Possession and carrying of unlicensed firearms are acts subject to serious sanctions under Law No. 6136 on Firearms, Knives and Other Instruments.

However, the seizure of an unlicensed firearm does not mean that the same legal characterization and the same penalty will apply in every case. Where the firearm was found, the nature of the firearm, the amount of ammunition, the person’s control over the firearm, and the circumstances of the incident are important in determining the applicable provision.

In particular, in cases where only ammunition is seized, the application of different paragraphs of Article 13 of Law No. 6136 may arise. The case law of the Court of Cassation also demonstrates that the legal characterization of the offense must be determined according to the circumstances of the specific case.

Is Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm a Criminal Offense?

Yes.

Pursuant to Article 13 of Law No. 6136, purchasing, carrying or possessing firearms, their ammunition and certain parts specified in the Law in violation of the provisions of the Law is subject to criminal sanctions.

However, not every case involving an unlicensed firearm is subject to the same sanction. The Law provides for different provisions depending on circumstances such as the nature and number of the firearms, the quantity of ammunition, and whether the firearm is possessed at a residence or workplace.

Therefore, in cases involving unlicensed firearms, the correct legal characterization of the conduct must first be established.

Is There a Difference Between a Firearm Found at Home, in a Vehicle or on a Person?

The distinction between possession and carrying is of great importance in cases involving unlicensed firearms.

A firearm found on a person’s body is not necessarily subject to the same legal assessment as a firearm found at a residence or workplace. Likewise, the mere fact that a firearm is found inside a vehicle does not necessarily mean that the incident must be legally characterized in the same manner.

In the specific case, the following must be assessed together:

• where the firearm was found,
• the person’s access to the firearm,
• to whom the firearm belongs,
• whether the person was aware of the existence of the firearm,
• the person’s actual control over the firearm,
• the nature and quantity of the firearm and ammunition.

This distinction may affect not only the amount of the penalty but also the applicable statutory provision and, in some cases, whether legal mechanisms such as prepayment of the penalty may apply.

Penalty for Possessing a Single Unlicensed Firearm at Home

Article 13 of Law No. 6136 provides for a lower sanction under certain conditions where a single unlicensed firearm is possessed at a residence or workplace.

Where the firearm is not one of the firearms of a particularly serious nature specified in the Law, is limited to one firearm, is accompanied by the usual quantity of ammunition, and is possessed at a residence or workplace, the third paragraph of Article 13 may apply.

Possession of a Small Quantity of Ammunition Constitutes a Separate Offense

Article 13/4 of Law No. 6136 separately regulates the possession or carrying of a very small quantity of ammunition belonging to firearms.

This provision is particularly important in cases where only ammunition is seized.

Indeed, the Court of Cassation has expressly established in various decisions how the quantity of ammunition seized should be assessed under the relevant paragraph.

Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, File No. 2022/886, Decision No. 2024/2588, dated 20 March 2024

“With regard to the act of the convicted person concerning the seizure of 9 cartridges and 1 magazine of a prohibited nature under Law No. 6136 during a search conducted in the vehicle in which the convicted person was present, it was contrary to law to impose an excessive penalty by mistakenly characterizing the offense under paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the same Law, without taking into consideration that the act fell within the scope of paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Law No. 6136.

… Since the offense provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Law No. 6136 carries a penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment and a judicial fine of up to one hundred days, it was contrary to law not to take into consideration that this offense falls within the scope of Article 75 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 and is therefore subject to prepayment.

It was also contrary to law to reject the objection, instead of accepting it, without taking into consideration that the offense regulated under paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Law No. 6136 is not among the offenses subject to the simplified trial procedure regulated under Article 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, and therefore the request for reversal in the interest of law was found justified.”

This decision demonstrates that even where 9 cartridges and 1 magazine are found in a vehicle, the conduct should not automatically be assessed under Article 13/1 of Law No. 6136.

The Quantity of Ammunition May Change the Legal Characterization of the Offense

In cases involving unlicensed firearms, not only the existence of the firearm but also the quantity of ammunition seizedmust be separately assessed.

In the following decision, the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that Article 13/4 should apply where 10 cartridges were found at the defendant’s home.

Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, File No. 2023/2075, Decision No. 2024/7594, dated 10 October 2024

“According to the established practice of our Chamber, where the number of cartridges possessed at a residence or workplace is 50 or fewer, the offense falls under paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Law No. 6136; where the number is between 51 and 250, the offense falls under paragraph 3 of the same article; and where the number is 251 or more, the offense falls under paragraph 1 of the same article. Accordingly, considering that 10 cartridges were seized during the search conducted at the convicted person’s home, it was contrary to law to impose an excessive penalty under paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the same Law, without taking into consideration that the alleged offense fell within the scope of paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Law No. 6136.

As an alternative consideration, following the amendment to Article 75 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 introduced by Article 12 of Law No. 6763, which entered into force on 2 December 2016, the offense of carrying or possessing a very small number of cartridges, to which the defendant’s conduct corresponded, was brought within the scope of prepayment under paragraph 4 of Article 13 of Law No. 6136. Accordingly, it was necessary to reassess the defendant’s legal status, and the request for reversal in the interest of law was therefore found justified.”

Therefore, in cases involving only ammunition, the number of cartridges must always be separately assessed.

Is Acquittal Possible in an Unlicensed Firearm Case?

Yes.

The mere seizure of an unlicensed firearm or ammunition is not, by itself, sufficient for a conviction. In criminal proceedings, a conviction requires the offense to have been established through evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt, with clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant committed the offense.

In particular, where there is doubt as to whether the firearm belongs to the defendant or whether the defendant knew the nature of the firearm, the Court of Cassation has issued decisions resulting in acquittal.

Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, File No. 2019/12968, Decision No. 2019/10861, dated 18 September 2019

“Considering the circumstances and the entire case file, the defendant’s consistent statements throughout the proceedings that there was no firearm involved in the incident, the inspection report dated 5 November 2012, the absence of any empty cartridge case at the scene, the absence of any criminal element during the workplace search conducted on 6 November 2012, and the seizure of 200 9 mm Parabellum cartridges during the home search conducted on 6 November 2012, although no charge concerning the seized cartridges was included in the indictment …

Although no unlicensed firearm was seized, the trial court erred in its reasoning by stating that the unlicensed firearm seized at the scene belonged to the defendant … It was understood that no firearm had been seized and that no properly instituted prosecution had been brought in respect of the cartridges. Accordingly, since there was no evidence sufficient to convict the defendant—beyond any reasonable doubt and contrary to the defendant’s defense—that he had committed the alleged offense, it was contrary to law to convict the defendant instead of acquitting him.”

This decision demonstrates, in particular, that a conviction cannot be based on an item that was not included as an allegation in the indictment and that a conviction requires sufficient, clear and convincing evidence.

It Must Be Clearly Established Whether the Firearm Falls Within the Scope of Law No. 6136

Another important issue in cases involving unlicensed firearms is whether the seized firearm actually constitutes a prohibited firearm within the scope of Law No. 6136.

Particularly with regard to blank-firing guns, the technical characteristics of the firearm and whether it has been modified may be significant.

The Court of Cassation has overturned convictions where the defendant’s defense concerning the nature of the firearm could not be disproved by conclusive evidence.

Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, File No. 2018/4383, Decision No. 2020/13116, dated 10 June 2020

“Considering the entire case file, during the lawful search conducted at the defendant’s residence, two firearms were seized. According to the Criminalistics Examination Report contained in the case file; one firearm was outside the scope of Law No. 6136 because it could not discharge cartridges of the appropriate caliber and type due to the absence of its firing pin and spring and the magazine being jammed, while the other was a blank-firing gun capable of firing 9 mm firearm cartridges and specially modified cartridges due to the removal of the gas separator inside its barrel. Considering that no specially modified cartridges were found, that the defendant consistently stated throughout the proceedings that the firearm in question was a blank-firing gun, and that the defendant submitted a purchase document, there was no evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, concrete, certain and convincing evidence demonstrating, contrary to the defense, that the defendant knowingly possessed and used the firearm in question in terms of its characteristics. Therefore, it was contrary to law to convict the defendant instead of acquitting him of the offense of violating Law No. 6136.”

It Must Be Proven That the Defendant Knew the Nature of the Firearm

In cases involving unlicensed firearms, not only whether the firearm technically falls within the scope of Law No. 6136, but also, depending on the circumstances of the specific case, the defendant’s knowledge and intent regarding the nature of the firearm are important.

The following decision of the 8th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation is also noteworthy in this regard.

Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, File No. 2016/4180, Decision No. 2017/1555

“Considering that the blank-firing gun seized at the defendant’s residence was deemed appropriate to be considered within the scope of Law No. 6136 in its existing condition, that the manufacturer stated that it had not manufactured any blank-firing gun model beginning with the serial number of the firearm in question, that the relevant authority stated that it had no records concerning the firearm in question, and that no modified ball ammunition was found in the defendant’s possession, and in light of the defendant’s consistent defense throughout the proceedings that the firearm in question was a blank-firing gun, there was no evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, certain and convincing evidence demonstrating, contrary to the defendant’s defense, that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm in terms of its characteristics. Therefore, it was contrary to law to convict the defendant instead of acquitting him.”

Can the Penalty Increase if the Unlicensed Firearm Is of a Particularly Serious Nature?

Article 13 of Law No. 6136 also provides for more severe sanctions in certain circumstances.

Where the firearm is of a type specified in Article 12/4 of the Law, or where the firearm, ammunition or parts covered by the Law are of a serious nature in terms of quantity or characteristics, a more severe sanction may apply.

Therefore, a finding merely stating “a firearm was found” is not sufficient in an investigation file.

The following must also be assessed:

• technical characteristics,
• number of firearms,
• quantity of ammunition,
• nature of the ammunition,
• whether the firearm falls within the scope of Article 12/4 of the Law.

Does a Firearm Being Defective Prevent the Offense of Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm?

What is important here is not simply whether the firearm has a minor mechanical defect, but rather whether it is capable, in its existing condition, of firing firearm cartridges.

Court of Cassation, 8th Criminal Chamber, File No. 2011/11816, Decision No. 2012/23653, dated 5 July 2012

“According to the report of the Criminal Police Laboratory dated 1 May 2007 and numbered 2007/978, the tip of the hammer had broken and had subsequently been welded, but the broken part had not been centrally welded in its place. Therefore, the hammer could not strike the cartridge centrally and could not fire cartridges of the appropriate caliber and type. It was understood that the unlicensed firearm in question could acquire the status of a firearm under Law No. 6136 only if its defect were remedied through substantial and tool-assisted intervention by a gunsmith. Accordingly, it should have been taken into consideration that the defendant could not be convicted of carrying an unlicensed handgun, but could be convicted under Article 13/4 of Law No. 6136 for carrying 7 intact cartridges. Instead, due to an erroneous characterization of the offense, the defendant was convicted under paragraph 1 of the said article.”

“… It was contrary to law … and therefore the judgment was REVERSED pursuant to Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, as applicable under Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320. Unanimously decided on 5 July 2012.”

The decision concerns a case before the Mersin 4th Magistrates’ Court. The subject of the case directly concerns carrying an unlicensed handgun and a substantial defect in the firearm.

Important Amendments to Law No. 6136 in 2024

Significant amendments were made to Article 13 of Law No. 6136 in 2024. Therefore, the date of the offense is particularly important in cases involving unlicensed firearms. There are differences in the amount of penalties between the provisions previously in force and the provisions currently applicable.

Subject	Regulation before 30 November 2024	After 30 November 2024
General Art. 13/1	1–3 years + 30–100 days	2–4 years + 100–500 days
Residence/workplace Art. 13/3	1–2 years + 25–100 days	1–3 years + 100–500 days
Very small quantity of ammunition Art. 13/4	Up to 6 months + 30–100 days	Up to 6 months + 30–500 days
Main/ballistically significant parts	Not expressly included in the scope	Expressly included in the scope
Converted blank-firing gun	Not specifically regulated in this manner	Expressly regulated under Article 13
Certain license/license-renewal violations	Criminal regime	Administrative fine of TRY 10,000–25,000
Carrying without a transport permit	No specific administrative sanction	Administrative fine of TRY 10,000–25,000
Authority imposing the administrative fine	—	Provincial/district administrative authority

In 2026, a bill proposing amendments to Law No. 6136 was submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye. The bill dated 22 April 2026 and numbered 2/3654 aims to restrict excessive multiple firearm ownership. However, as of 11 August 2026, the status of the bill in the records of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye is “Pending before the Commission.” Therefore, the bill does not yet constitute an amendment to the law applicable under the law currently in force.

The Search Procedure Must Also Be Examined in Cases Involving Unlicensed Firearms

In cases involving unlicensed firearms, the defense should not focus solely on the nature and quantity of the firearm. The circumstances under which the firearm was seized are also important.

The following should be examined:

• whether there was a search warrant,
• the scope of the search,
• whether the search was conducted lawfully,
• whether the seizure procedure was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedure,
• whether the evidence obtained during the search was lawfully obtained.

These matters must also be assessed separately.

Conclusion

In cases involving the possession and carrying of unlicensed firearms, the mere fact that a firearm has been seized does not, by itself, determine the legal outcome of the case.

Where the firearm was found, who had control over it, its technical characteristics, the quantity of ammunition, the date of the offense, and the other circumstances of the specific case must be assessed together.

In particular, the established practice of the Court of Cassation demonstrates that the possession of a very small quantity of ammunition may require a separate legal assessment and that the legal characterization of the offense must be determined accordingly.

Furthermore, where it cannot be conclusively established that the firearm belongs to the defendant or that the defendant knew the nature of the firearm, there are Court of Cassation decisions holding that acquittal, rather than conviction, should be entered.

Accordingly, persons facing an investigation or prosecution for an unlicensed firearm should have their case assessed as a whole, not merely on the basis of the seized firearm, but also with regard to the search procedure, evidence, nature of the firearm, quantity, ownership, intent, legal characterization of the offense, and the applicable statutory provision.

In cases involving unlicensed firearms, correctly determining the legal characterization of the offense is decisive in identifying the applicable sanction and the provisions that may produce a favorable outcome for the defendant.