Indians For Guns

@Avirook Sen I note above that you did not find "substance" in many arguments. Now please find and note down "substance". Please be aware that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a natural right, a human right, a fundamental right. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution under Article 19 and 21.

Article 19(1)b:

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (PLEASE NOTE the word "and". It is referring to the Right to Assemble Peaceably and without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms)Wherever in the Article 19(1) of the Constitution is talking of two fundamental rights, it is joining them with the word "and" or excluding one from the other with the word "or".

If Article 19(1)b would have been referring to only one right namely the Right to Assemble Peaceably and not acknowledging the presence of another right the Right to Keep and Bear Arms then "and" in Article 19(1)b is unnecessary. "to assemble peaceably without arms;" would have been adequate to convey the intended meaning.

To further explain my contention I would like to draw the attention to the draft Constitution of Constituent Assembly where the citizen's right to keep and bear arms was explicitly enumerated in a separate article. Because of this Article 19(1)b reads "to assemble peaceably and without arms;" The removal of explicit enumeration of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from Constitution does not either change the meaning of Article 19(1)b nor does it extinguish the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from Article 19 or from another Article 21 under Part III of the Constitution.

Since the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed by Constitution under Articles 19 and 21 one of the Objectives of Arms Act 1959 states:

"(b)(ii)(ii)that weapons for self defense are available for all citizens under licenses unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege;"

The "privilege" referred in this objective is referring to the fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution to ALL CITIZENS. Hence this objective cannot mean that it is putting a burden on ALL CITIZENS to provide a valid "reason" in order to have a license. Instead it means by the use of word UNLESS, that the State has been put under a burden to provide a valid "reason" for denying a license, so that the citizen can approach High Court to get his fundamental right enforced. This can be further ascertained from reading relevant Sections and clauses in Arms Act 1959, I am quoting the concerned clauses:

CHAPTER III - PROVISIONS RELATING TO LICENCES
13. Grant of licences
1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.

1*[(2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same.

(3) The licensing authority shall grant---

(a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required---

(i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection:

What does word SHALL in the sentence "The licensing authority shall grant---" mean? It means a direction to issue a license if the applicant is not ineligible for license as per Section 14. It also means that the burden is not on the applicant to provide "reason" to get a license since it has been already taken on his behalf by the Constitution.

14. Refusal of licences

(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.

(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

What does Section 14(2) of Arms Act 1959 mean? It means that if the applicant is not offending anything in Section 14 then only because he does not have sufficient property cannot become a reason to deny arms license.(Please note: this Section 14(2) was enacted so that the fundamental Right to Property explicitly guaranteed our Constitution at the time of enactment of Arms Act 1959 would not be offended. Since denying firearm only on the ground of lack of sufficient property would mean the applicant is being denied to acquire property(firearm is also a property))

What does Section 14(3) of Arms Act 1959 mean? It means since it is the question of applicant's fundamental right, the burden to provide "reason" to refuse license lies on the State, so that in case the fundamental right to Right to Keep and Bear Arms guaranteed by our Constitution of the applicant is infringed, the applicant can approach High Court with the "reason" for refusal provided in writing, to get his right enforced which has been guaranteed by our Constitution.(Just as Section 14(2) was enacted to protect the fundamental right to property guaranteed by our Constitution, similarly Section 14(3) was enacted to protect the fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms under Article 21 of our Constitution)

Since the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed under Article 21 as a fundamental and a human right by our Constitution, nowhere in the Arms Act 1959, there is any prohibition placed for the issue of arms license to any non citizen in India. This can be further ascertained by the reading of Arms Rules 1962 Rule 17 Traveller's (temporary) license and Rule 32 Bringing of Arms and Ammunition into India by bona fide tourists. They read as under:

17. Traveler’s (temporary) license

(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 8, a license in Form VIII may be granted to any bona fide traveler, proceeding from the place of his arrival of arms or ammunition for the duration of the journey, by the licensing authority at the place of arrival.

32. Bringing of Arms and Ammunition into India by bona fide tourists,-

(1) A license, for a period valid of six months from the date of endorsement referred to in sub-rule (I-A), may be granted in Form III to bona fide tourists referred to in clause (b) of the provisio to sub-section (I) of section 10, so far as practicable, six months prior to the expected date of arrival of the tourist in India;

I would also like to draw attention to one more objective of Arms Act 1959 which says:

"(c) to co-ordinate the rights of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country;"

If "the rights of the citizen" as mentioned above do not exist under Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution, then the question of co-ordinating these rights for all the citizens does not arise. What does "to co-ordinate the rights of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order" mean? Surely it does not mean co-ordinating the rights like the right to privacy, the rights to information or similar rights. It means nothing but co-ordinating the rights of Self Defense and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms necessary for maintaining law and order. In other words it can be said that Arms Act 1959 was passed not to curb or restrict gun ownership from citizens, but was passed to co-ordinate their fundamental rights and encourage gun ownership.

Let us not forget that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, in order of importance, the first human right. It is Indian people's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the other rights. All through our freedom struggle, our leaders were fighting for this human right and was promised to the nation to include its guarantee in "any constitution". Among freedoms of the speech and expression, of the assembly, of forming associations, of movement, of residence, of practice of any profession, of the religion, of the equality, it is the first among the equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows all others to exist at all.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is among one of the most important human, natural and fundamental rights because its infringement can lead to infringement of various other fundamental rights as explained below:

(a) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not being enjoyed, the Right to Self Defense under Article 21 also gets very severely affected.

(b) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not being enjoyed, the rights under Article 19(1)d also get very severely affected. Example: If for any reason like you have to take family members especially children or ladies to hospital for emergency at night or you have to travel at night with children and ladies, life of all people including yourself will be at the mercy of criminal elements since Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not getting enjoyed. Hence you are also being forced to avoid enjoying your rights under Article 19(1)d.

(c) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not getting enjoyed, the rights under Article 19(1)a are also getting affected, you are not able to openly speak or express your opinions against various types of dangerous persons since you will not be able to defend yourself or your near and dear ones if they decide to take the law in their own hands.

Also please note Sections 96 to 106 IPC for Right of Private Defense which is corollary to Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution. I quote one Section 100 IPC:

"Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely :--

First-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly-An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly-An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly-An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

Sixthly-An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release."

Without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Right to Life guaranteed by our Constitution under Article 21 would become nothing but hypocrisy.

It is the ignorance of common people that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a natural right, a human right, a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution under Article 19 and 21. Because of this ignorance the executive has been slowly and steadily screwing up this sacred natural right, a human right, a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. And among those rights which also protects other rights is the fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

"Both the oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle

"Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved." - Aristotle

“He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

Just as you are free to choose to remain defenceless out of YOUR OWN FREE choice, I too would like to be able to make the CHOICE of whether or nor to arm myself, not have someone else force his/ her/ their choices on me - that is called FREEDOM and without FREEDOM we are just like monkeys in the zoo.

Jamee par apni hifajat khud karo, Khuda to yaro aasmano mei hai

Dude i've been quoted too many times with a lil twists in what i said.. The article seems to have conveniently omited a lot of important and relevant points that Abhijeet , Rahoul and me had said on the first day we had met up with Avirook.

it came out pretty anti gun in my opinion...it would be a welcome sight to have some pro gun press..

"Where the choice is set between cowardice and violence,
I would advise violence. ...I would a thousand times
prefer violence than the emasculation of a whole race.
I prefer the use of arms in defense of honor rather than
remain the vile witness of dishonor." --
MK Gandhi

This is the insidious bit: it casts the poet as angel patron, when, in fact, his views on guns were, at the very least, philosophically opposed. This is from a speech in Tokyo: “In a little flower there is a living power hidden in beauty, more potent than a Maxim gun.”

I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers.