Skip to comments.Arizona Moves to Correct Contradictions in Firearm Definitions
Posted on 02/16/2013 6:45:58 AM PST by marktwain
Arizona, as with many states, has numerous definitions of what is legally considered a firearm. The definition of firearm is found in several different places in the Arizona legal code. This makes it difficult for citizens and lawyers to determine what is legal and what is not. People have faced prosecution for possessing items that most would not consider to be firearms, such as BB guns, airsoft replicas, squirt guns, or antique guns that are not legally firearms under federal law.
One man was prosecuted for possession of a firearm for a collection of parts that experts testified could not fire, but could be made to fire if nonexistant custom parts were created and installed on the existing components. By that standard, anyone with steel, files, and a hacksaw could be prosecuted as being in possession of a firearm.
In order to prevent confusion, Arizona bill HB2234 creates one uniform definition of Firearm that conforms to current federal definitions and insures that citizens will not be prosecuted under firearms statutes for possession of BB guns, squirt guns, antiques, pepper spray, and replicas.
Here is the proposed definiton, which may become a model for other states to follow:
"Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will expel or is designed to expel a solid projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive or a burning gas, that was manufactured after January 1, 1899 and that is designed to use fixed cartridges. Firearm does not include a firearm that is incapable of being fired without mechanical repair by the use of tools or the replacement of parts.
Link to proposed legislation
©2013 by Dean Weingarten. Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.
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!).
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.