Indians For Guns

I will try to confirm this matter from the "original" document of Arms Rules 1962 that was passed by the parliament, may be visit National Archives some day.

got license for .30 carbine and .38 revolver on heirloom basis .with long fight from MHA and UP home department through Allahabad high court

If you could please share the judgment by Allahabad High Court.

goodboy_mentor wrote:If we see it from the legal perspective, the criteria to decide if a bore is PB or NPB is not whether it is or was used in government services. The legal criteria to decide if a bore is PB or NPB is what is being said by the SCHEDULE -I category I(c) of Arm Rules 1962. And the SCHEDULE -I category I(c) of Arm Rules 1962 is very clear and very specific about the bores in this matter.

Just to understand the logic behind PB/NPB, don't have any idea whether services use .32 long / .32 ACP currently.
If not, what will happen if they decide to use .32 then all NPB of .32 will become PB?
Isn't it some kind of untouchability custom, what services have civilians can't have and if services decide to have what civilians have right now, civilians will have nothing.

Yesterday visited a gun shop in Mumbai, they told that now importing .380 cartridge is a nightmare. The customs guys say it is 9mm and PB.

Regards

Just to understand the logic behind PB/NPB, don't have any idea whether services use .32 long / .32 ACP currently.
If not, what will happen if they decide to use .32 then all NPB of .32 will become PB?
Isn't it some kind of untouchability custom, what services have civilians can't have and if services decide to have what civilians have right now, civilians will have nothing.

Logic behind PB/NPB: It was started during Lord Curzon's time. it was to ensure the following:

1. In event of mutiny like 1857 taking place again, the ammunition looted by people or supplied by Indian soldiers from government armories does not fire from civilian firearms.

2. Did not trust the Indian soldiers and suspected that they may supply ammunition from government armories to revolutionaries. To ensure that such ammunition does not fire from civillian arms, PB/NPB was started.

Both these reasons do not hold good as India is no more a British colony. Moreover as per Article 51A(d) of the Constitution, it is the fundamental duty of citizens to defend the country during national emergencies. Citizens having firearms of calibers different from armed forces is surely going to create huge logistic and supply problems to the nation. But unfortunately the babus carry the same colonial mentality of not trusting the armed forces or the citizens. Because of this mentality the PB/NPB was carried forward from the Arms Rules for Arms Act 1878 into the Arms Rules for Arms Act 1959.

Please read what is being said by the SCHEDULE -I category I(c) of Arm Rules 1962 carefully. It is not that any ammunition used by services automatically becomes PB. Only that ammunition that is mentioned in the SCHEDULE -I category I(c) of Arm Rules 1962 is PB. PB/NPB is a misnomer. Neither of them is legally prohibited. Both are legally restricted, PB is more restricted than NPB.

Yesterday visited a gun shop in Mumbai, they told that now importing .380 cartridge is a nightmare. The customs guys say it is 9mm and PB.

Somebody will have to make them understand in a manner they understand that every 9 mm cartridge is not PB except only 9 mm luger/parabellum that are used by government. May be by doing RTI in a manner that they have to use their brain to answer the question asked in RTI.

What about a semi-automatic M1 Carbine chambering the .30 Carbine v\catridges??

LAWMSIAMA wrote:What about a semi-automatic M1 Carbine chambering the .30 Carbine v\catridges??

Read the first 2-3 pages of this thread

LAWMSIAMA wrote:What about a semi-automatic M1 Carbine chambering the .30 Carbine v\catridges??

Since the language of the Arms Act and Rules is less than straightforward:

PB classification extends to all semi-automatic long arms (Schedule I Category 1(b) Arms Rules 1962)... I mentioned 'long arms' since semi-auto hand guns in NPB are allowed.

Category 1(b) would consequently extend to semi auto .22LR rifles and semi auto shotguns.

The .30Carbine cartridge does not fall under PB classification simply because it is not in government service. A 30 carbine with the gas tappet permanently disabled by a 'competent' (No proper definition) armorer, so that it becomes a straight pull bolt action, would take it out of category 1(b) and somewhat logically render it NP.

regards,
cc

Vineet wrote:

BowMan wrote:.38 special for handguns are Prohibited

.38 special is non-prohibited where as .38 S&W is prohibited

Sorry to bother about this again but should this statement be re-examined with regards to below;

c) Blot action or semi-automatic refles of .303" or 7.62 mm. bore of any other bore which can chamber and fire service ammunition of .303" or 7.62 mm. calbire; musket ammunition; pistols, revolvers of carbines of any bore which can chamber .380" and .455" rimmed cartridges or service 9mm. or .445" rimless cartridges].

Also, this may sound like hair splitting, but it seems that the act stresses on "PROHIBITED ARMS/NON PROHIBITED ARMS" and not "PROHIBITED BORES/NON PROHIBITED BORES"

a) Prohibited arms as defined in Sec. 2(1) (i) and such other arms as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be prohibited arms.

b) Semi-automatic firearms, other than those included in categories I (c) and III(a), smooth bore guns having barrel of less than 20" in length.

c) Blot action or semi-automatic reflesof .303" or 7.62 mm. bore of any other bore which can chamber and fire service ammunition of .303" or 7.62 mm. calbire; musket ammunition; pistols, revolvers of carbines of any bore which can chamber .380" and .455" rimmed cartridges or service 9mm. or .445" rimless cartridges].

What this would mean is (specially in case of revolvers) that a revolver that can fire a .38 rimmed cartridge, and this would encompass revolvers chambered for .38 S&W, .38 Special and also possibly .357 Magnum should be classified as prohibited.

Legal experts may share their opinion.

Cheers

"What this would mean is (specially in case of revolvers) that a revolver that can fire a .38 rimmed cartridge, and this would encompass revolvers chambered for .38 S&W, .38 Special and also possibly .357 Magnum should be classified as prohibited.

Legal experts may share their opinion."


The case and bullet dimensions are slightly different between .38 S&W/.38-200/.380 Rimmed (our PB cartridge in question) cartridge and the .38 special and .357 Magnum. For the .380, bullet is .361" and base diameter is .386" while for the .38 Spl. & .357 Mag.the bullet diameter is .357 & base diameter is .379", while case lengths are different for all.

AFAIK, this means that a revolver chambered for a .38 Spl. Or .357 Mag can NOT chamber and fire .380 cartridges unless its chambers have been reamed. That would leave only revolvers chambered in .38 S&W which fall into this prohibited category.
Regards,
Anand

Thanks Anand for the detailed explanation.

But the larger question still remains to be considered - Is it legally correct to talk about NPB/PB bores when the schedule only lays the definition/classification for N.P. Armss/P. Arm and there being a subtle difference?

Regards
BowMan

Bowman, you have a great point and others before have had the same question/issue/problem with regards to PB and NPB. There are only Prohibited Arms, that are basically all semi automatic and full automatic arms, with the exception of semi auto pistols. I have heard dealers refer to a .30 M1 Carbine as " prohibited action" .

Also, those arms that can chamber and fire cartridges listed as in Schedule I of the Arms Rules 1962, are Prohibited Arms. So there are no prohibited bores or calibers as such, at least not according to the law at least. But, common terminology used, refers to Prohibited Bore (PB) and NonProhibited Bore (NPB) and is even mentioned in licenses as such. In my license each firearm is listed as NPB for example,.32 NPB Revolver, .315 NPB Rifle etc.

I guess the logic used in the terminology is that ammunition used by Prohibited Arms is of Prohibited Bore! Probably why a lot of dealers will not sell you .30 carbine ammunition saying that it is a "prohibited bore".

What happens if you have a pistol of that caliber or perhaps a M1 Carbine that has been rendered incapable of semi auto and full auto fire? The answer is you are probably out of luck!
Regards,
Anand

please do a RTI and ask for a copy of MHA notification No. F.14/13/66-p.iv, dated 2nd july 1964.

also court case Ghunne V state:1972 ACC 247

These may thorugh some light into the matter.

NO i do not have a copy

Anand wrote:I guess the logic used in the terminology is that ammunition used by Prohibited Arms is of Prohibited Bore!

I agree with you there. A priori, it is the firearm which is Prohibited/Non Prohibited for civilian possession and 'bores' or 'cartridges' or calibers are a posteriori.

Must I say the current legislation does not do a good job at making things clear which is why we have this confusion. Whether this is a shortcoming borne of lack of technical knowledge at the time of drafting or this arises because the entire concept of PB/NPD is unnatural and untenable is also a matter of discussion.

After all, a gun manufactured for use with one caliber can always be adopted for another, sometimes with or without a little bit of modification and always with a healthy dose of in-cautiousness.

Nagarifle - I tried MHA website for the said notifications but could not trace it. Could you please throw some light as to what the notification and court case is about.

i believe that MHA website do not contain such things for the public to see. hence RTI is needed.

what does it contain? eh that is the interesting part.

no idea about the court case but its link to the notification in some way, thats is what i have been told.

all the best