Several problems with this. Too many to talk about all of, many already covered, including by myself. But I thought I'd point out a couple.
1. Gun manufacturers didn't take it upon themselves to define what a "copy" or "duplicate" is, they took the definition directly from the law. Unlike her, who did take it upon herself to define it.
2. Words in laws are suppose to have meaning. There plain meaning is in fact thee meaning unless specifically defined otherwise. The words "copy" and "duplicate" do have a meaning, and since they weren't specifically defined, it is their plain meaning. Copy means "a think made to be identical to another. Duplicate means "exactly like something else". Nowhere in those definitions does it say that only part of the item being"essentially" the same makes it a copy or duplicate. Nor does it say that something simply having components that are interchangeable makes it a copy or duplicate. Her definitions do not jive with the plain meaning of the words.