What is a Curio?

[partheus]

Hi guys,
I came across the term "Curio" when going through the new firearm rules announced last December and can't seem to find any information on what it means. Does it mean disabled/non-functioning guns, functional/firing antiques or any perfectly good gun that's just odd or rare?

Thanks and apologies if this has been discussed here before, my Google-fu has been off lately

[mundaire]

Please see the definitions section of Arms Rules 2016, the legal definition of what is considered a curio under this law is clearly defined therein.

Arms Rules 2016 - In relation to curios/ historical arms

Rule 2. Definitions. -

(17) “curio” means a small arm manufactured at least fifty years prior to the current date or certified by the curator of a Government regulated museum or that derives at least half of its monetary value from the fact that it is novel, rare, bizarre, or associated with some historical figure, period, or event and includes an antique small arm

Cheers!

[partheus]

Thanks Abhijeet!

[Karan13121999]

So according to our arms act, Curio weapons are weapons which are 50 or more years old and do not require a license to acquire them. But they need license in order to buy their ammunition. So does that mean that any firearm regardless of their firing mechanism such as semi auto or full auto can be bought & used by citizens?

[partheus]

I highly doubt that interpretation will work as it would allow everything from functional WW2 MMGs to 50 year old AK-47s being legally allowed for civilian ownership. AFAIK, weapons chambered in prohibited bore cartridges, fully auto rifles and semi-auto rifles (barring .22 rifles and shotguns) will still be off-limits regardless of how old they are.

[Karan13121999]

I highly doubt that interpretation will work as it would allow everything from functional WW2 MMGs to 50 year old AK-47s being legally allowed for civilian ownership. AFAIK, weapons chambered in prohibited bore cartridges, fully auto rifles and semi-auto rifles (barring .22 rifles and shotguns) will still be off-limits regardless of how old they are.

What is wrong with our government, They should have done better job defining the arms act. Btw the act also states that you do not need a license to acquire them so in theory this should also include prohibited bore? I mean you can buy prohibited bore if you get the clearance to.

[partheus]

Indeed. Since we don't need a license, PB weapons could in theory be purchased under the curio category. But, it certainly goes against the legislation as it exists today. Since the rules are clearly aimed at possession of firearms that can fire certain cartridges along with the cartridges, buying PB weapons under the curio label would render the PB category in part null and void. This will in all probability be left to the interpretation of the officer, which is a very common practice in India.

A more pertinent case of confusion would be what if you already have a firearm on your license, say, an IOF 30-06 along with its ammunition and then go for a Springfield 1903 as a curio. You can already get 30-06 ammo through your IOF rifle. So, does this mean you must add the Springfield to your license, or, can you hold on to it as a curio? If it is the latter, then, the Springfield is completely functional since you can get its ammo through your IOF rifle endorsement. Also, you can now build up a complete armory of as many 50 year old 30-06 rifles as you want without even bothering with a license!

[mundaire]

Firstly - under law, there is no such thing as "Prohibited Bore", if you don't believe me, please read the Arms Act 1959 and the Arms Rules 2016 and point me to the exact location(s) - if any - which mention "Prohibited Bore".

Secondly - Arms Act 1959 defines "Prohibited Weapons" quite clearly under Section 2 (1) (i) - these weapons cannot be legally owned by a civilian - period! The Curio exemption thus, would NOT apply to them.

Lastly - while a Curio may be owned and possessed by an Indian citizen without the need for an arms license. To use them or to possess ammunition for the same, would render that exemption null and void and said person would be opening himself/ herself to prosecution under the law, the same as for possession of illegal arms & ammunition, with all of the same penalties.

The logic for giving this exemption is quite clear - it is to enable citizens peaceful possession of relics and curios, without attendant legal hassles or the limit of 2 firearms as per Section 3 (2). This would enable us to preserve our heritage firearms, without having to mangle them by deactivation, thus destroying their beauty and value.

[mundaire]

A more pertinent case of confusion would be what if you already have a firearm on your license, say, an IOF 30-06 along with its ammunition and then go for a Springfield 1903 as a curio. You can already get 30-06 ammo through your IOF rifle. So, does this mean you must add the Springfield to your license, or, can you hold on to it as a curio? If it is the latter, then, the Springfield is completely functional since you can get its ammo through your IOF rifle endorsement. Also, you can now build up a complete armory of as many 50 year old 30-06 rifles as you want without even bothering with a license!

Let's say someone does this. If they were to carry along with ammunition any of the unlicensed curios, as mentioned above, or to use them, they would be open to prosecution, same as if they were keeping/ carrying illegal arms.

In the above scenario, thus the ownership of these curios would be essentially limited to the person keeping them at home in a safe.

Where is there any potential for criminal activity here?

[partheus]

A more pertinent case of confusion would be what if you already have a firearm on your license, say, an IOF 30-06 along with its ammunition and then go for a Springfield 1903 as a curio. You can already get 30-06 ammo through your IOF rifle. So, does this mean you must add the Springfield to your license, or, can you hold on to it as a curio? If it is the latter, then, the Springfield is completely functional since you can get its ammo through your IOF rifle endorsement. Also, you can now build up a complete armory of as many 50 year old 30-06 rifles as you want without even bothering with a license!

Let's say someone does this. If they were to carry along with ammunition any of the unlicensed curios, as mentioned above, or to use them, they would be open to prosecution, same as if they were keeping/ carrying illegal arms.

In the above scenario, thus the ownership of these curios would be essentially limited to the person keeping them at home in a safe.

Where is there any potential for criminal activity here?

They would certainly be inviting prosecution if they took their curios out of their homes and were busy flaunting them in ranges and all. But, what of using them on their own property? Say, if they were to use the curio for self-defense in case of a break-in (if that's all they can get their hands on), would that still be considered illegal?

[mundaire]

First lets see what Arms Rules 2016 say about this:

(a) “(6) Small arms falling under the category of curio shall be kept securely and out of reach of other persons by the owner. Such small arms shall not be used, carried or transported without the prescribed licence.”

(b) “(7) No licence is required for Indian citizens for acquisition, possession of small arms falling under the category of curio. However, appropriate licence as prescribed would be required for use or to carry or transport such small arms. Without the endorsement of such firearms in the prescribed licence of the owner, no ammunition shall be sold for their use.”

So, let's take above case of using for self-defense on own property. Two scenarios come to mind:-

1) The owner of said curio(s) possess no other duly licensed firearms of the same calibre. In which case, the very fact that he/ she possessed any ammunition would open them up for prosecution, as there is no way they could have legally acquired or possessed the ammunition. They would be treated under law same as if they had used any illegally held firearm and/ or ammunition. There can be absolutely NO CONFUSION on this.

2) The owner of said curio(s) possesses one/ more licensed firearm of same calibre as the curio, in which case he/ she would be entitled to possess the required ammunition. However, now the question would arise, of "use", since the Arms Rules explicitly say that for carrying or use, one needs an appropriate license. Once again, they would face criminal prosecution, same as if they had used an illegal unlicensed firearm. However, in this case, if one were able to prove in court that the person was unable to reach his licensed firearm and thus made do with what was on hand (the curio) there could be a small chance that the higher judiciary may give some relief.... but don't depend on it!

So, as you can see, this new provision in the Arms Rules, while enabling true collectors of heritage firearms to collect and keep curios WITHOUT HAVING TO BUTCHER THEM BEYOND RECOGNITION^**, does not in any way dilute the force of the law in prosecuting those who would try and misuse it.

The Government of India has finally made provisions which enable true collectors to be able to preserve our shared heritage, with minimum attendant legal hassles for them, while keeping the law pretty strict with stiff penalties for those who misuse/ abuse such privileges.

I personally think that this move by the Government of India deserves our unqualified applause.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

^** - Among others, one case of such butchery of our heritage immediately springs to mind - the condition of Shaheed Bhagat Singh's Colt pistol! You can find the photos on the internent, see it's condition after "deactivation" and weep

[partheus]

Thanks for the clarification, Abhijeet. I agree. This part is indeed good news for firearm aficionados. Now, if they could just do away with the stupid weapon limits, we could finally see some progress here

[tarzanboy73]

First lets see what Arms Rules 2016 say about this:

(a) “(6) Small arms falling under the category of curio shall be kept securely and out of reach of other persons by the owner. Such small arms shall not be used, carried or transported without the prescribed licence.”

(b) “(7) No licence is required for Indian citizens for acquisition, possession of small arms falling under the category of curio. However, appropriate licence as prescribed would be required for use or to carry or transport such small arms. Without the endorsement of such firearms in the prescribed licence of the owner, no ammunition shall be sold for their use.”

So, let's take above case of using for self-defense on own property. Two scenarios come to mind:-

1) The owner of said curio(s) possess no other duly licensed firearms of the same calibre. In which case, the very fact that he/ she possessed any ammunition would open them up for prosecution, as there is no way they could have legally acquired or possessed the ammunition. They would be treated under law same as if they had used any illegally held firearm and/ or ammunition. There can be absolutely NO CONFUSION on this.

2) The owner of said curio(s) possesses one/ more licensed firearm of same calibre as the curio, in which case he/ she would be entitled to possess the required ammunition. However, now the question would arise, of "use", since the Arms Rules explicitly say that for carrying or use, one needs an appropriate license. Once again, they would face criminal prosecution, same as if they had used an illegal unlicensed firearm. However, in this case, if one were able to prove in court that the person was unable to reach his licensed firearm and thus made do with what was on hand (the curio) there could be a small chance that the higher judiciary may give some relief.... but don't depend on it!

So, as you can see, this new provision in the Arms Rules, while enabling true collectors of heritage firearms to collect and keep curios WITHOUT HAVING TO BUTCHER THEM BEYOND RECOGNITION^**, does not in any way dilute the force of the law in prosecuting those who would try and misuse it.

The Government of India has finally made provisions which enable true collectors to be able to preserve our shared heritage, with minimum attendant legal hassles for them, while keeping the law pretty strict with stiff penalties for those who misuse/ abuse such privileges.

I personally think that this move by the Government of India deserves our unqualified applause.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

^** - Among others, one case of such butchery of our heritage immediately springs to mind - the condition of Shaheed Bhagat Singh's Colt pistol! You can find the photos on the internent, see it's condition after "deactivation" and weep

Which para number is this please...I couldnt find it.

regards

T

[tarzanboy73]

So according to our arms act, Curio weapons are weapons which are 50 or more years old and do not require a license to acquire them. But they need license in order to buy their ammunition. So does that mean that any firearm regardless of their firing mechanism such as semi auto or full auto can be bought & used by citizens?

I really cannot find any section which says antique firearms or curios do not need a license


regards

T

[tarzanboy73]

Ok.. I found it !!! I now have two curios...lol