Sir,
This email is in regards to your below mentioned editorial:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Targe ... ice/662516
All sarcasm and no substance. One would expect at least some effort to think/learn/read about the subject of firearms in an editorial in a news paper of Indian Express' standing. Instead we see personal opinions and unverified claims. Intellectual smugness. The readers at least deserve a well informed editorial even if it is against what law abiding and upright citizens stand for. It would have been better if ideas were based on facts and figures, not on mere illussionary fears.
Supreme Court has in numerous cases deduced fundamental rights which are not specifically mentioned in Part-III on the principle that certain unarticulated rights are implicit in the enumerated guarantees. Thus the Right to Self Defense is guaranteed by Constitution and corollary to it we have Sections 96 to 106 IPC. Courts have held that interpretation of the Constitution has to be such as to enable the citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by Part III to the fullest measure. Hence it cannot be expected from any person to exercise his Right of Self defense to the fullest measure unless he is allowed to keep and bear arms to the fullest measure. Hence the Right to Keep and bear Arms is clearly embedded in Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21. It also follows ALL PERSONS are allowed to keep arms unless anyone is disqualified as per clear procedure laid down by the law. Law enforcement agencies are given firearms not to conduct false encounters, murders, kidnappings etc. but only for self defense to the fullest measure as per protection by Article 21 of Constitution just like for the rest of the persons. Hence citizens are eligible to keep similar arms for the same right. When citizens use firearms for self defense they are doing nothing but enforcing the law as per Sections 96 to 106 IPC just like law enforcement.
While the periodic review of existing laws and Government policies is necessary, it is crucial that all such reviews be made while objectively evaluating all factors as well as taking into account the reasons and objects of the original law.
1) The very basis for the new Arms Policy is flawed, under Point No. 3 it states:
Proliferation of arms and ammunition in the country disrupt the social order and development. The proliferation of arms, whether licensed or illegal, vitiates the ‘Law and Order’ situation. Holding of sophisticated arms by the conflicting parties directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts. Therefore, in principle, proliferation of arms needs to be curbed. In this context, there is a compelling need to review the provisions of Arms Act/Arms Rules with regard to grant of arms licences for possession of arms and ammunition by individuals and manufacture of fire arms in the country. This statement seems to imply that:
(a) That all firearms are evil
(b) That firearm owners are prone to violence and that firearm related crime is a clear & present danger to our society
(c) That the state machinery is sufficiently able to protect the life & property of all citizens and that they have no need to acquire arms to defend themselves
(d) That citizens do not have an inalienable right to protect their life & property
(e) It completely ignores and negates the reasons & objects of the Arms Act 1959
This is at variance to the data available that supports the following facts:
i) That licensed firearms are almost never used in the commission of crime, a fact that is supported by available data. The only criminal category where any significant number of licensed firearms have been found to be involved is homicides, and even there the figures are extremely low, for e.g. in the year 2007 licensed firearms were involved in only 1.79% of homicide cases.
ii) That the overwhelming majority of firearms used in violent crimes are illegal. A majority of these illegal firearms are locally manufactured, others are either illegally trafficked into the country or are firearms that have been pilfered or snatched from security personnel.
iii) On 10th August, while answering a question in the Lok Sabha, even the Hon'able Minister of State Min. of Home Affairs, Shri. M Ramachandran admitted that the Ministry had conducted no assessment/study regarding any linkage between firearm availability and rise in crime. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that this policy has been rushed into based merely on opinion and conjecture.
iv) As per trends in crimes from 1953 to 2007 published by the National Crime Records Bureau, during this period we witnessed a 229.7% increase in Murders, a 733.8% increase in Rapes, a 423.9% increase in kidnapping & abduction, a 191.9% increase in riots and a 230.5% increase in other cognizable crimes. The need for an average citizen to take measures to protect himself and his family is now more than ever and the simple fact is firearms are the only practical tool available with which citizens can effectively defend themselves against criminal aggression. This is so, as no other available means allows the victim to better neutralise the numerical and/ or physical advantage of the attacker.
v) There can be no doubt that firearms are the most effective tools for self-defence. According to the extensive surveys conducted by the eminent economist and University of Maryland Professor Dr. John Lott, “98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack.” Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three- fourths of those shots are only warning shots”.
vi) Firearm related fatalities per million population for the year 2007 amount to 4.26 and this figure falls even further if one were to remove victims of terrorist violence from this count. In sharp contrast, the same year motor vehicles accounted for 101 road traffic fatalities per million person. Some may argue that motor vehicles are needed for transportation, hence we should disregard how safe or unsafe they are for citizens. However, the fact remains that guns are many times safer than motor vehicles and in the current security environment
they are needed by citizens more than ever before – to safeguard themselves from criminals and anti-national elements.
Equating law abiding citizens holding licensed firearms with criminals is an affront to them and should be struck down from the Arms Policy.
2) Under point No. 7 (a) the Arms Policy states that arms applications will only be considered for persons who face a verifiable grave & imminent threat to their lives and an assessment of the threat will be obtained from the police authorities. This is flawed on the following counts:
i) It directly goes against the stated objects & reasons of the Arms Act 1959, which very clearly states “that weapons for self defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not disentitle them for the privilege”
ii) It completely bypasses ordinary law-abiding middle class citizens as they are not issued threats by the Mafia or anti-national organisations, as such threats are usually issued to VIPs & VVIPs or rich businessmen. It also ignores the basic fact that citizens arm themselves to protect against unforeseen random acts of violence which can befall anyone at any time & any place. With the spiralling crime graph, a citizen's need to take such measures is more now than it ever was. The people who die in terror attacks or random criminal violence are ordinary citizens, yet this policy seeks to disempower those very citizens.
iii) Making it mandatory to prove a “verifiable grave & imminent threat to life” combined with this threat assessment being made a mandatory part of police verification will lead to increased corruption and the only persons who will suffer are the honest citizens who neither have the political clout to push things through nor do they wish to stoop to the level of bribing officials to certify a fake threat to their life.
The arms license application procedure should be made objective and free of encumbrance. As things stand today, if an honest law abiding citizen applies for an arms license, his chances of success are very low. This is because the law as it stands today encourages licensing authorities to deny most applications outright, irrespective of merit. In fact it is not uncommon to read in the news about licensing authorities and/ or senior police officials boasting about how few arms license applications they approve each year. This does not even consider those applicants whose forms are not even accepted for submission by many licensing authorities, as outlined above this completely violates the stated objectives of the Arms Act.
The process needs to be made objective, in that if a citizen is not disentitled from holding an arms license as per Sections 9 & 14 (of unsound mind, criminal record etc.), he should be automatically issued an arms license. If the licensing authority finds that in a particular case, even after satisfying the above mentioned conditions, issuing a license to a particular applicant may not be suitable, then the licensing authority should be required to perforce record the reasons for denial along with justifications. This entire process should also be time bound, say within 30 days from the date of application, which time period should be sufficient to verify that the above conditions are satisfied by the applicant, this would ensure that licensing authorities do not deny applications by resorting to infinite delays or that genuine eligible applicants are not unduly harassed or denied arms licenses.
As things stand today, it is harder today than it even was even in the days of the British Raj, for a citizen to get an arms license. These arbitrary and subjective procedures of evaluating arms license applications, almost always lead to licenses being denied to weaker sections of the society, minorities and other vulnerable sections like senior citizens and women. Arguably the segments of society that most need to be armed to be able to better protect themselves. This would also make the system transparent and free of favour or graft.
3) Under point No. 14 of the Arms Policy, the quota of ammunition to be allowed to arms license holders has been prescribed and enhanced ammunition quotas are to be granted only by the State Govt. Home Deptt., something that was till now being done at the level of the local licensing authority. The fact is, local licensing authorities currently enhance quotas only in rare cases. Taking it to the level of the State Govt. is not going to serve any useful purpose other than create logistical difficulties and to make it increasingly harder for genuine applicants to have their case considered. As it is, the current policies (followed by various states) as well as the new MHA Arms Policy set ridiculously low ammunition quotas. Also, Govt. policies have ensured that ammunition prices in India are probably some of the highest of anywhere in the world, while ammunition quality is surely the worst.
These two facts combined together mean that most ordinary arms licensees can never hope to shoot enough each year to make sure that they are actually adept at the safe and skilful use of their firearms. If the MHA is genuinely concerned for the safety and security of ordinary citizens it should in stead consider removing ammunition quotas completely as well as to provide subsidised ammunition at shooting ranges across the country where ordinary licensees are encouraged to come and learn the finer points of shooting the guns they own. This will have the following benefits:
i) Citizens would be trained in the aspects of gun safety, thus minimising the chances of firearm related accidents. It would be pertinent to mention here that the figures for firearm related deaths also include people who have died from accidental discharge of firearms, their deaths are a direct result of the Govt. policy of limiting ammunition quotas and not providing easily accessible facilities to ordinary citizens – wherein they may practice and learn the safe, responsible & effective use of their firearms.
ii) Citizens would be trained to be proficient in the use of the guns they own, thus ensuring that they would be in a better position to defend themselves and others in case the need arises.
iii) Citizens would be in a better position to support the State in emergency situations wherein they are called in to do so by the state as was envisaged by the Joint Parliamentary Committee to look into the draft of the Arms Bill, which later became the Arms Act of 1959.
4) Under point No. 14, goes even further and requires to have the arms licensee maintain a record of where, when, how many times and to what purpose he has fired a gun. This is again going to lead to needless harassment of licensees, without in any manner whatsoever offering any increased safety or security for the general public. This is an ill conceived idea which seeks only to harass legitimate license holders. Is it also possible to have anti-national elements and criminals forced to provide a similar record of how/ where/ to what purpose they used their firearms? If not, then why penalise those citizens who make every effort to remain within the purview of the law?
It is also going to be totally impractical to implement this scheme. A citizen would be asked to provide proof of having fired a gun. The only real proof that he would have is the empties of the cartridges. If he is firing from a semi-automatic a large number of them generally get lost as they are automatically ejected. The army generally has some one holding either a cap or a bag next to the ejection port to catch the empties. This would not be possible for a civilian to do as he/ she may be alone when firing the gun to check for functioning, accuracy or the like. This would lead to nothing more than a thriving market for empty cartridge cases, and serve no practical purpose whatsoever.
5) Under point No. 15, of the Arms Policy, an arrangement similar to that followed for the issue of Prohibited Bore arms licenses has been laid out for the grant of All India Validity. Certain categories of VIPs have also been granted automatic approval for All India Validity. This is objectionable of the following grounds:
i) The policy of only granting All India Validity of arms licenses to MP's/Union Ministers, IAS and IPS officers, military and para military personnel and those whose job requires them to travel through out the country – is discriminatory towards the ordinary citizens of the country who have a genuine need to carry their arms with them for self protection and have been granted an All India Validity on their license by the State Govt's in accordance with the very strict guidelines issued by the MHA. This provision assumes that private citizens, when they travel out of their district/ state, have no threat to their life and therefore need no protection. The MHA has assumed that only these VIPs need to carry their firearms, when the fact of the matter is that almost all these individuals have armed body guards provided on public expense and therefore have little genuine need to carry their firearm where ever they may go. When a citizen has been considered eligible to have an arms license for self protection, he should be able to carry it with him, wherever he travels. This policy is violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, elitist and discriminatory, it should be done away with.
ii) The policy to limit currently issued All India Valid licenses to a maximum of three states defeats the very purpose of having an All India License
iii) The policy to renew All India Validity every three years is also not required. All India Validity would obviously be granted subsequent to grant of a license, therefore the validity of the license and All India Validity would vary and would not be concurrent. The policy requiring the separate renewal of All India Validity would double the times that an All India Validity licensee has to approach the Licensing authority. Also the policy that the renewal would be at the level of the State Govt. would entail a lot of delay in the renewal process. As it is at present the All India Validity is granted in very rare cases and is very difficult for an ordinary citizen to have it approved. Also the licensing authority is well within it's right to curtail the validity of an All India license to the State or the District if he has sufficient cause to do so. The Arms Policy's overall theme of centralising everything also creates the impression that the licensing authority can't be trusted to enforce the law and rules.
iv) The policy that anyone other than the category of VIPs listed as being eligible for All India Validity would need to have their request for All India Validity approved by the MHA (in a process similar to grant of Prohibited Bore licenses) would effectively ensure that the process would be long and tiresome and that ordinary citizens would be denied one even though they may be eligible, by a process of attrition through delay.
v) Please reference the crime statistics mentioned earlier in this document, regarding the increasingly insecure environment in the country for ordinary citizens, such elitist & discriminatory policies give the impression that the Ministry is of the view that the life/liberty/security of ordinary citizens is of less/ no value when compared to the life/ liberty/security of VIPs. No one expects the Ministry to provide every single citizen with armed guards, but how can the Ministry take the view that ordinary citizens do not have the same right to protect themselves as VIPs do?
vi) The whole concept of limiting the area of validity of arms licenses dates back to the British era. After the mutiny of 1857, our former colonial masters were in constant dread of large numbers of armed Indian citizens collecting at some predetermined date & location to engage in a rebellion against colonial rule - this is why restrictions like limiting the area of validity of arms licenses to districts/ states and small ammunition quotas were placed on Indian citizens. In modern day India neither does the state need to fear it's citizens nor do citizens need to engage in armed rebellion to effect a change of regime – citizens can simply vote out one regime and elect another.
A law abiding Indian citizen is going to be denied the right to carry the legal & licensed firearm he holds for his self defence beyond his state borders. This defeats the very purpose of having a license for self defence as this can be effective only if he has the firearm with him at all times. Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognises every citizens right to protect their life and liberty, the Constitution also recognises every citizens right to freedom of movement. In a recent market survey, the right to freedom of movement was ranked as the freedom Indian citizens value the most, but limiting the issuance of All India Validity on licenses is tantamount to forcing a citizen to travel without the means to protect himself, thus infringing on his right to protect himself/ herself when he may need it most. It is necessary that all arms licenses be made valid throughout the Union of India and only in special circumstances should any particular individuals arms licence’s validity be restricted to State/ District – in which case the reasons for doing so should be communicated to him in writing. Else,at the very least the prevailing policy regarding issuance of All India Validity licenses through the State's Home Deptt. should continue to be followed, with no additional requirement to separately renew the All India Validity etc.
6) Under point No. 16, of the Arms Policy, the process to be followed for renewal of licenses is described. The new policy calls for mandatory police verification after every 6 years, at the time of renewal. Since there is a provision in the law, as it is at present, to suspend or revoke the license, if there is any cause to do so, this is not required. It is an arbitrary time limit and this will only lead to harassment of law abiding citizens. How & why has the Ministry arrived at the conclusion that there is a need for police verification after 6 years, when in fact the present law itself envisages that in case of any wrong doing or misuse of the licensed arms and ammunition, the licensing authority can take action at any point of time? This policy is superfluous and not required, in stead to simplify things for law-abiding citizens and to weed out unnecessary harassment & corruption, the whole renewal process should be replaced by arms licenses which are valid for the holders entire life-time. Extra fees may be charged for this.
Some further suggestions
1. Arms Licenses Should be valid for the lifetime of the licensee, with no requirement of periodic renewals. The law provides for cancellation of licenses in case of misuse etc., this is a sufficient enough safeguard.
2. Section 3(2) of the Arms Act should be deleted. This section places a maximum limit of no more than three firearms to be possessed by any person. It is illogical that if someone is considered to be responsible enough to own 1 firearm or 2 or even 3, then why not more? If the arms license applicant is of unsound mind, or has a criminal record, or if the licensing authorities can make a valid case of his owning a firearm to be a potential threat to public safety, then his license would be anyway denied, or so one would expect from a free and fair system. Therefore the logic of how this limit of 3 firearms enhances public security in any manner whatsoever continues to elude any rational explanation.
3. Under no circumstances should any special consideration be given to the elite segments of society as has been outlined in the new MHA Arms Policy. The law must be made to apply equally to all citizens of India.
4. Ammunition quotas limits should be done away with. The law already provides for monthly sales returns being submitted by dealers as well as quarterly returns - if the local law enforcement detects any unusually large purchases, they are always free to investigate the same.
5. Category 1(c) should be deleted from Schedule I of the Arms Rules 1962. The restriction on these calibres was initiated under British rule, as the Govt. of the time did not completely trust Indian citizens or it's native soldiers. It was thought at the time that if the Govt. restricted civilian access to firearms in these calibres, even if Govt. arms were captured by rebels, they would be unable to source ammunition for use with them from the civilian population. In the current scenario this is at best a specious argument, it is a fact that anti-national elements have no dearth of ammunition supplies in any and all calibres they so desire. Arms as well as ammunition are illegally smuggled in to India for use by such persons, as well as for sale to all manner of criminal elements. None of these people are queuing up to purchase ammunition legally from licensed dealers. Furthermore, it was also argued in some quarters that civilians owning firearms in these calibres could lead to black marketing of ammunition by native troops. In the present scenario, India is a free country and we have implicit faith in the loyalty of our men & women in uniform, if we cannot trust those who have sworn to lay down their lives to protect us, then who do we trust? Even the parliamentary committee set up to review the proposed Arms Bill which eventually became the Arms Act of 1959 had also envisaged a situation wherein the State could use civilian riflemen as the last line of defence for the country. The proposal to do away with category 1(c) of Schedule I, would have the following benefits:
i) The government has a vast surplus of bolt action rifles, pistols and revolvers chambered for the calibres listed under category 1(c), which have been or are in the process of being phased out from service. Ordinarily these would be scrapped, however most of these are serviceable or can be made serviceable for use by civilians for sport as well as self-defence. Once category 1(c) is scrapped these could be auctioned off by the Govt. and considering the prevailing extortionate prices of legal firearms in India, the sale from these phased out firearms could earn the Govt. enough revenue to re-equip every single soldier in the military, para-military and police forces with modern firearms more suitable for use in the current security scenario. Scrapping usable firearms in such large quantities is nothing, if not a huge national waste.
ii) A large number of citizens owning firearms in these calibres, would mean that in times of need the State would be able to call on citizens to provide the arms and ammunition held by them in service of the nation, without the associated logistical difficulties of calling into service firearms chambered for all sorts of different calibres, which would literally be impossible to keep supplied with required ammunition. For precisely this reason, many nations actively encourage their citizens to keep firearms chambered for the same calibres as in use by their own forces.
iii) A large number of citizens owning firearms in these calibres, would also mean that the military, para-military and police forces, could maintain large stores of ammunition in reserve, without incurring the heavy cost of disposing off large quantities of ammunition after their use by date has expired. This would be possible, as expired ammunition could be auctioned off to licensed dealers, for supply to arms license holders. Since expired ammunition is prone to misfire, while it may not be usable for front line use by Govt. forces, citizens could put this to use for getting in more practice at the range, at a reduced cost - a scenario in which one may be willing to forgo 100% reliability in favour of a much lower cost. This is a win win situation for both licensed firearm owners as well as the State.
6. Category 1(b) of Schedule I should be deleted. In today's day and age when citizens anywhere in the country can be hit by terrorists and all manner of criminals armed with fully automatic assault rifles, it does not make any sense to broadly limit citizens access to even semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. If one is preparing to defend oneself, one should have access to reasonably adequate tools as well. If the Govt. feels that for now it is unable to completely do away with this Category, the relevant licensing authority for firearms covered by this category, should be the District Magistrate in stead of the MHA. The local licensing authorities are competent enough to verify individual licensees need for the requested category of firearms, as they are present on the ground, they interview the applicant in person etc. No beneficial purpose has been served by the MHA taking away
the authority (in 1987) of the State Govt./ District Magistrate to issue licenses for arms covered by this category. The only thing that has happened is that now such firearm licenses are being exclusively issued to VIPs, people who in most cases already have heavily armed guards provided at the taxpayers expense.
!! They should come to know that even a bell pin is dangerous at times not only guns...what will they do if any one kills a man with a kitchen knife? If the media stands still negative in india..may be all the women should apply for a licsence to use a knife in cutting vegetables and All the police should be given blank guns to avoid fake encounters.... 
how about posting on the IE comments section? I tried to but ended up frothing in the mouth and reaching for an imaginery tomahawk to split their skulls 
. Now since that just wont do, I'll try to copy what Vikram has written and post the damn thing. However I keep hearing Naga's sage advice in my ear, "not to make enemies..
). Most of the media and because of them, a lot of people are either un-informed of the facts regarding guns used in crime, or are simply biased against guns/weapons of any sort.
. Or if there are no automobiles then there will be no automobile thefts 
.