Cite this article as:

Latyshov I. V. Current Issues of the Criminalistic Classification of the Self-made Firearms. Izv. Saratov Univ., Economics. Management. Law, 2020, vol. 20, iss. 2, pp. 174-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18500/1994-2540-2020-20-2-174-180


This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Heading: 
UDC: 
343.983.22
Language: 
Russian

Current Issues of the Criminalistic Classification of the Self-made Firearms

Introduction. The development of small weapon and structurally similar products, their use for criminal purposes force forensic science and practice to make adjustments to the forensic classification system of firearms over and over again. Theoretical analysis. In forensic ballistics, firearms are classified according to their purpose, type, method of production, barrel length, barrel channel device, number of barrels, etc. By the method of manufacture, groups of factory, artisanal and improvised firearms are distinguished. At the same time, the system of signs developed by science for the self-made manufacturing method is not effective for all cases of expert research. It is the expert practice that gives the reasons for this statement. Empirical analysis. The paper examines the practice of expert research into submachine guns, that are structurally similar to the 9 mm K6-92 submachine gun (Armenia) and are manufactured as part of criminal arms production, as well as Strelkov submachine guns chambered for 9–18 mm. Individual items had the corresponding weapon attributes (hallmarks, number designations, etc.). The weapon production format, assessed as home-made, is characterized by the choice of simple design schemes, the operation of automation, the prevalence of a cartridge sample, simple manufacturing and assembly techniques, and low quality weapons. Discussion of results. The author proposes introduction of a public law attribute to the system of evaluation criteria of a method for producing firearms – its legitimacy. Its application creates the conditions for covering all cases of the production of firearms known to science and practice, the correct assessment of its method of manufacture, and the selection of an appropriate expert methodology for resolving issues related to classifying an object as a firearm. Conclution. Taking into account the results of the study, there are reasons for supplementing the varieties of improvised firearms known to forensic ballistics with a group of weapons manufactured in industrial plants that are not legalized by central government members. 

References: 
  1. Akhanov V. S. Kriminalisticheskaya ekspertiza ognestrel’nogo oruzhiya i sledov ego primeneniya [Forensic examination of firearms and traces of their use]. Volgograd, VSSh MVD SSSR, 1979. 232 p. (in Russian).
  2. On weapons. Federal Law of 13.12.1996 no. 150-FZ. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF [Collection of Laws of the Russian Federation], 1996, no. 51, art. 5681 (in Russian).
  3. On approval of forensic requirements for technical characteristics of civil and service weapons, as well as ammunition. Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia of 30.06.2017 no. 429. Available at: http://ivo.garant.ru/#/document/71768382/paragraph/1:0 (accessed 23 July 2019) (in Russian).
  4. Stalmakhov A.V., Sumaroka A. M., Egorov A. G., Sukharev A. G. Sudebnaya ballistika i sudebno-ballisticheskaia ekspertiza [Forensic ballistics and forensic ballistic examination]. Saratov, SYuI MVD Rossii, 1998. 176 p. (in Russian).
  5. Kokin A. V., Yarmak K. V. Sudebnaya ballistika i sudebnoballisticheskaya ekspertiza [Forensic ballistics and forensic ballistic examination]. Moscow, Yuniti-Dana: Zakon i pravo Publ., 2015. 350 p. (in Russian).
  6. Latyshov I. V. Oruzhie, patrony i sledy ikh deystviya kak ob#ekty diagnosticheskikh sudebno-ballisticheskikh ekspertnykh issledovaniy (teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty) [Weapons, ammunition and traces of their action as objects of diagnostic forensic ballistic expert research (theoretical and applied aspects)]. Moscow, Yurlitinform, 2015. 304 p. (in Russian).
  7. Latyshov I. V., Nikitin I. I., Chulkov I. A. Strelkovoe ognestrel’noe oruzhie i ego sledy na pulyakh, gil’zakh i pregradakh. Chast’ obschaya [Small arms and their traces on bullets, sleeves and barriers. General part]. Volgograd, VA MVD Rossii, 2011. 116 p. (in Russian).
  8. Avetisyan V. R. Firearms manufactured by the Republic of Armenia. Teoriya i praktika sudebnoi ekspertizy [Theory and practice of forensic examination], 2009, no. 2 (14), pp. 168–176 (in Russian).
  9. Martin M. Artisanal “Bors”. Soldier of fortune, 1995, no. 8 (11), pp. 56–57 (in Russian).
  10. Metodika ustanovleniya prinadlezhnosti ob#ekta k ognestrel’nomu oruzhiyu [Method of finding out that the object belongs to fi rearms]. Moscow, GU EKTs MVD Rossii, 2000. 12 p. (in Russian).
  11. V. A. Ruchkin, I. A. Chulkova, eds. Kriminalisticheskaya ekspertiza oruzhiya i sledov ego primeneniya. Ch. 1 [Forensic examination of weapons and traces of their use. Part 1]. Volgograd, VA MVD Rossii, 2004. 316 p. (in Russian).
Full Text (PDF): 
Status: 
опубликована