Pakistan’s Prohibited Bore Licensing: Constitutional Rights, Public Safety, and Selective Privilege
In Pakistan’s firearms scheme, the phrase “prohibited bore” denotes automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, and similar high-calibre weapons whose licences are issued only by the Federal Government. For many years, there was a tightly controlled, if narrow, process by which civilians could be considered for such licences, subject to strict checks. Since the Ministry of Interior’s 2017 suspension of new licences, however, that avenue has effectively been shut for ordinary citizens. What remains is a regulatory posture that offers these licences to a small circle of parliamentarians, judges, senior bureaucrats, and military officers while excluding the rest of the population.
That turn raises an immediate legal question: can the executive, by notification or administrative direction, take away a statutory route that Parliament preserved in the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, notably under Sections 11-A and 12? The Supreme Court has made clear that executive power cannot be used to undermine the statute it implements. See Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808). When administrative action directly conflicts with the enabling law, courts treat it as ultra vires.
Article 4 of the Constitution underlines this basic rule: “to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen.” A blanket suspension, applied indefinitely and without transparent, published criteria, risks falling foul of that protection. The Court’s jurisprudence repeatedly insists that executive action must be fair, reasonable, and within legal bounds, see Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416). An administrative regime that arbitrarily excludes the public from consideration for licences is difficult to reconcile with these principles.
The matter acquires greater gravity when read alongside Article 9: “no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law.” The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC........





















Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Tarik Cyril Amar
Stefano Lusa
Mort Laitner
Mark Travers Ph.d
Ellen Ginsberg Simon
Andrew Silow-Carroll