Law No. 6136

Entrance

In Türkiye, the law enacted in 1953 aimed to define the limits of individual gun ownership, ensure public safety, and clarify who can use weapons, where, how, and in what manner. At the time of its enactment, the traditional possession of weapons by individuals, particularly for personal and family security, the increasing tendency for those with weapons to maintain social order, and the resulting fear and insecurity that prevented women and children from fully integrating into society were decisive factors in the implementation of this law. Over the past seventy years, the text of the law has been amended and supplemented numerous times to maintain its effectiveness amidst constantly evolving social structures, technology, and needs. The most recent amendment in 2024 expanded the scope of the law. Essentially, the law outlines how and under what conditions weapons and similar tools, which should only be held by individuals authorized by the state, can be transferred to civilians under strict conditions and state control, and specifies the limits of such transfers.

 

1. Section: Scope of Law No. 6136

The scope of each crime, the legal value it protects, and the legal nature of the crime are specified in the Turkish Penal Code. Accordingly, Law No. 6136 covers not only firearms or ammunition and knives, but also, according to current regulations, parts of firearms such as barrels, slides, bodies, frames, cylinders, mechanism heads, extractors, claws, and firing pins, which are considered to have ballistic significance, within the scope of Article 13 of Law No. 6136. Furthermore, firearms that were originally capable of firing sound or gas cartridges but have been technically modified to qualify as firearms subject to the provisions of Law No. 6136 may also give rise to criminal liability within this scope. The "importation," "manufacturing," "sale," "purchase," "transportation," or "possession" of such weapons and their parts into Türkiye are subject to criminal provisions. The concept of a weapon in the text of the law refers to anything that can kill, injure, incapacitate, or sicken living beings from a distance or close range; These are licensed tools used to dismember or destroy inanimate objects. Knives and all types of firearms and non-firearms used solely for assault purposes, excluding the concept of weapons, fall under the scope of this law (such as daggers, knives, bayonets, spiked canes, switchblade knives, machetes, swords, clubs, whips with knobs, strangling wires or chains). The law primarily aims to protect public safety, public order, social peace, and welfare. The legislator has stated that unlicensed armament, beyond the control of the state, poses a great danger to these values ​​and, with technological advancements, destroys them. The legal nature of the crimes included in the text of the law is that they are crimes of abstract danger. That is, the occurrence of harm is not required for these crimes. Possession or carrying of weapons without permission or license is considered a crime because it inherently endangers public interest. Therefore, for example, the act of the perpetrator carrying an unlicensed handgun in their bag or keeping it in their home constitutes the crime immediately, without the need for any other action.

The most flexible part of Law No. 6136 consists of everyday objects whose primary purpose is not solely to carry out an attack or defense, but which, by their very nature, are highly susceptible to becoming instruments of attack. Kitchen knives, bread knives, scalpels, axes, chisels, screwdrivers, wrenches, crowbars, or baseball bats fall into this category. Since these tools are part of legitimate social and economic life, merely possessing them does not constitute a crime. However, the manner in which these tools are carried, the place where they are carried, and the specific circumstances at the time of carrying them may bring them within the scope of Law No. 6136. For these tools to be considered legitimate, they must be used in a "temporarily appropriate place" due to a "functional link and professional need" related to the profession or trade being practiced, and "without the intention of attack" (the Supreme Court also takes this into consideration). Also related to this, the law stipulates that pistols, hunting or sporting firearms and knives, given as gifts to the individuals mentioned in the text (the President of the Republic of Turkey, the Prime Minister, and the Chief of General Staff, or heads of state or government of foreign countries, members of government, chiefs of general staff, force commanders, or heads of institutions or organizations authorized on behalf of their governments) and duly documented, will be accepted and registered in the inventory. Furthermore, according to the eleventh article of the law, the possession and possession of firearms and knives that are considered souvenirs or antiques are permitted.

 

     Section 2: The Difference Between Unlicensed Weapon Carrying and Possession and the Requirements for Carrying and Possession Licenses under Law No. 6136

The majority of criminal cases opened under Law No. 6136 focus on two main types of offenses: "Possession of an Unlicensed Weapon" and "Carrying an Unlicensed Weapon". The legislator has foreseen two types of licenses within this scope:

A) Firearms Possession Permit

The legislator defines "possession" of a firearm as the act of owning it only at the address registered in the population registry (residence or workplace), with the condition that the firearm will not be taken to any other location. Therefore, if a person wishes to move the firearm to another location, they must obtain permission. This permit only allows the person to possess the firearm at the specified address. This permit is valid for 5 years, and the fee is 60,147.00 TL.

B) Firearms Carrying Permit

The legislator has not set a spatial limit for the act of "carrying" a firearm. Within this scope, a person can use their weapon in any public place, whether on their person or under their control. This license grants the individual broader authority than a possession license; they can carry their weapon with them. The validity period of this license is 5 years, like a possession license, and the fee is 187,941.00 TL.

 

     Chapter 3: Examples of Supreme Court Jurisprudence Regarding Law No. 6136

 

–Carrying a handgun without a magazine does not prevent the commission of a crime

The court erred in issuing an acquittal instead of a conviction, without considering that the defendant's act of carrying his licensed firearm to a wedding venue constitutes the crime defined in Article 13/1 of Law No. 6136, and that carrying the firearm without a magazine does not prevent the crime from being committed. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Criminal Chamber, April 10, 2002, Case No. 2001/15958, Decision No. 2002/4877)

–Inherited handguns

Given that the defendant claimed the weapon in question was registered in his father's name and inherited by him upon his father's death, and that the weapon was 100 years old and antique, while the expert report stated that it was a German-made Mauser brand weapon; In accordance with Article 59 of Regulation No. 91/1779, published in the Official Gazette on June 1, 1991, which came into force on the same date, an opinion should have been obtained from the General Directorate of Security Criminal Police Laboratory regarding whether the weapon was of antique value, and the legal status of the defendant should have been determined according to the result, taking into account Article 11 of Law No. 6136. Furthermore, without considering Article 18 of the Regulation on Firearms, Knives and Other Instruments, which states that in the event of the death of a person to whom a carrying or possession license has been issued, the weapon belonging to that person shall be transferred to one of the heirs with the consent of all heirs, provided there is no legal impediment, and if the heirs cannot reach an agreement, the governor shall temporarily license the weapon in the name of one of the heirs until a court decision is made on the matter, the license file for the weapon in question should have been obtained, and it should have been investigated whether any notification was given to the defendant, who possessed the pistol in his home, to renew the weapon's license. While a decision should be made based on the outcome, it is erroneous to issue a written conviction and confiscation order based on insufficient investigation. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Criminal Chamber, 17/09/2014, Case No. 2014/8326, Decision No. 2014/20079)

–Insufficient research should be conducted

In the specific case; during a search conducted on suspicion, a gun and ammunition were found in a bag in the trunk of the car used by the defendant. The defendant claimed that the car belonged to him, that he had temporarily given it to a friend, and that the gun belonged to him. H.Ö., who was convicted of assuming responsibility for the crime, stated that the gun belonged to him. The court accepted that the gun in question belonged to the defendant, who was the driver of the vehicle, and that H.Ö., who was not in the vehicle and was not the owner, falsely stated at the police station that the gun belonged to him and assumed responsibility for the crime. Therefore, the defendant was convicted of "acting contrary to Law No. 6136 and inciting the assumption of responsibility for a crime," and H.Ö. was convicted of "assuming responsibility for a crime." In his statement taken at the police station, he stated that "when asked about the bag and the gun inside the car, he said it did not belong to him, and that he called H.Ö. on the phone and told him he was at the police station and that he should come." Despite the fact that there is no information about this in the arrest report, the police officers who prepared the report and arrested the suspect were not questioned on this matter, and their statements regarding how H.Ö. arrived at the police station were not recorded. Fingerprints on both the bag and the gun were not investigated to determine if they belonged to the suspects. The nature of the bag, whether it was keyed or coded, and how it was opened were not determined. Whether there were other items in the bag and their ownership were not determined. Therefore, the case was opened with an incomplete investigation, and after the indictment was accepted, the court rendered a judgment without addressing these deficiencies. Therefore, efforts should be made to remedy the existing deficiencies, and a decision of no prosecution should be issued against H.Ö. for violating Law No. 6136. It is erroneous to render a judgment based on an insufficient justification, citing the defendant's ownership of the vehicle, rather than ensuring that a case is opened against him for this crime and determining the defendant's legal status based on a comprehensive evaluation of all evidence. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Criminal Chamber, 26/09/2014, Case No. 2014/11398, Decision No. 2014/21021)

–Do not move the weapon to a new address without permission

In the defendant's action of transferring and keeping his licensed handgun, which he had obtained for possession at his address in Toroslar/Mersin, to his address in Mezitli/Mersin due to a change of residence, the failure to notify the authorities during the transfer should be considered an administrative procedural deficiency, and consequently, the lack of intent to violate Law No. 6136 should have been taken into account. Therefore, instead of acquitting him of the alleged crime, a written conviction was issued, which is erroneous. (Y8.CD, 10/09/2014 T, 2014/8422 E, 2014/19234 K). In the defendant's action of transferring the weapon, which he had obtained for possession at his residence, to his new home, the failure to obtain permission from the competent authorities should be considered an administrative procedural deficiency insufficient to constitute the crime. Considering that the defendant's intent to commit the crime cannot be said to exist in this case, the defendant's action should be deemed to fall under Article 13/2 of Law No. 6136. While the defendant should have been acquitted and the weapon ordered to be handed over to the administration for the procedures specified in the regulation, considering that the act of carrying an unlicensed firearm does not constitute the crime regulated in the relevant article, the written decision of conviction and confiscation is erroneous. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Criminal Chamber, 29/05/2014, Case No. 2013/12081, Decision No. 2014/13306); The defendant's action of possessing the firearm in question, which he had licensed for his residence in Şişli district, after moving his residence to Küçükçekmece district and keeping it there, does not constitute the alleged crime. The failure to obtain permission from the competent authorities during the transfer should be considered an administrative procedural deficiency. Therefore, the decision of conviction and confiscation of the firearm, whose license has expired, instead of its handover to the administration for appropriate action, based on a reasoning that does not conform to the facts and established practice, is erroneous. (Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Criminal Chamber, 10/03/2014, Case No. 2014/5674 E, Decision No. 2014/5721 K)

 

      Chapter 4: Examples of Penalties Envisaged Under Law No. 6136

-Under Article 12; those who engage in acts such as importing, manufacturing, transporting, brokering, or selling the specified weapons with imprisonment from 5 to 12 years and a judicial fine . If the crime is committed by more than one person, imprisonment from 8 to 15 years and a judicial fine . (Aggravating circumstances are foreseen under this article.)

-Under Article 13; persons who purchase, carry, or possess the aforementioned weapons or tools shall be sentenced to imprisonment for 2 to 4 years and a judicial fine . If the number of these weapons or tools is significant, the sentence shall be imprisonment for 5 to 8 years and a judicial fine .

According to the Court of Cassation, the expression "serious in terms of quantity" is exemplified in the decision of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, numbered 2021/5157 E, 2023/965 K, which states: "Given that one Mauser rifle and one switchblade knife, falling within the scope of Law No. 6136 and determined to be of a serious nature, were seized, the sentence to be given to the defendant should be determined by moving away from the lower limit.".

Again, under article 13;

possessing the weapons or tools in question at home or at work imprisonment from 1 to 3 years and a judicial fine. If the amount of ammunition or parts belonging to the weapons in question is "very small," the penalty imprisonment for up to 6 months or a judicial fine . The Supreme Court of Appeals, in its decision numbered 2023/5127 E, 2024/1417 K, gave the example of "a VZOR-70 CAL-7.65 made-in Özeçeoslovalva brand 7.65 pistol, 1 magazine and 3 loaded cartridges belonging to MKE were handed over to the police officers."

-Under Article 14; Whoever, in violation of the provisions of this Law, imports, attempts to import, or facilitates the importation into the country, or manufactures in the country, or transports or sends from one place to another, or facilitates the transportation of, knives or other tools or similar items as described in Article 4, imprisonment from 2 to 5 years and a judicial fine .

-Under Article 15; Those who sell, act as intermediaries in the sale of, purchase, transport or possess knives or other tools or similar items mentioned in Article 4 in violation of the provisions of this Law imprisonment for a period of 6 months to 1 year and a judicial fine .

 

        Chapter 5: Conclusion

In summary, Law No. 6136 is the strongest legal shield available to society against the threats posed by firearms and bladed weapons. All the articles, exceptions, and penal sanctions examined throughout this article demonstrate that the Republic of Turkey has established a legal framework for its policy against unlicensed armament and illegal possession of weapons, showing no tolerance for these crimes. Reducing crime rates and ensuring the sustainability of social security is only possible through the uncompromising implementation of the strict rules and deterrent penalties introduced by this law. Law No. 6136 is the most concrete and vital manifestation in Turkey of a preventive legal approach that aims to prevent crime from the outset, rather than merely punishing after it has been committed. Although there may be occasional shortcomings in its implementation or the need for revisions to address new types of crimes, the fundamental philosophy of the law is to protect social peace.