It is citizen's Right to obtain arms license

We need guns to make politicians and babus do their work without bribes! rofl.

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights." - H.L. Mencken

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”~George Washington

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen’s firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99.99% of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour.”-George Washington

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."- Dalai Lama

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."- George Orwell

‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’— Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

‘‘To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...’’— Richard Henry Lee, 1787

‘‘The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.’’— Saint George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court 1803

‘‘Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial ... the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding’’— U. S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

Democratic Indian: Great quotes! thanks for sharing

Uma ji, every sufferer citizen can understand your anger and it is the reason behind nuxal movement.  But to how many you can shoot?  Please start with your "KALAM" (PEN) that can change the world, i believe.  

All the dictator RAJAs, MAHARAJAs, TALWARBAAZs are defeated by the "KALAM" (PEN) of  the great founder of the world's greatest democratic constitution ever great vishwa vandaniya param pujya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.  It is now duty of every democrat citizen of democratic India to work for implementation of democracy and defeat the dictators.

Recently I came to know that some guidelines has been issued by the home ministry in this aspect.  I think I read in the news papers  only if the men has possible threat to life and property and only at the recommendation of the concerned police personnels of jurisdiction the Arms lice will be issued.  Otherwise no other individual or ordinary persons will not get licence.  In some High court there several cases has been filed to direct the executive  to issue or consider the gun licence by the affected persons.

That MHA order sent to all Home Secretaries of all States and Union territories is illegal and unconstitional in plain contravention to Arms Act. MHA wanted to subvert the Arms Act and fundamental rights of citizens by cleverly moving Arms Amendment Bill 2010, but this has been sent to joint parliamentary committe due to the efforts of National Association of Gun Rights India(https://www.gunowners.in). Since people do not know that getting arms license is their right, but not a matter of  some "threat" or "need" they unnecessaily put themselves at the mercy of bureacrats.

The SP or COLLECTOR or DRO/ RDO and down upto the tahsildar, do not have a real knowledge or interpretation of the Arms Act 1962 and Arms Rules 1962, the circulars and latest notifications. Further they think that every arms license holder is either a criminal or a big shot who has all the MONEY AND TIME and does not have any other work except this. Rifle club members are looked upon as the some RICH AND NO OTHER WORK GUYS, who have come to show off their might.

The police inspector / sub inspector / DSP , will always look at you on a sarcstic note and tell you firstly that it is not possible to RECOMEND your case and expect you to beg like a criminal caught redhanded and plead at their feet and tell you that that will SEE INTO THE MATTER and do it. All these people except the sub inspector have no legal role in sending the report about you.What the sub inspector / station house officer ONLY has to do is search for any criminal records on you and convey it to the lisensing authority, through the SP AND DM

If you want to know about your rights, a detailed analyses of Arms Act 1959, Arms Rules 1962 in relation to the fundamental rights of Self Defense and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms guaranteed in Constitution is available at https://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11595&start=15

If you want to know the glaring logical flaws in Arms Act 1959 which cause never ending hardships to genuine license applicants please read the following:

Usually the Licensing authority will not give any reasons and keep the file pending indefinitely due to following reasons:

1) As desired by Section 13 of Arms Act 1959 there is no time frame for issue of arms license if they do not find "any" reasons to deny under Section 14.

2) As desired by Section 14 of Arms Act 1959 they have full discretion to deny for "any" reasons, hence they keep on searching for "any" reasons to deny indefinitely in "good faith"(as allowed to them by Section 40) as there is no time frame for issue of arms license in Section 13.

3) As desired by Section 40 of Arms Act 1959 they are completely protected from any court case against them for doing "anything" in "good faith"(which they always try to do under Section 14) under Arms Act 1959.

Because of this people are compelled to approach High Court to get writ issued. When asked by court the lawyer for Licensing Authority says to court that the applicant has unnecessarily approached court.(because they have indefinite mutual help of Section 13, 14 and 40 as explained by me above) Court cannot do anything more than directing the licensing authority to issue license in next 3-4 months. This is the game of vicious circle of Section 13, 14 and 40 continuously goes on with almost every applicant. I am enclosing among such plenty of writ petitions with this post.

Reference: https://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=504&p=118753#p118753

Thanks a million for a valueable information.

But as per which section of the arms act & as per which artilce of indian consitution , 1949 says that Athe citizen a right to obtain an arms licence for protection of his person or property.  ?

1) Pls provide me the section as per the arms act.

2) As it is not a fundamental righ which artilce of indian consitution says thatthe citizen of india can hold a arms license.

Pls if more infor on the above mntiond topic.  eveing things regarding arms act in detail if any notes or artilces pls.

"1) Pls provide me the section as per the arms act."

Answer: i) Arms Act 1959, Section 13 (3) mandates to the Licensing Authourity to "shall" grant license:

"The licensing authority shall grant:-

(a) a licence under Section 3 where the licence is required –

(i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection:"

ii) Whenever a Bill is presented in Parliament to make it into a law, in the begining of that Bill there are objects and reasons that Bill seeks to achieve. If you read the Objects of The Indian Arms (Amendment) Bill (No.49 of 1953) which became Arms Act 1959, one of the objects says:

"(ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege;"

Another object says:

"(c) to co-ordinate the rights of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country;"

In the above objective what rights the Bill seek to co-ordinate? Surely not freedom of Speech with freedom of Expression? Nothing but Fundamental Rights of Self Defense and Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

iii) If you read on page 10 of the judgment of AP High Court that I have attached in my first post of this thread, you will find court says:

"The above discussed provisions of the Act, construed in the light of its Objects and Reasons, would  unmistakably indicate that the legislation has conferred on the citizen a right to obtain an arms licence for protection of his person or property."

"2) As it is not a fundamental righ which artilce of indian consitution says thatthe citizen of india can hold a arms license."

Answer: It would be very wrong to say it is not a fundamental right. As per Article 19 and 21 arms are a fundamental right of citizens.

If we read Article 19(1)(b) let us see the use of "and" in Article 19(1)(b)? It says:

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

If we remove "and" does it not make the meaning more simple and straightforward? It would look like:

(b)to assemble peaceably without arms;

Moreover if arms is not a fundamental right, then why even mention about arms in a provision that is used for guaranteeing the fundamental rights, when there is already a separate provision in Article 19(1)(3) to put restrictions on Article 19(1)(b)?

Let us have a look at some more similar Articles within Article 19(1). Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(e). They say:

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;

Do we see the logic behind use of "and" now? "and" is being used to join two rights. Article 19(1)(b) is not taking away any right by saying "without arms". It is merely saying that Constitution is taking the burden on itself on behalf of the citizens to guarantee them freedom to assemble peaceably if they exercise this freedom, without another freedom for arms. In other words the Constitution is clearly acknowledging existing of both the freedoms if exercised separately from each other. Otherwise the question of using "and" to join and then excluding by saying "without arms" does not arise if arms are not a fundamental right under Part III of Constitution.

If you read my second post in this thread, I have already provided the link for detailed discussion about the matter. Moreover National Association of Gun Rights India has been formed by people from all walks of life to fight for this sacred right of people that has been guaranteed by our Constitution.

NAGRI met the Home Commitee of Rajya Sabha to make a presentation before it(https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Report-on-meeting-with-the-House-Standing-Committee-of-Parli-33327.asp

NAGRI has also commissioned a short film to educate the people about importance of this sacred right of people(https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Guns-for-Peace-33294.asp)

Thanks A Million Sirji With Do Respect.

Dear,

Here , I would like to clear some clauses of Section 14 of the Arms Act , 1959 which are as under,

First , Section 14 Starts with non-obstanate clause stating that "notwithstanding any thing in Section 13" . It means when licensing authority will  exercise his power to refuse the Grant of Arm License under Section 14, he will not consider any ground from Section 13 as the Section 14 has overriding effect over the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.

 Hon.ble Supreme Court has held in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 in  the case of State of Bihar & others V/S Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M.& others that “ A non-obstanate clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part of the Section , in case of conflict , an  overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstanate clause. It is equivalent to saying that inspite of the provisions of the Act mentioned in the non-obstanate clause , the provisions following it will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non-obstanate clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provisions in which the non-obstanate clause ocours”.

Therefore , it is clear that the licensing authority can not reject the application of arm license in absence of a “good reason” as provided under Section 13 (3) (b).  

Secondly, I would like to elaborate the sub-clause of Section 14 (1) (b) (3) which reads as under ,

“to be for any reason unfit for a license under this Act ; or”.

It means licensing authority can not deny the grant of arm license to a person “for any reason unfit”. Reason must be under this Act. In this clause , there is most important word is “under this Act” . and that reason is mentioned under Section 9 of the Arms Act.

Therefore , it is also clear from the above provisions that licensing authority can not consider any other grounds when positive exhaustive grounds are mentioned .

Hear , I would also like to clear that licensing authority is not law enacting authority , He is an authority to act in accordance to law. He is not suppose to step in the shoe of Parliament.

A constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a wordings of a statute is clear & unambiguous then it is not open to court to add , subtract or read some thing else which is not mentioned under the statute.

J.P.Chaturvedi  

Dear,

Here , I would like to clear some clauses of Section 14 of the Arms Act , 1959 which are as under,

First , Section 14 Starts with non-obstanate clause stating that "notwithstanding any thing in Section 13" . It means when licensing authority will  exercise his power to refuse the Grant of Arm License under Section 14, he will not consider any ground from Section 13 as the Section 14 has overriding effect over the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.

 Hon.ble Supreme Court has held in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 in  the case of State of Bihar & others V/S Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M.& others that “ A non-obstanate clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part of the Section , in case of conflict , an  overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstanate clause. It is equivalent to saying that inspite of the provisions of the Act mentioned in the non-obstanate clause , the provisions following it will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non-obstanate clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provisions in which the non-obstanate clause ocours”.

Therefore , it is clear that the licensing authority can not reject the application of arm license in absence of a “good reason” as provided under Section 13 (3) (b).  

Secondly, I would like to elaborate the sub-clause of Section 14 (1) (b) (3) which reads as under ,

“to be for any reason unfit for a license under this Act ; or”.

It means licensing authority can not deny the grant of arm license to a person “for any reason unfit”. Reason must be under this Act. In this clause , there is most important word is “under this Act” . and that reason is mentioned under Section 9 of the Arms Act.

Therefore , it is also clear from the above provisions that licensing authority can not consider any other grounds when positive exhaustive grounds are mentioned .

Hear , I would also like to clear that licensing authority is not law enacting authority , He is an authority to act in accordance to law. He is not suppose to step in the shoe of Parliament.

A constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a wordings of a statute is clear & unambiguous then it is not open to court to add , subtract or read some thing else which is not mentioned under the statute.

J.P.Chaturvedi  

Here , I would like to clear some clauses of Section 14 of the Arms Act , 1959 which are as under,

First , Section 14 Starts with non-obstanate clause stating that "notwithstanding any thing in Section 13" . It means when licensing authority will  exercise his power to refuse the Grant of Arm License under Section 14, he will not consider any ground from Section 13 as the Section 14 has overriding effect over the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.

 Hon.ble Supreme Court has held in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 in  the case of State of Bihar & others V/S Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M.& others that “ A non-obstanate clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part of the Section , in case of conflict , an  overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstanate clause. It is equivalent to saying that inspite of the provisions of the Act mentioned in the non-obstanate clause , the provisions following it will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non-obstanate clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provisions in which the non-obstanate clause ocours”.

Therefore , it is clear that the licensing authority can not reject the application of arm license in absence of a “good reason” as provided under Section 13 (3) (b).  

Secondly, I would like to elaborate the sub-clause of Section 14 (1) (b) (3) which reads as under ,

“to be for any reason unfit for a license under this Act ; or”.

It means licensing authority can not deny the grant of arm license to a person “for any reason unfit”. Reason must be under this Act. In this clause , there is most important word is “under this Act” . and that reason is mentioned under Section 9 of the Arms Act.

Therefore , it is also clear from the above provisions that licensing authority can not consider any other grounds when positive exhaustive grounds are mentioned .

Hear , I would also like to clear that licensing authority is not law enacting authority , He is an authority to act in accordance to law. He is not suppose to step in the shoe of Parliament.

A constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a wordings of a statute is clear & unambiguous then it is not open to court to add , subtract or read some thing else which is not mentioned under the statute.

J.P.Chaturvedi  

Here , I would like to clear some clauses of Section 14 of the Arms Act , 1959 which are as under,

First , Section 14 Starts with non-obstanate clause stating that "notwithstanding any thing in Section 13" . It means when licensing authority will  exercise his power to refuse the Grant of Arm License under Section 14, he will not consider any ground from Section 13 as the Section 14 has overriding effect over the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.

 Hon.ble Supreme Court has held in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997 in  the case of State of Bihar & others V/S Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.M.& others that “ A non-obstanate clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part of the Section , in case of conflict , an  overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstanate clause. It is equivalent to saying that inspite of the provisions of the Act mentioned in the non-obstanate clause , the provisions following it will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non-obstanate clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the enactment or the provisions in which the non-obstanate clause ocours”.

Therefore , it is clear that the licensing authority can not reject the application of arm license in absence of a “good reason” as provided under Section 13 (3) (b).  

Secondly, I would like to elaborate the sub-clause of Section 14 (1) (b) (3) which reads as under ,

“to be for any reason unfit for a license under this Act ; or”.

It means licensing authority can not deny the grant of arm license to a person “for any reason unfit”. Reason must be under this Act. In this clause , there is most important word is “under this Act” . and that reason is mentioned under Section 9 of the Arms Act.

Therefore , it is also clear from the above provisions that licensing authority can not consider any other grounds when positive exhaustive grounds are mentioned .

Hear , I would also like to clear that licensing authority is not law enacting authority , He is an authority to act in accordance to law. He is not suppose to step in the shoe of Parliament.

A constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a wordings of a statute is clear & unambiguous then it is not open to court to add , subtract or read some thing else which is not mentioned under the statute.

J.P.Chaturvedi