Glock 17 or 20 or Beretta 92fs in India?

[nagarifle]

[Vikram]

[ Image ]

[miroflex]

Concept PB and NPB was created during Lord Curzon's time(1899–1905). Any cartridge used by government forces was not normally allowed for civillians and was called "Prohibited Bore" and the rest of the cartridges were called "Non Prohibited Bore". The PB and NPB concept was the British policy of divide and rule at work. The motive behind this was that in event of mutiny like 1857 happening again, the native soldiers and civillians cannot use each others ammunition in their guns because of different cartridge sizes.

To understand further detail please read this http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2780 and this http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 43#p115943

As far as I recollect, prohibited bores were introduced in India and the Sudan in 1909, long after Lord Curzon had left our shores. Even the British would not have taken 52 years to implement in 1909 a policy necessitated by the events of 1857. Surely there were other Viceroys after 1858 and before Lord Curzon who were equally capable of implementing such a measure. It did not require the genius of a Curzon to do so

Regards.

[goodboy_mentor]

As far as I recollect, prohibited bores were introduced in India and the Sudan in 1909, long after Lord Curzon had left our shores.

Might be possible. It can be confirmed by reading the Arms Rules and the Notifications for Arms Act 1878 that were in force during Lord Curzon's time and later.

Even the British would not have taken 52 years to implement in 1909 a policy necessitated by the events of 1857. Surely there were other Viceroys after 1858 and before Lord Curzon who were equally capable of implementing such a measure. It did not require the genius of a Curzon to do so

Events of 1857 were suppressed by military means with help of local rulers. It needs to be noted that just after the revolt, British had not consolidated so much power to afford another revolt by enacting a very stringent arms law. It would also have created a common distrust against the British, among the local rulers who were their supporters in suppressing the revolt. Maybe they feared something similar to what gun confiscation resulted in American War of Independence. Similarly with more consolidation of British power and weakening of the native rulers, later on the things were slowly and steadily changed for the worse. If we look at arms laws, they were made more and more restrictive slowly with passage of time and consolidation of British power.

Arms Act (XXVII of 1857) was enacted on 11 September 1857, for regulating the import, manufacture, sale, possession and use of arms and ammunition.

The Arms Act was continued in force by Act XXIX of 1860 and was replaced by the more elaborate Act XXXI of the same year, which empowered the government to disarm any province, district, or place and to prohibit the possession without licence of arms of any description.

Then at last there was most draconian Arms Act 1878 and its Rules.

[tiwariarrun]

You'll get PB license if you're a minister's son. Manu Sharma had 92fs.

[Ganesh TT]

Even Dhoni has prohibited bore licence

[tiwariarrun]

Dhoni is a TA for your kind info, Ganesh!

[miroflex]

You'll get PB license if you're a minister's son. Manu Sharma had 92fs.

Dhoni is a TA for your kind info, Ganesh!

Hi Arun,

What is 92fs? What is a TA? I don't seem to be aware of the latest acronyms.

Regards.

[goodboy_mentor]

By 92fs he is referring to Beretta 92fs pistol. TA is short form for Territorial Army.

[miroflex]

By 92fs he is referring to Beretta 92fs pistol. TA is short form for Territorial Army.

Thanks. I believe that the Beretta 92fs pistol is chambered for the 9 mm Parabellum, a prohibited bore cartridge. By the way, are officers in the Territorial Army issued licences for prohibited bore weapons?

Regards.

[goodboy_mentor]

After discussion in the following thread, it does not appear to me that there is legally any higher restriction for prohibited bore http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p174125

But as per the baseless hoopla created by MHA bureaucrats, they issue prohibited bore license only to certain class of people mentioned in arms policy, having "grave and imminent threat". As per some news reports Dhoni had that "grave and imminent threat".

[spin_drift]

After discussion in the following thread, it does not appear to me that there is legally any higher restriction for prohibited bore http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p174125

But as per the baseless hoopla created by MHA bureaucrats, they issue prohibited bore license only to certain class of people mentioned in arms policy, having "grave and imminent threat". As per some news reports Dhoni had that "grave and imminent threat".

A bit off topic..
can't we take the MHA bureaucrats to court by filling a writ to bring criminal proceedings against them under "The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971" as they have infringed upon the fundamental right (RKBA) guaranteed in the Constitution there by insulting the Constitution...

[goodboy_mentor]

I don't think bureaucrats are guilty of violating the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. There appears no mens rea(intent of committing the crime) and actus reus(physical act of committing the crime). Bureaucrats might be ignorant about some facts of the Constitution, but that does not mean they have insulted or shown disrespect to the Constitution. They will have there own justifications about what they are doing, like they are doing all this on behalf of the State interest/public interest. They are also protected under Article 311 of the Constitution.

[technical]

we own a beretta 92sb with a PB license.