Ginklo pavojingumo sąvoka teisėje ir kriminalistikoje.

Abstract

More than ten years the Law of arms and ammunition control of Lithuania Republic (further – The Law of arms and ammunition control) regulates civil circulation of arms. Already in legal literature some attention was directed to problems that were revealed by thoughtless and scientifically unfounded arms classification and its distribution into categories in the Law of arms and ammunition control. The task of this article is to turn legal specialists’ attention to negative consequences of direct application of standards of the Law of arms and ammunition control in criminal legal procedure. The collision of conception of arms danger in the Law of arms and ammunition control and criminalistics and criminal law is analysed in the article. Attention is directed to the issue that arms classification according to the degree of arms danger isn’t unfounded and it is created violating general principles of the classification and it didn’t encompassed all objects of the classification and, in facts, didn’t reflect arms danger. Arms classification in the Law of arms and ammunition control of Lithuania Republic must be review in general systematising it on the other basis – according its purpose and, depending on the purpose, according limitations of the circulation. Only arms and ammunition specified in the European Council directives No.477 18 June 1991 must be distributed to categories. The conception of arms danger in the Law of arms and ammunition control of Lithuania Republic differs in general from the conception of arms danger in criminalistics and criminal law, so, it must be not applied directly and indirectly in criminal legal procedure. Specialists of criminal law must formulate clear conception of the arms on the base of doctrine of criminal law and realia of criminalistic research of arms.