I recently had an art major friend of mine claim that a defendable definition of art was “anything not required for immediate survival”. This means that everything from the image of your stubble covered face in the mirror as you got up in the morning to the dirty socks you threw in the hamper that night and nearly everything you saw, did, smelled, touched, or heard in between qualifies as art.
I don’t have to squint very hard to see that definition being valid.
Our society currently has a very broad definition of 1st Amendment protection of art. This has extended to government grants for such controversial works of art as Piss Christ.
So why can’t a claim be made for First Amendment protection for 100 round drum magazines as works of art? It certain meets my primary definition of art which is, “Something aesthetically pleasing but without significant functionality.”