Posted on 02/16/2013 6:45:58 AM PST by marktwain
Certainly the defense of one's self is such exception?
Art 2, Sec 26
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
If you have a restraining order against you in a domestic case, you are not allowed to possess fire arms or ammunition.
That is despicable and a federal violation of the 5th amendment (curtailing liberty prior to due process, and 6th [requiring the allowance of a defense], via Ex Post Facto law) -- but isn't, strictly speaking, a state-level matter.
"designed to expel a solid projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive or a burning gas"
I wouldn't push that "spud gun" thing too far as potatos are "solid projectiles" propelled by a "burning gas". You could try those 20oz. soda bottles and squeeze by under a technicality.
It looks like mortars and bazookas might sneak by because the projectiles are explosive not solid.
That would seem to give a pass to any sort of artillery firing explosive rounds. Federal (BATF) rules, however limit rifled bore size to .500" or less. Anything larger is a "destructive device" and requires an ATF Form 4 w/ a $200.00 excise tax stamp.
Smooth bores are OK and as long as you stay away from "solid shot" you can build yourself a cannon (the fastest way to convert black powder into fun!).
Regards,
GtG
G
At least until some bureaucrat or "investigative reporter" see this:
Load them, then, and reconsider the definition, heheh.
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.