Indians For Guns

As I am interested in purchasing Dog lock Gun from narayan sports Udaipur. I wan to know that do we need any Licence for that.

rp,

Prima facie match lock/dog/wheel lock/flint lock guns appear to be weapons of obsolete pattern as mentioned in Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959. Still I would not give any opinion on this since it needs to be seen what kind of weapon, legally means a weapon of an "obsolete pattern".

For the purpose of Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959, what are the criterion used to determine obsolescence of a weapon?

Is duration of obsolescence also used to determine obsolescence? If yes then what is the duration of obsolescence that makes a weapon to become a weapon of "obsolete pattern"? Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 makes any weapon(includes firearms) an antiquity if not less than 100 years old and thus not require a license under Arms Act 1959. Does a "pattern of weapon" not in use for not less than hundred years, make that pattern of weapon to be of "obsolete pattern" and thus not require a license under Arms Act 1959?

Is there any legal document, notification, High Court or Supreme Court judgment clarifying about any weapon of an "obsolete pattern"?

These are the questions if answered would give more clarity on the matter.

Anyways I have expressed my thoughts related to Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15556

If it is a current manufacture ML (muzzle loading) Gun, then there is no question of obsolescence - it would be required to be entered on a valid Arms License issued for a ML Gun. However, if it is merely a non-firing replica there would be no license requirement.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

Modern ML guns of the non firing variety require a '45C Certificate', although I'm not sure what it is exactly is. The makers in Udaipur generally supply it with the gun.

"45C Certificate" appears to be related to Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959.

The firing or non firing capability of the weapon is not under question in first two conditions seperated by OR in Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959. I have discussed it in detail here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15556

As per Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 any weapon(it includes firing weapon) can be exempt from requirement of license if it is of obsolete pattern OR is of an antiquarian value. Obsolete pattern and antiquarian value are two seperate conditions.

Which weapon is of an antiquarian value? A weapon that is not less than hundred years old is of an antiquarian value. Who says this? Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972 says this. Hence no legal confusion about which weapon is of an antiquarian value and thus requires no license under Arms Act 1959.

Age of weapon is in question only if it is to be determined if it is an antique. Age of the weapon is not in question in determining the obsolescence of the pattern of weapon. The duration of obsolescence of the pattern of weapon may come under question. A weapon of obsolete pattern can be a brand new weapon. Only the question that remains unclear is weapon of which pattern is weapon of obsolete pattern?

A muzzle loader that can be fired ( serviceable condition) will require a license regardless of it's age or pattern.

A muzzle loader(including the one that can fire) or weapon of any pattern that is of antiquarian value i.e. not less than hundred years old, does not require a license under Arms Act 1959. Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 read alongwith Section 2(1)(a) of The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 defining what is an antiquity, makes the position very clear.

Also may read this post by pandian1948 http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 17#p157917

It is very clear from the reading of Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 that any weapon of an obsolete pattern does not require a license. The only question that remains unclear from legal perspective is, weapon of which pattern is weapon of obsolete pattern?

GB

Your interpretations will get some one sent to jail.

Your interpretations will get some one sent to jail.

Going by your interpretation pandian1948 who is a Supreme Court lawyer, he would be in jail.

BTW it is not "my interpretation". It is the interpretation of Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 the way it is by plain reading.

45. Act not to apply in certain cases.
(c) 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;

It is very clear from plain reading of above that there are three clear alternative conditions in Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959. If any weapon meets any one alternative condition, Section 45(c) is satisfied and thus Arms Act 1959 does not apply. It is well accepted and understood that "or" is a grammatical conjunction used to present an alternative item or idea. "and" is a grammatical conjunction used to present non-contrasting item or idea.

Moreover in order to interpret any provision of a regulatory law, it is important to understand from which Articles of the Constitution the law is flowing from, what are the objects and reasons of the law in question. Then do a harmonious and beneficial interpretation keeping in mind all these points and reasonable restrictions founded on the principle of proportionality.

pandian1948 is an Arms Dealer and not (to the best of my knowledge) a practising advocate in the Supreme Court. IIRC he has posted erroneous information here in the past and when corrected has not even bothered to acknowledge the correction.

As to the requirement for an Arms License, ML (Muzzle Loading) guns are very much under the purview of licensing so long as they are in firing condition. Licenses for these are commonly issued to farmers for crop protection. I have seen such licenses and handled a few such (caplock) ML Guns. Almost every small town Arms Dealer stocks a few of these for sale to farmers holding valid ML Gun licenses.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

GB,

I have interacted with lawyers and was not impressed with the vast majority of them.I have also seen some judges in the higher judiciary in action and was underwhelmed.

What I am saying is that an LLB or LLM is not going to impress me.At one time,the least intelligent of the lot of students seeking admission into various courses, used to opt for law.I would be surprised if much has changed since then.

Are you a law graduate?

@mundaire
As per these posts pandian1948 appears to be a lawyer and his family owns a gun shop http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 657#p69429

@wtp
It appears either I have not been able to explain in a proper manner or you have not been able to understand the point that I am trying to convey. If you note my first post in this thread I have refrained from answering the question posed by creator of this thread by saying that I would not give any opinion on this since it needs to be seen what pattern of weapon, legally means a weapon of an "obsolete pattern".

As far as your assertions or observations about lawyers and judiciary or that the "least intelligent" of the lot opts for law etc. appears to be too simplistic and sweeping an observation and besides the point of discussion. All kinds of people are found in all kinds of professions and social groups. Hence I would prefer not to needlessly get into such arguments.