An excuse for denying arms licence ?

[prashant1987]

7.
Grant of Arms licences for NPB Weapons – Applications for grant of arms license for NPB weapons are dealt with by State Government/DM concerned. Arms Licences are granted by them on the basis of the report of the police authorities. Neither Section 13 nor Rule 52 contains any matter that the licensing authority shall have regard to before granting a licence. Hence, some State Governments are following liberal criteria for giving NPB licences. It has been decided to prescribe the following norms through amendment to Arms Rules, 1962, for grant of arms licences:-
a) Applications will be considered from persons, who may face or perceive grave and imminent threat to their lives, for which the licensing authority will obtain an assessment of the threat faced by the person from the (angle through) police authorities.

This is an extract from the home ministry regarding arms licence for individuals. I think it gives whole authority to the police as they are the one who will decide threat the dangers and threats to one's life. And according to my district police, there is no threat to my life as they clai
to have law and order in the city.

[goodboy_mentor]

This MHA order is illegal and unconstituional. Getting an arms license is matter of right and not a matter of "threat" or "no threat" . There are numerous court judgements, you may read this thread and links within it at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15638

[prashant1987]

Thank you brother, i already took printouts from your posts some months back. But you and me can say that MHA notice is illegal but who can make these police authorities understand this thing ?

[nagarifle]

Thank you brother, i already took printouts from your posts some months back. But you and me can say that MHA notice is illegal but who can make these police authorities understand this thing ?

the court does.

[drifter]

Dear Nagarifle,

The court does, but you know how labourious and stressful the process can be.
When I applied for my arms license it was rejected on the basis of the applicant not having wealth or land in his name, these papers I got to see by chance when the writer had left the file open and he himself told me that this is the norm they follow. Sad but true.

regards,
drifter.

[goodboy_mentor]

Dear Drifter what is your analysis about the cause of the problem? And what is the solution to the problem?

[nagarifle]

when a court looks at the arms act and the rejection of application for a licence they must agree and licence rejected as per the arms act. anything else is not per the law, the court will look at it that way, it has to its the arms act thus the law, a police officer etc is not qualified to make a judgement of the law only the court can do so.

if the court comes in favor of your application then it will order the LA to issue. FAILURE TO obey the court order is contempt of court. and as such the court can impose other laws or act upon the person who is in contempt of the court.

point to note there is only one arms act in India, what any LA thinks of it is not the point, its what the act says and the court say matter.

if you want your rights then you will have to obtain them. they are there, and not put out on a silver plate.

[drifter]

Dear Nagarifle,

I fully agree with you. When I was sitting at the writers table he was explaining to me that any application that comes to his table for an arms license has to be rejected based on instructions from his bosses(unless a influential applicant). The process followed in my town- the local police station(writer) gives a report assessing need for weapon and submits to the commissioners office and the intelligence section verifies the credentials of the applicant.
In this process they have been instructed to assess the wealth of the applicant in order to determine the degree of threat posed to the applicant. If a applicant does not have wealth or property the writer makes a note saying, applicant does not have a threat on life and hence does not require a weapon license, these comments are seen by the issuing authority and decision is based on these comments. My point over here is how on earth can a writer assess a person's need to possess a weapon and why should one disclose their property details and wealth!. The entire process is finished by the first report.

I dont think anybody wants things on a silver plate but the entire process of going to court is such a harrowing experience. It took me 6 months to get my papers.



The entire process is like flogging a dead horse

My thoughts

regards,
drifter.

[nagarifle]

hi Drifter

i agree with what you are saying. this is how corrupt the LA is. they them selves are breaking the law. As the Arms Act does not say that licence is based on wealth etc. it was pointed out at the framing the act that wealth does not have any thing to do with arms licence application and it should not be in the arms act.

[drifter]

Dear Nagarifle,

Yes what you say is correct.

When I asked the writer what wealth has got to do with the license he told me that they have followed this practise and they cannot declare this reason to the applicant(his reasoning was if you have lots of wealth you have enemies otherwise you have no enemies) this is what he told me. This shows that the are blatantly breaking/ignorant of the arms act and want to hide the reason for the denial of the arms license.

Would you go to court if they had denied you a weapons license?. Just curiosity, I think I would not have taken the trouble to go to court for the mentioned reason because of time, money and headache.

Regards,
drifter.

[nagarifle]

hi Drifter

i am sure you may know someone who is not wealthy and their life is under threat. when we say wealth we have to define it by someone who does not have wealth, ie a man with pants is wealthy compared to the one who does not have one. a man with two underwear is more wealthy then one with one underwear.

it would seems that we agree that the system is corrupt behind repair. however we must never forget that the court are there for a purpose. if one wants justice and ones rights under the law, the law enforcers are quick to deny you that right hence we have to fight it out in the courts.

remember if one backs down from the bully then they have won. if we stand up to the bully even if it appears that we have lost we have won. As long as we let them get away with it , then its our fault and we do not value our rights, which are given to us but we need to take it from them.

By this i mean that if your father says to you that you have the right to drive the car because you are his son. what do you do? walk every where or you siege that right because it was given to you. what do you do? well one goes to ones daddy and says. you said i can drive the car so give me the keys pop.

under the Constitution etc we have been given certain rights, because it is given,we need to take or leave it, that is our right. if we do not take it then we have no right to complain.

no fight is won with out sweat and blood being poured out.(or money )

[airgun_novice]

Who exactly is a "writer" wrt Police ? He is not a commissioned police officer, right ? Excuse my ignorance here.

[Virendra S Rathore]

if you want your rights then you will have to obtain them. they are there, and not put out on a silver plate.

Yeah that reminds me of:
"Freedom is not for free loaders. You ought to earn it and protect it furiously as there are people whose entire livelihood depends on taking your rights away."


Regards,
Virendra

[drifter]

Dear Airgun Novice,

I mean the writer, the one who writes all the reports, fir's etc.

Dear nagarifle,

Yeah precisely my point somebody who is not rich(subjective term) may not have the motivation to spend money going to court. In my dictionary I am rich have family, food, clothing and shelter, what more could I ask for!
I agree with you. While at the same time getting the keys from my dad for the car is different from getting papers/license from the government.
Simple example, when I sent my passport for renewal in 2008 it too me 1 year(nov 2009) to get the new passport I visited the passport office 4 times it was a frusterating, time consuming and horrible experience. On the fourth time I used some influence and got it in 2 days time.
I am assuming a court process to contest the rejection of an arms license is a much more lengthy one .

Would like to know your opinion if you were to face this situation.

"Would you go to court if they had denied you a weapons license?. Just curiosity, I think I would not have taken the trouble to go to court for the mentioned reason because of time, money and headache".


regards,
drifter.

[nagarifle]

hi drifter

the best thing to do is if one wants a licence and is rejected, is to do an RTI asking for file noting etc. then go to court. with it and see whats the outcome.

as said before rights are given but one has to take it by force.

we think that the court cases takes a long time, well they can do and used to in the past. but with a good advocate things can be settled within 2 to 3 hearings. as the case is simple due to the arms act. ie have the LA followed the arms act in ones application or not? if not then they will be told to do so and if no other objects then grant the licence.

however if there was any objections then that should have been pointed out in the first place.

the bottom line is if you want it then fight for it.