Indians For Guns

Guys,
Please correct me if I am wrong. I heard some one say in a candid chat that there is no clause in our constitution that says that an individual bonafide citizen cannot hold more then three fire arms. Is that so???? I have also heard that our former Minister Of Home, Shri Shivraj Patil has four fire arms on his individual name.
Marksman

section 4 of arms act 1959 states that one cannot hold more than 3 firearms .

http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india ... r_1_2.html

Maybe the hon minister is a member of NRAI and his "fourth" firearm may be a 0.22 for target shooting.

diskaon

The Govt. may also (at it's pleasure) exempt anyone or any class of persons from any or even all provisions of the Arms Act... furthermore one of the more knowledgeable members on this board once pointed out to me (during the course of a phone call) that the Govt. can also "declare" any person to be a "licensing authority", with full powers to issue and renew arms licenses... this has in fact happened in the past with private individuals being granted this authority... these powers are vested with the Govt. of India through the Arms Act.

The constitution of India, while clearly reaffirming every individuals "right to life", is completely silent on the aspect of the right to keep and bear arms... arms related issues are dealt with entirely under the Arms Act/ Arms Rules.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

So does it mean exempting anyone or "class of persons" from provisions of Arms Act by government at its "pleasure" is violation of Constitutional Right to "Equality before Law" for every citizen?
Hopefully legally informed members of the forum are able to provide opinion.

If that would be so, then how do you explain the various exceptions made to Gurkhas, Sikhs and ethnic Coorgis? These are merely examples of a class of persons being exempted from some/ all provisions of the Arms Act. Also, (if my information is correct) the erstwhile Indian royals were previously completely exempt from all provisions of the Arms Act and were only brought under it's purview sometime in the 60's/ 70's... post which each could retain only one prohibited arm (not to be confused with prohibited bore) from their collections... so you had many people who thus legally owned machine guns (prohibited arms)....

Cheers!
Abhijeet

If Coorgis(I have nothing against them or any individual) can be exempt from Arms Act and keep firearms without license, why discrimination against rest of the citizens of India?

goodboy_mentor wrote: If Coorgis(I have nothing against them or any individual) can be exempt from Arms Act and keep firearms without license, why discrimination against rest of the citizens of India?

Because firearms are integral to their culture same as Kirpans for the Sikhs and Khukries for the Gurkhas.

Although arms act is clear on number of arms an individual can keep but there r many examples where some persons are allowed to keep prohibited arms not handguns but lethal weapons like AK-47, in state of Punjab one of the police informer in Kapurthala district is having AK-47 besides SLR and pistols of 9mm and is also asking for zplus security ,and that person has shown AK-47 to a news reporter and is involved land grabbing he has also shown special permission for carrying AK-47 from home secretary . Another person in bhikhiwind area of Amritsar area is having LMG ,AK-47 and SLRS and is tainted and has amaassed illegal property is a CPM leader whenever police officer asks him to surrender these weapons he just gets fresh renewal if civvilians r not allowed to carry these weapons under which provisions of arms act this permission has been given there is question mark although aticle 14 allows reasonable classification subject to judicial review.

Law should be equal for all and not be made effectively unequal under the guise of "exceptions".

Cant agree more than goodboy_mentor and Mundaire.
Law should be just - meaning equal and fair. If Coorgies (not that I am against them.. matter of fact, some of the best friends I have are Coorgies) can have an exemption, there should be an actual, mutual and globally accepted base for it. Defence guys come under a category where they have to defend enemies with PB guns, and are so equipped with matching weapons. If a sub-class is equipped with a clause to match a culture, then it can far be invalid as culture grows beyond boundaries and castes. If I 'adopt' a Coorgi way of life, will I be permitted?
Exceptions are surely a part of a great country, but it should in no way make the majority feel ignored.
Eventually Indians are a super ste of Coorgies of Sikhs. Religion should be surely considered in law, but does not mean that Law should be based on Religion

Is it possible to take this to honorable high court to get relief, since right to equality before law is getting violated? I think this is question of fundamental principles of equity, on which democracy stands

While I think that this line of thinking of equality of before law is absolutely logical, there are other instances of inequality based on religion, caste, economic status namely the system called "reservation and a quota system". This is "divide and rule" taken to its utmost. The only way we are ever going to have equality is if we have a uniform civil code(no offense directed at any religion or caste).

While religion is a personal choice the expression of such cannot be forceful nor be an imposition any one. This should not be overt or covert. The State should not discriminate and give some categories favours based on religion. But it does exactly this, by giving it some name or other.

If I start a new religion called Gunnism and say members of my faith are required to be armed with only the latest automatic firearms at all times with no restrictions whatsoever will the State agree ?
I will be the head "Gunner" and our places of worship will be international quality gun ranges, we will hold sermons every week in propagating our religion.

Anand

Anand wrote: If I start a new religion called Gunnism and say members of my faith are required to be armed with only the latest automatic firearms at all times with no restrictions whatsoever will the State agree ?
I will be the head "Gunner" and our places of worship will be international quality gun ranges, we will hold sermons every week in propagating our religion.

Anand

WHAT AN IDEA, Sirji

I am already in.... We can also start a 'Bandook' party with the .303 as the logo... and for sure, every gun lover will vote for us.

Intention of my question was, is it possible to do something, using legal means, if there is violation of fundamental rights?

Anand wrote:While I think that this line of thinking of equality of before law is absolutely logical, there are other instances of inequality based on religion, caste, economic status namely the system called "reservation and a quota system". This is "divide and rule" taken to its utmost. The only way we are ever going to have equality is if we have a uniform civil code(no offense directed at any religion or caste).

While religion is a personal choice the expression of such cannot be forceful nor be an imposition any one. This should not be overt or covert. The State should not discriminate and give some categories favours based on religion. But it does exactly this, by giving it some name or other.

If I start a new religion called Gunnism and say members of my faith are required to be armed with only the latest automatic firearms at all times with no restrictions whatsoever will the State agree ?
I will be the head "Gunner" and our places of worship will be international quality gun ranges, we will hold sermons every week in propagating our religion.

Anand

You will have to alter the constitution to enforce the uniform civil code.