Democrat not content with following his own states long-established laws decided that his personal opinion should supersede the statutes governing the states 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-15s 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."
When one AG Over-Steps the Feds and the ATF
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. Whats more Josh Shapiros 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 with visual illustrations. The ATFs own views are directly counter to Shapiros and its safe to say the ATF knows more about firearms than a single liberal Attorney General.
Shapiros 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. Shapiros 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
Lets review what Shapiro wrote about the states operative definitions of a firearm. Then well illustrate why hes 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 Shapiros on shaky ground and it doesnt 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 its how Shapiro thinks to attempt to validate his opinion. Confusing? Of course it is youre a normal human being. Lets explain why with a simple real-world example or two.
Context and Common Sense: Why Shapiro is Wrong
If youre building a racecar youre probably going to install a custom engine. And that engine will need to be manufactured before its 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. Lets 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 cant fuel it up and turn the key. In fact you cant 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 cant define something as the very thing it will eventually become if such a thing requires most of its fabrication to still be completed. You cant call an solid block of iron an engine. You cant define a long hollow metal tube as a rocket. You cant call a pile of leather and rubber a boot. You cant say a blank silicon board and some capacitors constitute a computer. You cant call a solid chunk of aluminum a firearm. And you certainly cant 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.
Shapiros Problem with May Readily Be Converted"
Shapiros 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 cant 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 Shapiros 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 zip gun is less than $100. Reviewing the basic design it would take approximately 15 minutes to one hour to cut drill and fabricate this weapon.
By Shapiros logic the components used to build the zip gun must legally be defined as a firearm. Theyre obviously designed to create a firearm based on the precedent set by the finished product and his legal opinion. Remember Shapiros 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 Shapiros 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 Pennsylvanians Can Fight Shapiro
At the time of publication Shapiros office says they are working closely with Pennsylvania State Police to further cement the Attorney Generals 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. Shapiros 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 AGs opinion is open to wild interpretation.
And given Shapiros 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 Shapiros office here.