Rosgvardeytsy missed the practical arrows

The Arbitration Court of the Urals District made a precedent-setting decision on a dispute between Perm-based Shooting Training Center LLC with the National Guard and the Federation of Practical Shooting of Russia (FPSR). In September last year, the control body annulled the center’s permits for the storage and use of weapons, as well as cartridges for them. The decision was motivated by the fact that the LLC did not have a cooperation agreement with the FPSR. The cassation considered that the decision of the National Guard was illegal, since the regulations do not oblige such sports clubs to conclude agreements with the federation in order to receive it. Athletes say that the problem of revoking permits on this basis is typical for many regions. According to experts, this practice was aimed at forcing sports clubs to join the FPSR. The decision of the cassation will bring the situation into a legal direction.

Permits for the storage and use of weapons from the Shooting Training Center LLC were canceled on September 24 last year. The corresponding decision was made by officials of the Department of the Federal Service of the National Guard Troops in the Perm Territory. It was motivated by the fact that shortly before that, the CSP had terminated the cooperation agreement with the Federation of Practical Shooting of Russia. This document, in the opinion of the administration and the FPSR, confirms the status of the center as a sports organization, as well as the norms for providing weapons and ammunition to athletes who are engaged in practical shooting. As a result, weapons and ammunition were confiscated from the organization.

The CSP unsuccessfully tried to appeal the decision of the Russian Guard to the Arbitration Court of the Perm Territory, and then to the appellate instance. The applicant pointed out that the LLC has the status of a sports organization based on the charter of the company, therefore no confirmation of this fact through agreements with the federation is required. At the same time, neither in the legislation, nor in the rules for the circulation of civilian and service weapons, there are references that an agreement with any public organization is required to purchase them. In addition, the norms for the provision of weapons to legal entities are established not by the Practical Shooting Federation, but by the National Guard. Cancellation of a permit for the storage and use of weapons is possible only in cases strictly defined by law.

The courts of first instance and appellate instances rejected the claims. They agreed with the opinion of the control body and the FPSR that organizations involved in the development of the sport of “practical shooting” should use the standards for the provision of weapons and ammunition, which were developed by the federation. This right arises on the basis of an agreement with the FPSR. Upon its termination, the TsSP lost the right to use the norms, which means that permits for the storage and use of weapons are subject to cancellation.

The Arbitration Court of the Urals District did not agree with such conclusions. From his decision it follows that the Russian Guard and the Federation of practical shooting incorrectly interpret the norms of the law. The judicial act states that the status of a physical culture and sports organization is acquired on the basis of its statutory tasks, and not after the conclusion of an agreement with the federation. Thus, no agreements with the FPSR or other public organizations are required to obtain a weapons permit. The requirements of the regulatory authorities to conclude such agreements, as the court considered, actually limit the legal capacity of sports clubs. The cassation also pointed out that the standards for the provision of weapons, which are developed for the sport of “practical shooting”, apply exclusively to athletes, and not to clubs or other persons.

Members of practical shooting clubs interviewed by Kommersant-Prikamye consider the ruling of the cassation court to be a precedent. According to them, sports organizations in many regions of the country face the problem of obtaining permits and their cancellation due to lack of contracts. “People from the central zone and from the Far East complain about this situation,” says one of the interlocutors of Kommersant-Prikamye. “As far as I know, the agreements with the federation are paid. Also, their conditions impose unfeasible requirements for shooting ranges and shooting galleries. As soon as the club terminates the contract with the FPSR, the National Guard is informed about this and it almost immediately loses its weapons permit.”

The head of the Logard Lawyers Group, Sergei Kolosovsky, called the court’s decision “very interesting and correct.” According to him, the maximum standards for the provision of weapons for individuals, private security companies and educational organizations are established by the Federal Law “On Weapons”, a government decree and an order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. “And only in relation to sports organizations, they were not established by any normative act, but were indicated in an agreement between the National Guard and a certain shooting federation. This situation served as a tool for forcing sports clubs to join this federation,” the expert is convinced. According to him, no one has previously managed to make decisions to revoke permits based on the absence of an agreement with the FPSR illegal. “Thus, the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District creates an important precedent, which the shooters and gunsmiths accepted with great joy. The judicial act is well motivated, based on the law and can serve as a template for all subsequent decisions on this issue,” says Mr. Kolosovsky. At the same time, the expert notes that sports clubs whose permits have already been revoked will not be able to automatically demand their return in court, referring to the decision of the district court: “There is no case law in Russia, so this decision will rather bring the situation into a legal direction and stop the illegal withdrawal of permits for the possession of weapons.

Dmitry Astakhov, Perm