Indians For Guns

In the Shakespeare’s play, The Merchant of Venice, Antonio borrows some money from a shrewd lender, Shylock who, when the time for return of the money is defaulted, advances to cut off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, as stipulated in the lending contract. Portia, the lover of Antonio, dressed up in the attire of an advocate appears in the court and defends Antonio by advancing the dogma that, while Shylock has the right to cut off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s body, he should do it without shedding a single drop of blood!

Since it is impossible to cut flesh from a man’s body without shedding blood, Shylock withdraws, thus saving the life of Antonio. This is a figment of imagination born out of the best playwright ever lived.

In jurisprudence, as it is practiced today, the above condition advanced by the paramour-turned lawyer cannot gain legitimacy simply because the shedding of blood is incidental to the cutting of flesh from any human body.

To all those who deride and disown that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not a Fundamental Right, I request to borrow the above analogy to understand that all means incidental to the preservation of life too becomes an essential part of the Fundamental Right, enforceable against State, which is only a regulatory mechanism to ensure the said Right does not traverse the interest of the State in the maintenance of law and order. The said Right is not a privilege being granted to individuals as pronounced by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice & Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. at Allahabad High Court while adjudicating the case of Pawan Kumar Jha Vs. State of U.P).

nicely written and makes a lot of sense.

Nice!
There are Fundamental Rights, and Right to Life cannot be had without the Right to Self Protection being part of it. And then, without the ability to protect life, it cannot be said that the Right is in existence and functional, it will be only on paper.

Therefore the Right to Bear Arms should be looked at as an extension of the Right to Life and cannot be viewed at merely that it may cause social disruption or that it could be a threat to the State. Reasonable restrictions by the State are to be expected, however, what is "reasonable" and how much prejudice or bias there is in creating these restrictions is another matter.

There are God given Rights recognized by the State and some not recognized by the State. For example, the recent ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental Right even though the State had a contrary view, in the context of people being forced to use Aadhar etc.
The Right to personal defense cannot be the sole domain of the State, in fact, it is every citizens responsibility. The State has a collective responsibility but cannot be there at the beck and call of individuals and more importantly at the instance of danger of life of any one individual.
The above are my opinions!
Regards,
Anand

Indian laws already concede ' right to bear arms' in case there is a 'credible threat' to 'right to life'. But the assessment of credible threat by the authorities is subjective, leading to much heart-break and litigation. Even the court orders regarding grant or denial of gun license will most probably depend on the litigant's social status.
Instead of self-defence, crop protection or sports, being requirements for issue of Gun licence, they maybe specified as the only uses for which the guns may be put to. The issue of license may be done on the basis of police verification and training only, without going into the question of necessity.
A pocket knife, a piece of wire, a can of petrol and machbox, a bucket of water:-these aren't prohibited, though they can be put to deadly use. Why single out guns?

As for the legal status of RKBA, it has been best explained by our late ex Prime Minister Hon'ble Atal Behari Vajpayee in his "note of dissent" against the passing of the Arms Act, 1959. He has put it very rightly that though it has not been enshrined as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution, the IPC clearly gives defence against action taken in self defence, which indirectly is also a right to RKBA.

It is a pity that somehow we could not take advantage of his tenure as PM to somehow get gun rights for the common civilian in India liberalised