Applied for arms license delhi

[inplainsight]

Thanks for sharing the RTI draft. What is the fee amount that I have to enclose ? Should it be a postal order or can it be demand draft as well ?

Rahul,

I believe it has to be a Rs. 10 Postal Order, you can get one from the post office.

[rahulbdelhi]

I have used the RTI one line to submit the RTI online, but its not truly online, they generate a letter, which you have download and sign it, then scan and email it back to them. But yes its efficient as you dont have to worry about post and tracking it.
I have used to file 2 rti, one same at delhi police licensing and other Govt of India Home ministry.

I found another site named youradhikar.com which claims to submit rti for free. Don't know if its for real, i registered in the site, submitted the details and it said your rti application has been filed.

I am going to send one application by post as well.

[rahulbdelhi]

RTI sent via speed post

[Biren]

LG for delhi has changed. I belive previous LG was sympathetic to cause.

Rgds,
Biren

[inplainsight]

Yup, but a sympathetic LG only helps when we are begging for something. Not when we are asking for our rights.

Besides, the LG's decision can be appealed too!

[Biren]

Yup, but a sympathetic LG only helps when we are begging for something. Not when we are asking for our rights.

Besides, the LG's decision can be appealed too!

I have been reading "Gun License as right". Isn't word "License" itself means some kind of official permission? When one needs permission then where this question of right? And its nice to have sympathetic LG.. those who have dealt with great Indian bureaucracy will agree here which I need not elaborate here.

Cheers
Biren

[goodboy_mentor]

I have been reading "Gun License as right". Isn't word "License" itself means some kind of official permission? When one needs permission then where this question of right? And its nice to have sympathetic LG.. those who have dealt with great Indian bureaucracy will agree here which I need not elaborate here.

Even your right to "life" and "liberty" under Article 21 is a license/privilege. If you are charged under Section 302 IPC, won't your license/privilege under Article 21 be suspended or cancelled by following the due process of law?

If you read the following judgment of Allahabad High Court(http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 64#p147708), it clearly mentions "firearm licence is not a privilege accorded by the government". When it is not a privilege accorded by the government, then it is a privilege accorded by whom? It is a license/privilege accorded by the Constitution under Articles 19 and 21.

[inplainsight]

I have been reading "Gun License as right". Isn't word "License" itself means some kind of official permission? When one needs permission then where this question of right? And its nice to have sympathetic LG.. those who have dealt with great Indian bureaucracy will agree here which I need not elaborate here.
Cheers
Biren

The License is only to regulate ownership, not to restrict it. The law, and numerous court judgments, clearly state that the license should be granted to ALL applicants, except for those who fall under Section 14 of the act. It's important to understand the difference between a 'privileged' and a 'right'. The Right to Drive a car (regulated by a Driving License) is a privilege as it's not guaranteed but our constitution. The Right to Protection of life and personal liberty (regulated by an Arms License) is a 'right'.

I have been dealing with this for a year now, but I've not once encountered a sympathetic officer neither have I walked into any meeting/interview hoping for pity or sympathy from the officer. I go armed (no pun intended) with facts and knowledge, and ask for my rights. I, for one, refuse to beg for my rights.

[Biren]

There is difference between pity and sympathy..the word used by me is sympathetic. Having sympathetic officer helps... why forget LG office..? Where in arms act it says citizens have rights to own arms? Donnt go around quoting High Court Judgements.. there are some for then there are plenty against as well. What SC say on Citizen Rights to Arms? Quote one from SC..Its easy to say appeal.. i know for sure many have not seen district court leave alone High Court.. LG heard being sympathetic to cause.. or else he could have very well turned down the appeal against L O...& asked go appeal...Not all are ignorant about law.. but again as i say it helps .. having sympathetic officer someone who understands or else going by law saying RIGHT TO GUN every guy residing along side river ganga would have been license holder.

[inplainsight]

I have been reading "Gun License as right". Isn't word "License" itself means some kind of official permission? When one needs permission then where this question of right? And its nice to have sympathetic LG.. those who have dealt with great Indian bureaucracy will agree here which I need not elaborate here.

Even your right to "life" and "liberty" under Article 21 is a license/privilege. If you are charged under Section 302 IPC, won't your license/privilege under Article 21 be suspended or cancelled by following the due process of law?

If you read the following judgment of Allahabad High Court(http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 64#p147708), it clearly mentions "firearm licence is not a privilege accorded by the government". When it is not a privilege accorded by the government, then it is a privilege accorded by whom? It is a license/privilege accorded by the Constitution under Articles 19 and 21.

GBM,

I agree with your last statement. It is a license to Regulate a Right.

Articles 19/21 are part of our fundamental right to freedom. A right is guaranteed by the constitution and one can only be deprived of it after following the due process. A privilege is only granted conditionally, by a group of persons. It can easily be revoked without following due process. Being able to import weapons was a privilege, not a right. Tomorrow, the government can ban renowned shots from importing weapons. However, if the constitution had said "Every citizen can import weapons" then the government couldn't take it away.

The Licensing Authorities, and most Indians, thinks of an Arms License as a privilege. That, I believe, is the crux of the problem.

Thanks

[inplainsight]

There is difference between pity and sympathy..the word used by me is sympathetic. Having sympathetic officer help... why forget LG office..? Where in arms act it says citizens have rights to own arms? Donnt go around quoting High Court Judgement .. there are some for then there are plenty against as well. What SC say on Citizen Rights to Arms? Quote one form SC..Its easy to say appeal.. i know for sure many have not seen district court leave alone High Court.. LG heard being sympathetic to cause.. or else he could have very well turned down the appeal against l O...

Biren,

According to the Oxford Dictionary the defintion of Sympathetic is 'feeling, showing, or expressing sympathy' while Sympathy is defined as 'feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune'. The Constitution of India gives me rights, the Arms Act only regulates one of these rights. The Arms Act does not have to state that it is my right or not my right, the Constitution does that.

Also, why should I not quote Court Judgments? When the law is unclear or not properly implemented, will you look for a sympathetic babu or file an appeal? There is a SC ruling that prevents the state from making laws that shorten the scope or limit the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. (this is just a paraphrase) Having a Sympathetic or unsympathetic Judge does not change the facts of the case or take away our rights.

Gandhi believed in non-violence. Yet he made the following remark in his autobiography

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. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.

He was writing about the Arms Act (1878) which made it next to impossible for Indians to own firearms. Interestingly one of the objectives of The Arms Act (1959) was to make changes to this 1878.

Do you think the LG was sympathetic because he is a gun enthusiast? Or he was sympathetic only because of the facts of the case? Cases are won only when he facts of the case are well presented and legally sound.

Thanks

[goodboy_mentor]

The Right to Drive a car (regulated by a Driving License) is a privilege as it's not guaranteed but our constitution.

Very true. The right to drive a car is covered under freedom of movement. Therefore the driving license cannot be in derogation to the right of freedom of movement.

Articles 19/21 are part of our fundamental right to freedom.

Yes that freedom under Articles 19 and 21 is being regulated by Arms Act 1959. Article 19 acknowledges arms as Fundamental Right of citizens. And Article 21 acknowledges arms as Fundamental Right of persons. Since citizens enjoy greater protection under Article 19, that is exactly why you will find the words citizens and persons used in Arms Act 1959. I have explained this in some detail in the following post http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p197742

A right is guaranteed by the constitution and one can only be deprived of it after following the due process. A privilege is only granted conditionally, by a group of persons. It can easily be revoked without following due process.

It is true. But sometimes the word privilege is synonymously used for rights under the Constitution. Like any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government. Example: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Being able to import weapons was a privilege, not a right. Tomorrow, the government can ban renowned shots from importing weapons. However, if the constitution had said "Every citizen can import weapons" then the government couldn't take it away.

Apparently it seems to be a privilege. In reality it is a right flowing from personal liberty of Article 21. Please read Section 10, Sub Section 1, Clause a) of Arms Act 1959.

When a person has already gone through the regulations of Arms Act 1959, then where is the State interest getting hurt by import being done under Section 10, Sub Section 1, Clause a) of Arms Act 1959? Government has been able to get away with it because nobody protested.

The Licensing Authorities, and most Indians, thinks of an Arms License as a privilege. That, I believe, is the crux of the problem.

Yes. And a bigger crux of the problem is that Arms Act 1959 is self incriminating. I have explained it in the last para in the link mentioned in this post above.

[inplainsight]

GBM,

I appreciate the fact that you take the time to understand my questions/observations and provide a detailed reply. I've learnt more about the Arms Act and Constitution from your posts than any other poster here! I'm sure many others feel the same way.

As far as driving a car and freedom of movement is concerned, I believe the Constitution guarantees out freedom of movement but does not guarantee the mode of transport. i.e. I'm free to move (with reasonable restrictions) anywhere in India, but I can't say that I will only move when I drive myself. After all, if the government took my license away then I could use public transportation or hire a driver.

Similarly we can argue that a person can defend their rights under Article 19/21 using an Indian .32 pistol (or a double barrel shotgun for that matter) and doesn't necessarily need an imported weapon. So to me, and I'm just thinking out loud here, ownership of firearms (for defense) is a right, the quantity and type of weapon is a privilege.

Thanks

[goodboy_mentor]

I appreciate the fact that you take the time to understand my questions/observations and provide a detailed reply. I've learnt more about the Arms Act and Constitution from your posts than any other poster here! I'm sure many others feel the same way.

Thank you.

As far as driving a car and freedom of movement is concerned, I believe the Constitution guarantees out freedom of movement but does not guarantee the mode of transport. i.e. I'm free to move (with reasonable restrictions) anywhere in India, but I can't say that I will only move when I drive myself. After all, if the government took my license away then I could use public transportation or hire a driver.

Rights are to be interpreted in the widest possible manner. Powers are to be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner. Thus your right to movement does not mean merely walking or moving with assistance from others only.

Similarly we can state argue a person can defend their rights under Article 19/21 using an Indian .32 pistol (or a double barrel shotgun for that matter) and don't necessarily need an imported weapon. So to me, I'm just thinking out loud here, ownership of firearms (for defense) is a right, the quantity and type of weapon is a privilege.

Again a very narrow interpretation of rights. If one takes your narrow view further, then why use .32 pistol, why not a stick or bare hands only. There is equality before Constitution. On one hand State is importing the latest and best type and quantity of guns and on the other hand preventing you, even though it is your right flowing from Article 21, under Section 10, Sub Section 1, Clause a) of Arms Act 1959.

As per my understanding the three firearm limit and ammunition quota is unconstitutional. But for this we need unbiased and unprejudiced judges.

[dheeraj1982]

i hv applied for a arms license in june. Thru with my Police verification last week. I contacted the district dcp office they told that they have forwaded it to the licensing office. What nxt