New Arms Rules 2016 notified by Government of India!

[goodboy_mentor]

In other words, only for the rule to be modified, both Houses must agree to the modification or only for the rule to be cancelled, both Houses must agree. If there is no agreement on modification or cancellation, the rule stands and is valid

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. Please note the following in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959, it says "Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament.....". It clearly means every rule must go to both houses of Parliament for approval, within the time stipulated in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959. Conversely it means if any rule is not sent to both houses of Parliament, within the time stipulated in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959, it does not acquire the force of law. And this is exactly what seems to have happened in case of these new arms rules.

[law student]

goodboy mentor wrote:

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. Please note the following in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959, it says "Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament.....". It clearly means every rule must go to both houses of Parliament for approval, within the time stipulated in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959. Conversely it means if any rule is not sent to both houses of Parliament, within the time stipulated in Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959, it does not acquire the force of law. And this is exactly what seems to have happened in case of these new arms rules.

I did look at that. However the rule only needs to be laid before each House for amendment or cancellation and not for approval. From what I have heard it was laid before each House in the correct manner and time limits. Even your reply says, "...what seems to have happened...". You should file a RTI for this as this is the only way you will get conclusive evidence of what exactly happened with the placement of the rule in the Houses and not what seems to have happened.

Further even if the rule was not properly placed in the Houses within time limits they have a saving provision that states, "...without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule". So as an example if one was incorrectly arrested due to this rule, then even though the laying of the rule was improper and even if later due to court review the Government modifies or cancels the rule, the rule is still valid in all previous cases and hence the arrest is valid. If an order for issuance or refusal of a license was based on this rule would still be valid even if it were modified or cancelled later.

Hence if you really want to be sure, I suggest you at least file an RTI and make its questions and answers public.

[Ashwani kajla]

Plz give me suggestions
Sir
I am working in defense. My arm license made by pulwama district j&k and renew by poonch district and all india by shopian district
It is possible or not

UIN NUMBER IS ISSUED AND FOUND CORRECT
But weapon entry , all india renew not show online

[pkaran]

In a country where corruption is rampant, where trust in the government – any government – is low, where predatory rogue officials abound, where institutions are routinely subverted to settle scores and where the judiciary cannot be counted on to reliably uphold the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights, it is no surprise there is so much trust deficit between government and people. Gun licenses as with technologies like Genetic Engineering, GPS, the Internet, Cell-phones, Drones, Social Media, Adhaar etc., can be enormously useful to contain crimes but can also be abused and weaponized. Prime Minister Modi himself observed in 2014 that “The biggest need is trust. The government has been run in a way wherein it has not trusted its own citizens. I want to change this. My government will operate in a manner wherein it trusts its citizens rather than doubt them; the environment of trust can change a lot of things”. Looking at developed countries, social scientist Francis Fukuyama concludes that “one of the most important lessons we can learn from an examination of economic life is that a nation’s well-being and its ability to compete is conditioned by a single characteristic: the level of trust inherent in society”. Harvard University research shows that countries with low levels of trust invariably find themselves in a ‘distrust trap’ of greater regulation and lower economic growth. Paradoxically, as governments become less trusting, they tend to enforce more regulation which is particularly true for third-world countries. The instinct to add more regulation is probably the wrong one. There is strong evidence that in prosperous economies, nations liberalise increasing rights, reducing restrictions, expanding social benefits. Conversely, in stagnant economies, they lean towards authoritarianism. Strengthening key institutions, particularly the judiciary, is crucial. An ineffective judicial system is the major contributor to India being a low trust society. Our progress towards a modern democratic and prosperous society will impede unless the government addresses the fundamental issue of trust.

Based on an article published by Venkatesan in the TOI Feb 4, 2018

[AtanuB]

Suppose to I am a common man, intends to buy an airgun of .177 for plinking or target paper practice at roof or a safe place then I will not able to buy an airgun without permit. ??

Who r already using .22 air pistol and rifle for according to new rule what about them

[goodboy_mentor]

I did look at that. However the rule only needs to be laid before each House for amendment or cancellation and not for approval. From what I have heard it was laid before each House in the correct manner and time limits. Even your reply says, "...what seems to have happened...". You should file a RTI for this as this is the only way you will get conclusive evidence of what exactly happened with the placement of the rule in the Houses and not what seems to have happened.

Further even if the rule was not properly placed in the Houses within time limits they have a saving provision that states, "...without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule". So as an example if one was incorrectly arrested due to this rule, then even though the laying of the rule was improper and even if later due to court review the Government modifies or cancels the rule, the rule is still valid in all previous cases and hence the arrest is valid. If an order for issuance or refusal of a license was based on this rule would still be valid even if it were modified or cancelled later.

Hence if you really want to be sure, I suggest you at least file an RTI and make its questions and answers public.

Very good. Appreciate your response. I will not be filing RTI application at the moment. NAGRI(following is it's website http://gunowners.in/) is tracking this matter. One of the office bearers of NAGRI had posted in this forum that these Rules are with Parliamentary standing committee. Not aware if the the laying of the Rules was improper or not. While talking with one lawyer, he was telling the rules have not been laid down before Parliament as stipulated in the Act. But this needs to be confirmed.

In one of your earlier reply, you were saying about filing PIL. Yes broadly it is a PIL related matter. PIL about only these rules being ultra vires of Arms Act 1959 or about clarity on some provisions of Arms Act 1959 because they are vague or they are over delegated or ultra vires of the Constitution, what do you think? If you could visit another post here viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25661&p=252897#p252897 and go through the material in those five links and give your comments, especially about the last link related to rough draft of PIL.

RKBA is a natural human right. This right is embedded in various Articles of the Constitution. I don't think there is any controversy about this fact. That is why Articles 19(1)(b) and Explanation I in Article 25 are clearly acknowledging this right. That is why when read with Article 14, the State is also enjoying this right. Parliament has the competence to regulate these rights for compelling State interest. I agree. Arms Act 1959 has been enacted by Parliament to give effect to this right of RKBA by following Article 35 of the Constitution. But does Parliament have competence to reduce non commercial aspect of these rights to subject of licensing and taxation? Article 27 is clearly telling non commercial aspects of rights cannot be taxed by license or by without licensing. Licensing authorities have been created from powers under Article 307 read with Article 265 to regulate “trade, commerce and intercourse”. Thus they lack jurisdiction to license or tax anything that is not within realm of “trade, commerce and intercourse”. Therefore I am unable to see any Parliamentary competence to tax or reduce non commercial aspects of this right to a subject of license. What are your thoughts?

[Sci-fic]

Really very happy to see such a healthy discussion and thank you all for the contribution and further i have seen a reply received from MHA on a RTI petition stating that the new arms rules 2016 have not enforced in perview of section 44 (3)of Arms Act , i thought of attaching it but i Was unable to find it at the moment but will update it soon

[goodboy_mentor]

Really very happy to see such a healthy discussion and thank you all for the contribution and further i have seen a reply received from MHA on a RTI petition stating that the new arms rules 2016 have not enforced in perview of section 44 (3)of Arms Act , i thought of attaching it but i Was unable to find it at the moment but will update it soon

Yes the discussion is indeed getting interesting. Contribution to this discussion from everyone is welcome, especially those from legal background to the questions I have raised for discussion in my previous post.

RTI reply of MHA would be really useful. Please attach it. When you post, there is option to click "Full Editor & Preview". If you click it, and scroll down a bit, you will find option to attach a file. If you edit any post, then you will get this option directly.

[Sci-fic]

Really very happy to see such a healthy discussion and thank you all for the contribution and further i have seen a reply received from MHA on a RTI petition stating that the new arms rules 2016 have not enforced in perview of section 44 (3)of Arms Act , i thought of attaching it but i Was unable to find it at the moment but will update it soon

Yes the discussion is indeed getting interesting. Contribution to this discussion from everyone is welcome, especially those from legal background to the questions I have raised for discussion in my previous post.

RTI reply of MHA would be really useful. Please attach it. When you post, there is option to click "Full Editor & Preview". If you click it, and scroll down a bit, you will find option to attach a file. If you edit any post, then you will get this option directly.

Sir lol, i meant i was unable to find my source at that moment not the option for attachment and i have asked one of my friend who have the copy of that to mail me, will update it soon sir

[Nainsumit]

Sir.
According to new arms rule 2016 cartridges for per arm is 100 and per year is 200 .. wanted to ask that is it implemented through out....

[gautam25apr]

I was going through the list of NPB and PB on the MBA website. I found that even certain 9mm pistols are not PB.. My query use that I've got a 9mm Astra... Is it PB or NPB?

Do not refer to that list, it has number of silly mistakes. Just follow a simple thumb rule, anything that is not clearly listed as restricted arms in Schedule I of Arms Rules is NPB. Every 9 mm diameter pistol cartridge except 9 mm Luger/ Parabellum(9 x 19 mm) is NPB. If you search this forum, you will find this matter has been discussed in detail.

Thanks for your reply and advice... My 9mm Astra is 8%Parabellum... So is it NPB... Also I don't think PB can be issued as NSP... Where can I get the cartridges.?

[mahtabahmad]

The beginnig of Arms act 2016 please be read as "G.S.R. 701(E).─In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 41 read with section 44 of the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), and in supersession of the Arms Rules, 1962, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:-"

Does not the sentence "except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession" mean that the air guns purchased in pre-license regime are beyond the scope of this notification and are still as legal as they were before this act

[Anand]

Hello Mahtabahmad,
IMHO you are correct with regard to air rifles purchased before the enactment of 2016 Arms Rules. However, there seem to be many questions regarding the exemptions granted during the currency of the 1962 rules, such as, with regard to reloading for personal use(not for resale or commercial purpose), and especially with regard to air rifles of caliber .22 and of muzzle energy above 15 ft lbs.

For example, even though the new rules state that, the "at one time/per year" ammunition limit is to be 100/200, new licenses are still being granted with 50/100 in Hyderabad. Like wise, the production of Air rifles in .22 has stopped for the most part, and any sale is to be done according to the new rules, also .22 air pellets are not easily available anymore.

In my opinion,in the table (Schedule I; III (f)(i) & (ii) which defines the different power levels for air weapons has been drafted wrongly, it defines any airgun above 4.5mm and 15ft lbs in (i) and defines airguns less than those in (ii), what about those that are at 4.5mm?

Blank guns and replica guns( which are not arms) have also been incorporated in the new rules, but an exemption for replica guns has been granted in 2017(I think). Also airsoft guns specifically have not been mentioned, but going by the above table they would have to be licensed as the ammo they shoot is usually 6mm or 8mm, ie above 4.5mm, even though the power levels are not even close to 15 ft lbs.

Also, all dealer licenses, gunsmith licenses are to be brought under the new license numbering, so some have not been renewed and are pending for almost 2 years now.

Regards,
Anand

[Ravishism]

Guys plz help me understand the rule no.17 of Arms rule 2016.
It reads as:
Registration of licence with an outside licensing authority and change of address with existing licensing
authority.─ (1) If a person who holds a licence in Form III changes his place of residence, permanently, or
temporarily for a period of more than six months, and carries with him the arms covered by the licence, to a
place falling, other than within the jurisdiction of the existing licensing authority indicated in the licence, he
shall, immediately before the expiry of a period of six months, send intimation about such change to the
licensing authority of the place of his new residence and shall on demand, forthwith produce the licence and
the arm or arms to the new licensing authority by applying in Form B-1 and indicating there in the particulars
of his new residence.
(2) The licensing authority of the new place of residence of the licensee on receiving an application in Form
B-1 under sub-rule (1), shall within a period of fifteen days, register the licensee in the NDAL system whereby
the UIN of the licensee shall stand activated and transferred to its jurisdiction and de-activated from the
records of the original licensing authority or the last renewing authority as the case may be and thereupon a
new licence book shall be issued to the licensee and such new authority shall be the licensing or the renewing
authority in relation to the said licence.
(3) Where the licensee changes his permanent place of residence within the jurisdiction of the existing
licensing authority, he shall forthwith inform the same to the licensing authority with the proof of his new
place of residence and if such change has resulted in change of jurisdiction of police station, along with
information of the police station of his new place of residence and the licensing authority shall within a period
of fifteen days, register the change of residence of the licensee in the NDAL system whereby the UIN of the
licensee shall stand activated under the new police station and de-activated from that of the last police station.

So my question here is, i have been licensed to posses .32 bore revolver and area of validity is Uttar Pradesh. But i have been residing in Mumbai for very long and own a property here. So can i bring my revolver from UP to Mumbai, and get it registered here? Do i need to get some other license to carry my revolver from UP to Maharashtra ? What if i am travelling to some place for less than 6 months, can i carry my gun there without notifying anyone ?

[Anand]

Hi Ravishism,
Since your license is valid only for UP, either it has to be converted to an All India License or you will need a journey license(Short term permit that extends beyond your normal UP state limit). Once either is procured you will have to explain to the LA at Mumbai that you would like to re-register under address change , and they will guide you as to what is exactly needed. An NOC from UP may be required to re register in Mumbai.

Carrying anywhere that is covered by your license is ok (certain places may be expressly prohibited though) for less than 6 months. Earlier, it used be that you would have to inform local PS if you were visiting a place for more than 24 hrs(or 48 hrs, I cant remember) with your firearm.
Anand