Arms act

File RTIs and complaints.

also you can file PIL in HC regarding this

Really amazing query and even more amazing replies!

Dear Jasvinder can you please elaborate what is the legal or personal problem you are facing if arms licenses are being issued by following the due process of law? Self protection/ personal protection includes defense of one's own life and those near them, as well as of property. If you are not aware please read Sections 96 to 106 IPC which are corrolary to fundamental right of self defense. Are you contending that security guards do not have inalienable fundamental right of self defense and arms that has been guaranteed to every citizen of this country by our Constitution?

File RTIs and complaints.

File RTI to know what? And complaint about what? That security guards do not have the inalienable fundamental right of self defense and arms that has been guaranteed to every citizen of this country by our Constitution?

also you can file PIL in HC regarding this

PIL in HC about what? That Constitutionaly guaranteed fundamental rights of self defense and arms should not be respected?

For all the readers of this forum: Getting arms license is a citizen's right rather a fundamental right. The State is not "granting" any license, it is merely issuing a copy of arms license that has been guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Articles 19 and 21. Whether arms license says "self protection" or "sport" etc., it is superficial decoration only, it just does not carry much legal significance. The license is for all lawful puposes since license cannot override the Constitutional guarantee as it is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Arms Act 1959 is not a prohibitary law. Arms Act 1959 is just a regulatory law to regulate the various aspects of arms that are guaranteed as fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. For those who are not aware that arms are fundamental right of all the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India may read these links:

1) https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Allahabad-high-court-says-rkba-part-of-article-21-44153.asp

2) https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/RKBA-guaranteed-under-Articles-19-and-21-of-Constitution-36011.asp

Indian Sir,

I have no problem against every citizen of India being issued a license to own a fire arm. My point is that when you take a fire arm for personal protection and then use it for a commercial purpose being a paid armed guard, are byou not contravening the conitions of issue of thelicense as it is issued for personal protection only. prptecting people around you is fine but being paid to protect some one whith the help of a fire arm is another aspect.

I only want to know that is it legal to use a fire arm issued for personal protection to be used for commercial use.

But why do we need  license to armed ourselves? Even the Indian Penal code gives right to self defese. But what is he use of legal Private defense with bare hand against hooligans/or State sponsored terrorist with Kalishnakov rifles etc? It is like Section 303 and 304 CrPc regarding right to be defended, after all what is the use of having a right to be defended by a lawyer of its chooise when he can not afford the expense of the Lawyer? There are many Countries where you can easily buy any arms without any license but you can not buy medicines unless it is prescribed by a medical parctitioners, but it is opposite of what is happening in our Bharat the land of Mahatma. Perhaps Jalinwabagh could have been averted if there was right to arms of Indian Citizen, and General Dyer would have laerned a Lesson.

I only want to know that is it legal to use a fire arm issued for personal protection to be used for commercial use.

The gun is not being "used" for any commerial purpose by security guard. He is merely carrying it with him for self protection which anyone can always carry regardless whether he is security guard, doctor, engineer, lawyer, businessman, labourer, driver, waiter, worker, senior citizen, unemployed or whatever. He is not "using" it by carrying it. He will be "using" it when he pulls the trigger of his gun when the occasion demands for self protection/ social work as allowed by law . Hope it clarifies your query.

But why do we need  license to armed ourselves?

Because those corrupt ruling over the ignorant people of this country can loot and their hard earned money can be siphoned into Swiss banks etc.

Those who framed the US Constitution knew all this naturally corrupt behaviour of rulers and therefore wrote the 2nd Amendment to safeguard one of the most important of human rights called RKBA so that people can actually protect their Constitution and all their rights guaranteed within it.

but it is opposite of what is happening in our Bharat the land of Mahatma.

Who wants to listen to Mahatma? Those in power only want to use his name to fool the people.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." --M. K. Gandhi

“He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

"But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature...."--M. K. Gandhi

Perhaps Jalinwabagh could have been averted if there was right to arms of Indian Citizen, and General Dyer would have laerned a Lesson.

Who wants to avert Jallianwala Baghs today? What kind of people are ruling over this country today? Will these kind of people ever want to give up the monopoly of power and violence that was in hands of General Dyer?

Read this https://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-22/india/30428241_1_police-custody-achr-highest-number

The figures in the above article translate into 4.33 citizens dying in custody per day! These figures do not include extra-judicial police killings so called  "encounter killings". So even if we discount encounter killings and assume that all such custodial deaths were reported accurately, it basically means that you are 2.5 times more likely to be knocked off by the police (in custody) than by a licensed gun owner!

Do these statistics seem like they belong in a free country?