WHAT TO EXPLAIN TO YOUR Members of Parliament
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:57 pm
POSTING HERE ON BEHALF OF NAGRI
WHAT TO EXPLAIN TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT - about the proposed Amendments to the Arms Act
a) You should first explain the background of what is happening as outlined in the last e-mail
b) You should NEXT draw attention to the fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs, DID NOT properly publicise it's new policy (for feedback) and what little public feedback it received despite this poor publicity it completely disregarded.
c) SPECIAL ATTENTION should be drawn to the fact that the Ministry completely bypassed parliament and went ahead and issued a directive to the various State/ UT Home Departments ordering them to commence following the so called new arms policy with immediate effect. This despite the fact that any changes made to the Arms Act need to be first approved by Parliament before they can be implemented. Even any changes to the Arms Rules are required to be tabled before parliament within a stipulated period of time. It should also be noted that the date this order was issued (31st March 2010), the Parliament was very much in session - yet it was kept in the dark.
Now coming to specific criticisms of the policy and questions that the Hon'able Members of Parliament need to ask the Ministry:
They should ask the Ministry -
1) (a) Why a directive was issued ordering State/ UT Home Departments to immediately implement the so called new arms policy, WITHOUT placing before the parliament the required amendments to the Arms Act and Arms Rules? What was the urgency?
(b)Does the ministry have credible evidence that Arms License Holders were an immediate threat to the nation that such a strict policy should be immediately implemented in direct contraventions of all norms and bypassing the required procedures? If so, what is this credible evidence?
(c) Total no. of cases of violent crime over the past 5 years in which Licensed Arms were used?
(d) Over the past 5 years in what percentage of total (violent crime) cases were licensed arms used? What percentage were unlicensed Arms?
2) The Ministry contends that Licensing Authorities misuse the provisions under Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act, to issue Licenses without proper verification. (a) In the past 5 years how many such cases were detected, wherein the Licensing Authority was found to have misused the above provisions.
(b) In such cases what action was taken against the relevant Licensing Authorities?
(c) If no action was taken - why?
(d) Does the ministry contend that the police is more honest than the executive branch?
3) The above amendment states that the maximum time allowable for police verification be set at 60 days. (a) Is it not correct that in the Ministry's directive to all State/ UT Home Deptt's (dated 31st March 2010) this timeline was set at 45 days?
(b) Why 60 days or even 45 days?
(c) In today's day and age, it should not take more than 1 or 2 days for the relevant police deptt. to trace out the antecedents of the applicant. Even if one allows for a heavy workload, this should not be more than 1 week or maybe a maximum of 10 days!
4) Furthermore, the amendment is silent on WHAT ACTION will be TAKEN AGAINST police Deptt.'s that do not send in the police verification report within the stipulated time period.
(a) Will the officer concerned be suspended for dereliction of duty?
(b) Will it be entered into his Confidential Report/ service record?
(c) Will there be a monetary fine imposed on the concerned officer? Etc.
(d) In the absence of clear cut and strong punitive action, it can be safely assumed that the concerned officer can delay the report indefinitely, in effect denying a license through the process of infinite delay! (e) In such cases what remedy would the license applicant have?
5) The Ministry wishes to implement a new policy wherein "licenses may be considered from persons who may face or perceive grave & imminent threat to their lives, for which the licensing authority will obtain an assessment of the threat faced by the persons from the police authorities."
(a) Is this not in direct contraventions of the objectives for which Arms Act was enacted by parliament in 1959, wherein one of the objectives of the Act was outlined as - "that weapons for self defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not disentitle them for the privilege; and that firearms required for training purposes and ordinary civilian use are made more easily available on permits" ?
(b) Furthermore, how are citizens to prove grave & imminent threat?
(c) With the worsening law & order situation, do not all citizens face ever greater threats to their safety & security?
(d) What are the statistics for violent crime over the last 50 years?
(e) Is violent crime not on an upward spiral?
(f) Do citizens not justifiably arm themselves to protect themselves against random acts of violence?
(g) Is a law abiding citizen, with no previous history of violent crime not capable of deciding for himself whether or not he/ she feels the need to take measures to protect himself/ herself?
6) Even 60 years after independence, why are we continuing with the irrational policy of restricting civilian purchase of certain calibres?
(a) What is the justification?
(b) Why does the Indian state need to feel threatened from it's own citizens?
(c) Do citizens not have the ultimate power to elect and change governments?
(d) Does the ministry have any clear and logical justifications for continuing these restrictions?
(e) Anyone who knows anything about guns can see that these calibres possess no magical properties in terms of extra power etc., so why restrict their civilian ownership?
(f) Would it in fact not help serve the interests of the majority if their ownership was in fact encouraged, so that in times of need the government could call the owners of these firearms to serve the nation and/ or requisition their stores for government use?
(g) Would this also not allow the government to more easily sell surplus stores to civilian market and use the money thus earned towards modernising the arms in use by the military/ police forces?
7) In the Ministry's directive to all State/ UT Home Deptt's (dated 31st March 2010), it has been stated that the Licensing Authority may call for ANY document which it may consider necessary to verify the applicants bonafides.
(a) Is this definition not too open ended?
(b) What if (for example) a particular Licensing Authority asks me for my Great Grandmother's birth certificate and refuses to proceed without it?
(c) As per the directive, the Licensing Authority would be well within his/ her rights to do so, but would it be a sensible request?
(d) It should be made amply clear what documents are required AND WHY, so that there is no scope for mischief in the future.
In the matter of ammunition quotas, it should be referred to an expert committee to determine exactly how many rounds of ammunition a person needs to shoot EVERY YEAR out of each firearm so as to Attain a basic level of proficiency and Maintain that level of proficiency
(a) Only after evaluating the above, and keeping into consideration every license holder's need to store an appropriate amount of reserve ammunition, should a BASIC MINIMUM ammunition quota be arrived at.
(b) For additional quotas the relevant authority should be the LOCAL licensing authority who is at the ground level and in a better position to judge the merits of each case.
(c) Furthermore over centralising such mundane requests puts needless burden on average ordinary citizens, without providing any demonstrable benefits.
9) The whole concept of mandatory reporting of use of ammunition (by arms license holders) is absolutely ludicrous! The Ministry expects license holders to maintain records of each round of ammunition, where it was used, what date, what purpose, no. of bullets fired etc. This is both practically infeasible as well as a needless burden on the arms licensee without providing any demonstrable benefits.
(a) What exactly does the Ministry seek to achieve through this?
(b) The central police forces, for whom the ministry is directly responsible, have been found to be pilfering and selling arms & ammunition in the black market. They are required to maintain full accounts of government issued ammunition, but it still finds it's way to the black market!
(c) It may be suggested that the Ministry first concentrate it's effort on ensuring that it's own ammunition is not sold in the black market, BEFORE it even considers imposing an ill thought out and ludicrous regime on honest law abiding gun owners.
10) In the Ministry's directive to all State/ UT Home Deptt's (dated 31st March 2010), a new class system has been created. All India licenses will only be issued to (i) Sitting Union Ministers/ MPs (ii) Personnel of Military/ Paramilitary (iii) Officers of All India Services (iv) Officers with a liability to serve anywhere in India (v) sports persons. In essence (barring the sports persons), the Ministry seeks to create an elite super class out of the very people whose sworn duty it is to serve the citizens of this nation!
(a) So while the citizens they serve are barred from carrying their means of self defence while exercising their constitutional right to freedom of movement, those who are sworn to serve them shall have no such problems?
(b) To top it all, many of the classes named above are eligible for security guards once again provided at the tax payers expense. Has this irony completely escaped those that have drafted this document?
(c) Everyone else (besides those named above) can apply for an All India license, but it will be granted only in special cases and that too by the Ministry of Home Affairs!! Has the Ministry given up all other tasks to now concentrate it's time & energies purely on Arms Licensing issues? One would have thought that more pressing matters would occupy their minds.
(d) May it be pointed out that the above line of application is what is followed currently for the issuance of what are commonly referred to as Prohibited Bore Arms Licenses. It should also be pointed out that this is an extremely difficult process and except for those with very high connections it is impossible to get such a license. It seems that the Ministry now seeks to make the All India License similarly difficult/ impossible to acquire!
(e) Over the past 5 years EXACTLY HOW MANY holders of All India validity Arms License were found to be engaged in violent crime across their state borders?
11) If citizens freedoms are being curtailed, it is incumbent upon the Ministry to justify and justify again - every little thing! The FREEDOMS of our citizens are not to be taken lightly by anyone, let us not forget much blood has been shed and many lives destroyed for us to acquire these very freedoms.
In the words of the great Mahatma Gandhi - "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."
Are we worse than our erstwhile colonial masters when it comes to the freedoms we offer our own citizens?
WHAT TO EXPLAIN TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT - about the proposed Amendments to the Arms Act
a) You should first explain the background of what is happening as outlined in the last e-mail
b) You should NEXT draw attention to the fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs, DID NOT properly publicise it's new policy (for feedback) and what little public feedback it received despite this poor publicity it completely disregarded.
c) SPECIAL ATTENTION should be drawn to the fact that the Ministry completely bypassed parliament and went ahead and issued a directive to the various State/ UT Home Departments ordering them to commence following the so called new arms policy with immediate effect. This despite the fact that any changes made to the Arms Act need to be first approved by Parliament before they can be implemented. Even any changes to the Arms Rules are required to be tabled before parliament within a stipulated period of time. It should also be noted that the date this order was issued (31st March 2010), the Parliament was very much in session - yet it was kept in the dark.
Now coming to specific criticisms of the policy and questions that the Hon'able Members of Parliament need to ask the Ministry:
They should ask the Ministry -
1) (a) Why a directive was issued ordering State/ UT Home Departments to immediately implement the so called new arms policy, WITHOUT placing before the parliament the required amendments to the Arms Act and Arms Rules? What was the urgency?
(b)Does the ministry have credible evidence that Arms License Holders were an immediate threat to the nation that such a strict policy should be immediately implemented in direct contraventions of all norms and bypassing the required procedures? If so, what is this credible evidence?
(c) Total no. of cases of violent crime over the past 5 years in which Licensed Arms were used?
(d) Over the past 5 years in what percentage of total (violent crime) cases were licensed arms used? What percentage were unlicensed Arms?
2) The Ministry contends that Licensing Authorities misuse the provisions under Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act, to issue Licenses without proper verification. (a) In the past 5 years how many such cases were detected, wherein the Licensing Authority was found to have misused the above provisions.
(b) In such cases what action was taken against the relevant Licensing Authorities?
(c) If no action was taken - why?
(d) Does the ministry contend that the police is more honest than the executive branch?
3) The above amendment states that the maximum time allowable for police verification be set at 60 days. (a) Is it not correct that in the Ministry's directive to all State/ UT Home Deptt's (dated 31st March 2010) this timeline was set at 45 days?
(b) Why 60 days or even 45 days?
(c) In today's day and age, it should not take more than 1 or 2 days for the relevant police deptt. to trace out the antecedents of the applicant. Even if one allows for a heavy workload, this should not be more than 1 week or maybe a maximum of 10 days!
4) Furthermore, the amendment is silent on WHAT ACTION will be TAKEN AGAINST police Deptt.'s that do not send in the police verification report within the stipulated time period.
(a) Will the officer concerned be suspended for dereliction of duty?
(b) Will it be entered into his Confidential Report/ service record?
(c) Will there be a monetary fine imposed on the concerned officer? Etc.
(d) In the absence of clear cut and strong punitive action, it can be safely assumed that the concerned officer can delay the report indefinitely, in effect denying a license through the process of infinite delay! (e) In such cases what remedy would the license applicant have?
5) The Ministry wishes to implement a new policy wherein "licenses may be considered from persons who may face or perceive grave & imminent threat to their lives, for which the licensing authority will obtain an assessment of the threat faced by the persons from the police authorities."
(a) Is this not in direct contraventions of the objectives for which Arms Act was enacted by parliament in 1959, wherein one of the objectives of the Act was outlined as - "that weapons for self defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not disentitle them for the privilege; and that firearms required for training purposes and ordinary civilian use are made more easily available on permits" ?
(b) Furthermore, how are citizens to prove grave & imminent threat?
(c) With the worsening law & order situation, do not all citizens face ever greater threats to their safety & security?
(d) What are the statistics for violent crime over the last 50 years?
(e) Is violent crime not on an upward spiral?
(f) Do citizens not justifiably arm themselves to protect themselves against random acts of violence?
(g) Is a law abiding citizen, with no previous history of violent crime not capable of deciding for himself whether or not he/ she feels the need to take measures to protect himself/ herself?
6) Even 60 years after independence, why are we continuing with the irrational policy of restricting civilian purchase of certain calibres?
(a) What is the justification?
(b) Why does the Indian state need to feel threatened from it's own citizens?
(c) Do citizens not have the ultimate power to elect and change governments?
(d) Does the ministry have any clear and logical justifications for continuing these restrictions?
(e) Anyone who knows anything about guns can see that these calibres possess no magical properties in terms of extra power etc., so why restrict their civilian ownership?
(f) Would it in fact not help serve the interests of the majority if their ownership was in fact encouraged, so that in times of need the government could call the owners of these firearms to serve the nation and/ or requisition their stores for government use?
(g) Would this also not allow the government to more easily sell surplus stores to civilian market and use the money thus earned towards modernising the arms in use by the military/ police forces?
7) In the Ministry's directive to all State/ UT Home Deptt's (dated 31st March 2010), it has been stated that the Licensing Authority may call for ANY document which it may consider necessary to verify the applicants bonafides.
(a) Is this definition not too open ended?
(b) What if (for example) a particular Licensing Authority asks me for my Great Grandmother's birth certificate and refuses to proceed without it?
(c) As per the directive, the Licensing Authority would be well within his/ her rights to do so, but would it be a sensible request?
(d) It should be made amply clear what documents are required AND WHY, so that there is no scope for mischief in the future.
In the matter of ammunition quotas, it should be referred to an expert committee to determine exactly how many rounds of ammunition a person needs to shoot EVERY YEAR out of each firearm so as to Attain a basic level of proficiency and Maintain that level of proficiency(a) Only after evaluating the above, and keeping into consideration every license holder's need to store an appropriate amount of reserve ammunition, should a BASIC MINIMUM ammunition quota be arrived at.
(b) For additional quotas the relevant authority should be the LOCAL licensing authority who is at the ground level and in a better position to judge the merits of each case.
(c) Furthermore over centralising such mundane requests puts needless burden on average ordinary citizens, without providing any demonstrable benefits.
9) The whole concept of mandatory reporting of use of ammunition (by arms license holders) is absolutely ludicrous! The Ministry expects license holders to maintain records of each round of ammunition, where it was used, what date, what purpose, no. of bullets fired etc. This is both practically infeasible as well as a needless burden on the arms licensee without providing any demonstrable benefits.
(a) What exactly does the Ministry seek to achieve through this?
(b) The central police forces, for whom the ministry is directly responsible, have been found to be pilfering and selling arms & ammunition in the black market. They are required to maintain full accounts of government issued ammunition, but it still finds it's way to the black market!
(c) It may be suggested that the Ministry first concentrate it's effort on ensuring that it's own ammunition is not sold in the black market, BEFORE it even considers imposing an ill thought out and ludicrous regime on honest law abiding gun owners.
10) In the Ministry's directive to all State/ UT Home Deptt's (dated 31st March 2010), a new class system has been created. All India licenses will only be issued to (i) Sitting Union Ministers/ MPs (ii) Personnel of Military/ Paramilitary (iii) Officers of All India Services (iv) Officers with a liability to serve anywhere in India (v) sports persons. In essence (barring the sports persons), the Ministry seeks to create an elite super class out of the very people whose sworn duty it is to serve the citizens of this nation!
(a) So while the citizens they serve are barred from carrying their means of self defence while exercising their constitutional right to freedom of movement, those who are sworn to serve them shall have no such problems?
(b) To top it all, many of the classes named above are eligible for security guards once again provided at the tax payers expense. Has this irony completely escaped those that have drafted this document?
(c) Everyone else (besides those named above) can apply for an All India license, but it will be granted only in special cases and that too by the Ministry of Home Affairs!! Has the Ministry given up all other tasks to now concentrate it's time & energies purely on Arms Licensing issues? One would have thought that more pressing matters would occupy their minds.
(d) May it be pointed out that the above line of application is what is followed currently for the issuance of what are commonly referred to as Prohibited Bore Arms Licenses. It should also be pointed out that this is an extremely difficult process and except for those with very high connections it is impossible to get such a license. It seems that the Ministry now seeks to make the All India License similarly difficult/ impossible to acquire!
(e) Over the past 5 years EXACTLY HOW MANY holders of All India validity Arms License were found to be engaged in violent crime across their state borders?
11) If citizens freedoms are being curtailed, it is incumbent upon the Ministry to justify and justify again - every little thing! The FREEDOMS of our citizens are not to be taken lightly by anyone, let us not forget much blood has been shed and many lives destroyed for us to acquire these very freedoms.
In the words of the great Mahatma Gandhi - "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."
Are we worse than our erstwhile colonial masters when it comes to the freedoms we offer our own citizens?
