LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Indian citizen must have guns to protect body and property

indian citizens should have guns and weapons in order to exercise their right of private defense to body and property.

we must investigate why crime happens? when x steals y's car then there is a case of stealing: a crime. if x cannot steal y's car, there will be no stealig case at all. and why x is able to steal y's car? because y has no means to protect his own car. if y has a gun or means of protection, x cannot steal his car. so the cause of stealing is lack of protection system(be it gun or anything).

having establish this, i must say that possessing gun or any weapon may reduce the crime rate since the cause of crime can be eliminated. cause of crime cannot be poverty because not all poor people do crime. it cannot be illiteracy, since not all illeterate people do crime. it is the lack of protection system or weapon.


in these days where there are n number of millitant/ terrorist groups, robbers, theief etc. possession of weapon by citizen becomes the need of the day for protection of self and family and property. it is the duty of the state to provide weapon to its citizen.

what do you think?



 4 Replies

Democratic Indian (n/a)     11 May 2012

It needs to be understood that self defense and right to keep and bear arms are basic human rights. Arms have been acknowledged as fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Since rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, there is fundamental duty on part of citizens to be armed and well trained so that they can come to defend themselves and their nation as per Article 51A(d). Article 51A(d) which is other side of Articles 19 and 21 is based on the same doctrine of citizen's militia in the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.


Also since self defense is a fundamental right under Article 21, Sections 96 to 106 IPC flow from Article 21. Whenever citizen acts as per Sections 96 to 106 IPC and enforces these sections of law, he is acting as a law enforcement machinery in individual capacity. He is doing a great social work by enforcing the law of self defense. Supreme court judgment in this matter Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab can be read at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1748156/


Arms Act 1959 is just a regulatory law to regulate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Arms Act 1959 is flowing from Articles 19, 21 and 51A(d). It can be ascertained by reading the Objects and Reasons and provisions of Arms Act 1959. I have tried to explain this matter in this thread https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/RKBA-guaranteed-under-Articles-19-and-21-of-Constitution-36011.asp and also will be adding more points to it. Also there have been many favorable High Court judgments in this mater. They can be read here:

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

2) https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Allahabad-high-court-again-stands-for-rkba--55499.asp

Originally posted by :arnab banerjee
" it is the duty of the state to provide weapon to its citizen.

what do you think?
"

I disagree that it is duty of the State to provide arms. On the contrary arms are citizen's fundamental right under Article 19 and 21 and fundamental duty under Article 51A(d) of the Constitution.


In this matter the criminal is the State that is disarming the citizens by artificially inflating the prices of legal firearms so that legal firearms go beyond the means. It is compelling citizens to aquire illegal firearms to defend themselves.


For example the only legal pistol and rifle manufacturer in the country of 1.2 billion people is Indian Ordnance Factory. Thus because of artificially created demand supply gap price of legal pistols and rifles is around one lakh. It is beyond the means of average citizen. Similar firearms of better quality are available in the international arms market at fraction of the cost. Citizens cannot import them because imports have been restricted for almost past 30 years. The import restriction itself is illegal and unconstitutional. On the other hand illegal firearms are available at the fraction of the cost, compelling law abiding citizens to buy illegal arms for their self defense.


NAGRI has done video in this matter and also had made representation to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs. The video can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5B56tmPm3g It may be noted that Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs made a scathing report against Chidambram and his Ministry of Home Affairs attempting to screw up the Arms Act 1959 further by making more unconstitutional and illegal amendments to it. The observations, conclusions and recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs report can be read at https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Report-of-Standing-Committee-of-Parliament-on-Arms-Act-1959-38590.asp The entire report is also available on internet.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     11 May 2012

I dont think Indian Leaders willl appreciate the idea, as they want only holigans and terrorist to bear arms. In other countries it is very difficult to purchase medicines but easy to purchase any kind of arms, but here it is very easy to purchase any kind of medcicines but very difficult to get arms license to protect our life and property.

Democratic Indian (n/a)     11 May 2012

It is very clear that arms are fundamental right aknowledged by Articles 19, 21 and 51A(d) ofthe Constitution. If the politicians do not like the fundamental rights and objective facts of the Constituion then they are surely against the Constitution. Constitution represents the voice of the people, if politicians against fundamental rights aknowledged by the Constitution, politicians surely against the people. People need to wake up and fight for their rights.


(Guest)

if right to bear arms flows from art 21, 19 and 51A(d) of constitution, then how come the politicians prevents the citizen from bearing arms? it is totally unconstitutional practice. it cannot be justified on any ground. why there is only one arms manufacturer in india? why not privatise or open up the arms sector? why not somebody sue the govt. to privatise defense sector?

 

it is the right of citizens. sc must force the govt. to open up defense sector. besides with two rivals like pakistan and china on the shoulder, the competition in defense sector is the need of the day. competition will increase the quality of arms, increase more fire power, and reduce the price  which is good for the army too.

 

when anybody will raise a voice?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query