PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, CLASSIFIES 80% LOWERS AS “FIREARMS” Today, in a press release entitled ” AG Shapiro, Gov. Wolf: 80% Receivers Are Firearms” Pennsylvania Attorney General issued an opinion letter regarding, putatively whether 80% lowers (which have no legal definition or meaning) are firearms for purposes of some, but not all, provisions of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (“UFA”). While acknowledging that “there is no controlling caselaw providing a definition or standard for applying the phrase ‘may readily be converted'” nor a definition for “designed,” in direct violation of Article 2, Section 1 (non-delegation provision), the preemption provided for by Article 1, Sections 21 and 25, and the rule of lenity, Attorney General Shapiro concludes that “a receiver is a ‘firearm’ if it can be converted to expel a projectile by [sic] individual with reasonable skill (expertise), basic tools (equipment) available to and understood by such an individual, and commonly available parts (availability) in a reasonable amount of time (time).” Thus, apparently under AG Shapiro’s opinion, a block of metal or plastic can now constitute a firearm. In fact, he goes on to hold: A receiver does not need to be fully manufactured to be a firearm as defined in the Applicable Sections. A receiver if a firearm under the Applicable Sections it is is: 1) “designed” to expel or 2) “may readily be converted” to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. Given the UFA does not provide a statutory definition of these terms, PSP shall utilize the legal framework set forth in this Opinion when enforcing or issuing interpretative guidance regarding the Applicable Sections of the UFA. Along with direct enforcement of the UFA< PSP has the ability to issue interpretative rules through internal documents, manuals, or policy statements; while not contorlling, these interpretations would be entitled to deference. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944). Additionally, PSP can further interpret the definitions through formal rulemaking. 18 Pa. C.S. 6111.5 Any regulation properly promulgated by PSP is entitled to deference, unless clearly erroneous. Harkness v. UCBR, 591 Pa. 543. What appears lost on AG Shapiro is the fact that only the General Assembly can write the law and that the General Assembly cannot delegate its authority, in the absence of providing a coherent framework that can be equally and consistently applied. W. Phila. Achievement Charter Elem. Sch. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 635 Pa. 127 (2016); Mary Ann Protz v. W.C.A.B. (Derry Area School District), 639 Pa. 645 (2017). Furthermore, when dealing with criminal statutes, or statutes having both criminal and civil applications, the rule of lenity requires that any ambiguity be resolved to the Defendant’s /Challenger’s benefit. United States v. Thompson/Ctr. Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 518 (1992). Perhaps most interesting to some is the misleading title of the press release, as it suggests that AG Shapiro and Gov. Wolf conclude that “80% lowers are firearms”; yet, “80% lower” is not mentioned in the opinion. Of course, perhaps that’s the way AG. Shapiro and Gov. Wolf are directing the PSP to conclude 80% lowers are firearms, without specifically addressing it in the opinion. Only time will tell, but if the PSP does take a position that “80% lowers are firearms,” it will surely be challenged in the courts and the outcome is not likely to be favorable to the Commonwealth. If you or someone you know has had their rights violated by this opinion or the PSP’s interpretation of the UFA as it relates to “firearms”, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.
Not exactly the sharpest Shapiro n the drawer. Seems to be a job qualification for a liberal AG to think their opinion is essentially law. Maybe any piece of metal big enough to machine into a receiver needs to be serialized.
Shapiro was born that way, but manage to survive; I think the Peter Principal was operative in his case. He would like to be governor some day, but I think he'll fall on his face again. There are several (if not all 60 odd) county prosecutors that know the difference between law, regulation and wishes, tho' there are some that ignore that picky detail. Wolf is a tax and spend liberal that deserves a nitroglycerine enema and the application of a mule's hind foot on the insertion spot. The PSP is quietly shaking their heads and laffin', they know the differences, too.
So, this arsehole "Thinks" he speaks with the voice of God here, basically side stepping fed law and declaring a raw, unfinished "Part" a "Fire Arm" when the very authority in such matters, the BATF says it's not, AND, settled litigation has born this out! And, lets not even discuss the fact that the BATF are also wrong to assume ( Rule) a "Lower Receiver" is the part that makes a firearm, they got caught making shit up and enforcing made up laws that have no bases in fact, UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS! Got caught with their panties around their ankles on that one by none other then the Nutty 9 th in Californicatation! So, which law are we actually going to accept? The Fed still has the ultimate authority over firearms, and the Fed screwed it all up! Meanwhile, this arsehole thinks he speaks for the BATF and arbitrarily make shit up on the fly! How fitting! Good luck with that, go suck a bug! BTW, under the BATF's Own rules, the actual "Receiver" is the part of a firearm that mounts a barrel, houses the bolt and feeding mechanism to facilitate the operation of a firearm! SO, an AR "lower" by their own definition is NOT a firearm, and should NOT be required to contain a Serial Number! Look at the AK, the FAL, the G-3, all require an "UPPER" with a Serial number engraved, to be considered a Firearm! Never mind, the legal requirement of Serial Numbers are not factual law, more made up shit wrongfully applied and enforced! Yes, the BAFT says you must have a serial number, but there is no precedent within their own requirements to mandate this! bunch of Marry's!
And it will eventually be challenged in court and they will lose. What bothers me is he either doesn't know the law of doesn't care. Both of which is very troublesome. I'm from PA.
Ok. So under his "definition" I can take that ancient aluminum cylinder head I have out back waiting on the metal run, band-saw it into 1.16" slices and I have a functioning weapon. Very nice....... pphhhffffttttt
Not quite, but close. Basically, there has to be a traceable part. BATFuggers have dictated that the lower carry the number. Clarification here. - firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2013/04/parts-of-firearm-receiver.html The GCA of '68 defines firearm receiver as you describe. However, BATfuggers don't differentiate between upper and lower. See the bottom line here - Firearms - Guides - Importation & Verification of Firearms, Ammunition - Gun Control Act Definitions - Firearm | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Whether or not shappy can get that interpretation thru into law is subject to debate. However, the PSP is probably going to have to follow that interpretation until it gets to court. Methinks the first arrest will precipitate the first court case, we can hope it is brought in one of the counties that have sheriffs and district judges of the correct persuasion. Most of PA counties have elected sheriffs, but not all. As far as I know, ALL district judges are elected, and get the say whether the case is forwarded to a more serious venue.
This is being litigated as we speak in the Nutty 9th, the true definitions ARE in question, and the BATF's requirements do not hold force of law, and this holds a number of very significant ramifications, which is why I pointed it out! The BATF's own rules flip flop depending on day of the week and the whims and vagaries of questions and worse, letters of variance they themselves have issued! What is the ultimate question it what force of law does the BATF in fact have, and what will they be forced to change!
How about IDPA shooter Lawrence Van Dyke who just got appointed to the 9th Circuit Court? I know, wrong jurisdiction, but would be totally awesome.
Oh, Dang... @Gator 45/70 I thought you were going to say you had a Steel-Toed Boot to inset up the Penn DA’s A$$...
actually, that a great deal when they have a buy back. dices that sucker up and turn them in for 50-100 bucks each. Worth way more than their scrap value at the metals scrapper.
Yep, and following that logic, if you can throw it hard enough, it IS a weapon that you can use to assault a "victim." Or just hit "they" in the noggin.
I think that with the volume of democrats moving over to republican, due to becoming educated in what democrats really are, and their own investment in fire arms, the only democrats left to vote are those in graves.
