Indians For Guns

Does the judgement mean that, except persons of unsound mind or, those who are unfit for holding the licence under the Arms Act, or prohibited by law from possessing a gun,icense will not and cannot be denied, whether credible threat is deemed to exist or not? Time to celebrate?

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/mad ... end-176017

Definitely a step in the right direction.

Honourable Judge's ruling was pro gun but the article title gives an impression of anti gun rhetoric. Media will never cease to defame and downgrade RKBA. Seldom do I read positive articles about people defending their life and property through firearms, I am sure such cases happen in a population of more than 130 crores.

It would seem that the judge's recognition of gun ownership as a fundamental right based on the constitution, and the determination of the exercise of this right rests mainly in the judgment of the individual, is indeed a positive development.

We have had folks posting here with the same concerns as the traveling businessman.

It is a common dodge with anti-gunners to throw up numbers of "what-ifs" and other extraneous rubbish to divert attention away from the very real problem at hand. Anyone can make up fairy tales, but what about the poor person stuck in uncomfortable and unsafe situations?

Ambi wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:41 pm

Does the judgement mean that, except persons of unsound mind or, those who are unfit for holding the licence under the Arms Act, or prohibited by law from possessing a gun,icense will not and cannot be denied, whether credible threat is deemed to exist or not? Time to celebrate?

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/mad ... end-176017

Pretty far from it •
The petitioner is a businessman whose Arms license application was rejected by licensing authority (DM) despite favourable Police report regarding the same ‌•

The Court has not even ruled that the decision arrived at by the DM was erroneous and it was a fit case for grant of license. The Court talked too much about some sacred and divine rights and lastly ruled that the DM should rethink and pass a " speaking order "

Once a monkey was crowned as Emperor of the jungle . A lion took away a calf from a cow . The cow complained to Monkey The Emperor . After giving her a fair hearing the monkey started leaping , swinging and performed many acrobatics for hours .
At last , the cow asked ' when are we going to get the calf '
Monkey says " Icant get the calf but tell me if there's any deficiency in my endeavors " .

Just like this it goes around .

Actually the court is not the licensing authority. It can interpret the law but will not issue direct order. This is what a judge told me.

Sort of perplexed and somewhat disappointed that the IFG ian's aren't jumping with joy, since the HC has held that the righr to self defence is absolute and not circumscribed by absence of perceptible threat. Too good to believe?
. .

Ambi wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:30 pm

Sort of perplexed and somewhat disappointed that the IFG ian's aren't jumping with joy, since the HC has held that the righr to self defence is absolute and not circumscribed by absence of perceptible threat. Too good to believe?
. .

The law is there and it's interpretation is also clear but the power to decide your fate is done by a human behind a desk.

Peacefulguns wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:19 pm

Actually the court is not the licensing authority. It can interpret the law but will not issue direct order. This is what a judge told me.

The concerned High Court was hearing the matter in writ
jurisdiction • Holding the decision of DM an erroneous one
the Court could very well have ordered the DM to issue the licence • The Court also had powers to treat the writ as one asking for Mandamus for the same • But things happened the way they happened in the tale of Monkey The Emperor •