Indians For Guns

Hi,

Anyone aware of company/artisans in the business of making replica Rifle Musket for decoration purpose.

Recently i visited one such factory at Udaipur, Rajasthan, but they have closed down the business. I am informed that after new Arm Rules, 2016 even the artisans who are in such business require License (same required for Gun manufacturer). And the procedure for obtaining the license for such manufacturer is very difficult.

Please let me know if you are aware of artisan/company whose business is affected due to new Arm Rules, 2016. I wish to propose amendment to the Govt. w.r.t. such artisans involved in preserving heritage and legacy.

Regards,

Yashpal
9811006588

Delhione wrote:I wish to propose amendment to the Govt. w.r.t. such artisans involved in preserving heritage and legacy.

If you could please tell a little more how do you want to propose amendment to government?

As per my understanding -

any weapon of an obsolete pattern

or

of antiquarian value

or

in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a Firearm either or without repair

cannot be covered by Arms Act 1959 due to Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959. Moreover since firearm replicas cannot fire a projectile, they do not even come under the definition of firearms under Arms Act 1959. So there is no question of getting firearm replicas to come under Arms Act or it's Rules. Such Rule or Notification will be clearly ultra vires of Arms Act 1959. I do not know why such replica manufacturers are panicking and closing their work shops. You may read the following -

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15556

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23346&p=229997#p229997

Sir,

Thanks for providing the detailed side for the rights to possess defunct and replica arms.

The exemption notification dated 18.07.2016 is also relevant in this regard.

But it seems that your attention escaped the rights available to the artisans/companies manufacturing the replica antique arms for commercial purposes. The rules for them are not the same, but very strict. Thus a difficult situation has arisen for preserving the gun heritage and legacy.

As you appear to be encyclopedia of law relevant to arms therefore i would request you to kindly look into this aspect and come together for this cause.

Regards,

Yashpal

The same way, consumption and possession of liquor is not an offence. But manufacturing liquor without licence is an offence.

Delhione wrote:The exemption notification dated 18.07.2016 is also relevant in this regard.

I have read that Notification, it shows those who have issued that Notification have issued it without applying their mind. Replica firearms are neither arm or firearm. When something is not an arm or firearm under Arms Act 1959, it cannot come under Arms Act 1959. Thus question of giving them exemption does not arise. If the officials are harassing them, contact any local lawyer and file a writ in High Court to strike it down.

Delhione wrote:But it seems that your attention escaped the rights available to the artisans/companies manufacturing the replica antique arms for commercial purposes. The rules for them are not the same, but very strict. Thus a difficult situation has arisen for preserving the gun heritage and legacy.

Please note: Imitation firearms do not come under the purview of Arms Act 1959 because they are not arms or firearms as defined under Arms Act 1959. In other words the licensing authority created under Arms Act is not competent to issue license for something that is not an arm or firearm. Thus question of obtaining license under Arms Act 1959 for any purpose whatsoever does not arise. Example: imitation firearms used by children during the festival Diwali.

Delhione wrote:As you appear to be encyclopedia of law relevant to arms therefore i would request you to kindly look into this aspect and come together for this cause

Thank you. I am learning something new everyday about this hideously deceptive legislation that was originally enacted by the British rulers. Feel free to ask any questions related to this subject, will try to answer to the best of my little understanding on this subject.

Delhione wrote:The same way, consumption and possession of liquor is not an offence. But manufacturing liquor without licence is an offence.

It is incorrect to compare liquor with arms. As per Article 47 of Directive Principles of State Policy in Constitution, the State has to strive to bring about it's prohibition. But arms are fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b), 21, Explanation I of Article 25, Article 300A of the Constitution.

Sir,

The reason expressed by the factory owner is genuine, because as per Arms Rule, 2016, the license is required for manufacture of those replicas which are covered under the definition contained in clause (26) of sub-rule 1 of rule 2 of the Arms Rules, 2016 which reads “firearm replica” means an object designed to resemble a firearm which has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm and which has been rendered innocuous.

From the above said definition it appears that the license to manufacture is required only for the replica of active guns and not the antique guns/rifles. However from the Part II of the chapter V of the Arms Rule, 2016, clearly states that License Form VII-B is required for even manufacturing the antique guns/rifles. The relevant excerpt is reproduced below:

PART II

Manufacture of Replica of FirearmsSection: 67. Licence to manufacture replica of firearms. ─

(1) A licence in Form VII-B may be granted to any person, to manufacture replicas of antique (muzzle loading) and contemporary (breech-loading) firearms for domestic market and export purposes.

(2) The persons not holding any licence or persons holding a licence in Form I for possession of machinery, or in Form IX for manufacture of firearms, under the Arms Rules, 1962 shall apply for a new licence in Form VII-B for manufacture and sale of replica of firearms within one year from the date of the notification of these rules.

Thus an industry may be wiped out with such rules and the artisans possessing knowledge of manufacturing of replica antique guns/rifles may resort to some other profession. And they need to be saved by making appropriate changes in the Arms Rules, 2016.

Kindly provide your inputs.

Regards,

Yashpal

You are needlessly mentioning Arms Rules 2016 and highlighting "Manufacture of Replica of Firearms". I am fully aware of the Rules mentioned by you from Arms Rules 2016. Arms Rules whatever they are cannot override or go against Arms Act 1959. The Notification and the Rules mentioned by you are against and beyond the scope of Arms Act 1959.

Arms Rules were notified on 15 July 2016. Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959 wants them to be passed by both houses of parliament within 30 working days of Parliament. When Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha websites are checked it shows that sessions have been held from 18/07/2016 to 12/08/2016 and 16/11/2016 To 16/12/2016. It means 43 sessions have lapsed. Have the Arms Rules 2016 been approved by both Houses of Parliament? If no, then Arms Rules 2016 has lost it's "force of law". This is also an important legal point to be noted.

Unfortunately it appears either you are unable to understand the legal points or I have been unable to make you understand. Aggrieved persons can contact any local lawyer to file a writ in High Court, your problem will be solved. It is a simple matter. They can show my replies to the concerned lawyer, he will understand what needs to be done. If the lawyer wants to clarify any more point, he may contact via PM or email, will explain everything in detail.

Alternatively the affected persons may petition Rajya Sabha, writing in detail about the seriousness of the problem as well as such requirement of license being ultra vires of Arms Act 1959. May visit this link for the performa of petition http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/petition/petition.asp

goodboy_mentor wrote:You are needlessly mentioning Arms Rules 2016 and highlighting "Manufacture of Replica of Firearms". I am fully aware of the Rules mentioned by you from Arms Rules 2016. Arms Rules whatever they are cannot override or go against Arms Act 1959. The Notification and the Rules mentioned by you are against and beyond the scope of Arms Act 1959.

Arms Rules were notified on 15 July 2016. Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959 wants them to be passed by both houses of parliament within 30 working days of Parliament. When Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha websites are checked it shows that sessions have been held from 18/07/2016 to 12/08/2016 and 16/11/2016 To 16/12/2016. It means 43 sessions have lapsed. Have the Arms Rules 2016 been approved by both Houses of Parliament? If no, then Arms Rules 2016 has lost it's "force of law". This is also an important legal point to be noted.

Unfortunately it appears either you are unable to understand the legal points or I have been unable to make you understand. Aggrieved persons can contact any local lawyer to file a writ in High Court, your problem will be solved. It is a simple matter. They can show my replies to the concerned lawyer, he will understand what needs to be done. If the lawyer wants to clarify any more point, he may contact via PM or email, will explain everything in detail.

Alternatively the affected persons may petition Rajya Sabha, writing in detail about the seriousness of the problem as well as such requirement of license being ultra vires of Arms Act 1959. May visit this link for the performa of petition http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/petition/petition.asp

thank you so much for details, me too waiting for someone to file a writ petition on .22 air rifles,

Delhione wrote:Sir,

The reason expressed by the factory owner is genuine, because as per Arms Rule, 2016, the license is required for manufacture of those replicas which are covered under the definition contained in clause (26) of sub-rule 1 of rule 2 of the Arms Rules, 2016 which reads “firearm replica” means an object designed to resemble a firearm which has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm and which has been rendered innocuous.

From the above said definition it appears that the license to manufacture is required only for the replica of active guns and not the antique guns/rifles. However from the Part II of the chapter V of the Arms Rule, 2016, clearly states that License Form VII-B is required for even manufacturing the antique guns/rifles. The relevant excerpt is reproduced below:

PART II

Manufacture of Replica of FirearmsSection: 67. Licence to manufacture replica of firearms. ─

(1) A licence in Form VII-B may be granted to any person, to manufacture replicas of antique (muzzle loading) and contemporary (breech-loading) firearms for domestic market and export purposes.

(2) The persons not holding any licence or persons holding a licence in Form I for possession of machinery, or in Form IX for manufacture of firearms, under the Arms Rules, 1962 shall apply for a new licence in Form VII-B for manufacture and sale of replica of firearms within one year from the date of the notification of these rules.

Thus an industry may be wiped out with such rules and the artisans possessing knowledge of manufacturing of replica antique guns/rifles may resort to some other profession. And they need to be saved by making appropriate changes in the Arms Rules, 2016.

Kindly provide your inputs.

Regards,

Yashpal

Industry need not close for this reason. Owner could have applied for licence in A-7. Licencing authority is also only DM, not state or central government is involved.
Owner must have applied, but don't know the reasons for rejection..

I have been unable find any reason or logic or rather legal jurisdiction behind this. Arms Act 1959 does not apply to imitation or replica of firearms. Arms Rules cannot override Arms Act 1959. Then how does licensing authority have jurisdiction to issue "license" for something that is not even a firearm? Can anyone please enlighten me from legal perspective?