Licence application rejected seek help and Guidance :)

[NickSingh]

Dear ifgians heartily greetings to every one
i have filed an RTI asking for the reason to decline my fresh arms licenses application and today i received a letter from local L.A stating that, Superintendent of police has not recommend my file that is why we are unable to give to you Arms license.
Guys is this letter is good enough to file a writ in court of it should be more specif.

any help is much appreciated
regards
nick singh

[mundaire]

There seems to some misinformation in this thread, just for clarity, the way the law stands today:

The licensing authority for NPB firearms is the Distt. Magistrate unless he delegates this power to ADM/ SDM. In the Police Commissioner system (where applicable) the police is granted 'magisterial power' (I know, not the best way to protect civil liberties) thus the DCP/ ADCP (licensing) exercises the power of DM as Licensing Authority by virtue of having magisterial powers.

The 'advisory' from MHA dated March 31, 2010 was slammed in the Parliamentary Home Committee Report (search for report on IFG/ Rajya Sabha website) as an example of executive overreach. IIRC after this happened the office of some Punjab metro city (Ludhiana maybe?) while responding to an RTI, clearly stated that they were ignoring/ not following the MHA advisory as the Home Committee had 'struck it down' or some words to the effect. I think that RTI response may be posted here too. You can search the forums.


Furthermore, while an advisory from MHA can clarify issues regarding the Arms Act/ Rules it cannot substantially change the law/ how it is implemented without parliamentary approval.

Therefore, you need to read in detail Section 13 (issuance of licence) and Section 14 (reasons for denial) as read along with Section 9 (persons prohibited under the Act).

You will find that despite what anyone tells you or what we'd like things to be:

You gave no constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. This is merely a legal right subject to provisions of the Arms Act

The licensing authority has the right to not offer any reasons for denial of license if he/ she believes that doing so would not be in public interest

The 'shall issue' clause which describes your 'legal right' to arms is limited to the following
1. Muzzle loader where license is required for crop protection. Maybe extended to shotgun if LA believes that muzzle loader will not suffice.
2. Shotgun for self defence
3. 22 rifle for target shooting

This clearly means that issue of handgun/ centrefire rifle licenses are purely at the discretion of LA and you cannot claim them even as a legal right.

The proper way to appeal is, get a good lawyer and then-

1. File appeal with the correct Appellate authority. If you directly approach the court, the court will almost certainly ask you to first exhaust appeal process before approaching the court.

2. If appeal is rejected then approach the court.

3. Though the appeal/ litigation process try to limit how much you end up antagonizing the officials. This is because even if you win in court, the court will NOT issue you a license! It will merely direct the officials to consider your case afresh.

Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk

[farook]

Nick Singh Ji As I understand Abhijeets point, if the appellate authority is not convinced on issuing a license for a handgun, request them to swap it for a rifle or a shotgun instead. Later you can apply for a second weapon. This would be far less cumbersome as against approaching the court

[mundaire]

Nick Singh Ji As I understand Abhijeets point, if the appellate authority is not convinced on issuing a license for a handgun, request them to swap it for a rifle or a shotgun instead. Later you can apply for a second weapon. This would be far less cumbersome as against approaching the court

That is NOT what I said, please read my post again... Slowly.

Cheers!

Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk

[farook]

I know you never said that Abhijeet, just my conclusion. Would you agree or still say nicky ji approaches the court if the appeal for a hand gun is declined...

[nevil]

The 'shall issue' clause which describes your 'legal right' to arms is limited to the following
1. Muzzle loader where license is required for crop protection. Maybe extended to shotgun if LA believes that muzzle loader will not suffice.
2. Shotgun for self defence
3. 22 rifle for target shooting

Just want to clarify that the above is a legal right and that they are bound to issue you a license for the above
regards
N

[mundaire]

That's right Nevil, only in the above three categories/ conditions are they bound to issue a license - so long as you are not prohibited from owning/ possessing one as per section 9.

In all other cases the licensing authority has vast discretion on whether to issue or deny a license.

Cheers!

Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk

[gmodgil]

Abhijeet,
Need your advise on my case. I applied for a NPB Shotgun under self defence. What I was told was that the Police did not find a threat to Life. I discussed the case with the ADM and told him about the various High Court judgements and the Cabinet committee report i got from this site(your help is worth mentioning here) in my favour. however he mentioned that the Report is just recommendations. Do we have any document / direction from MHA which nullifies the 2010 order???
Any help from you or any member reading this is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Gaurav Modgil

[gmodgil]

In addition, from the discussion above :
The 'shall issue' clause which describes your 'legal right' to arms is limited to the following
1. Muzzle loader where license is required for crop protection. Maybe extended to shotgun if LA believes that muzzle loader will not suffice.
2. Shotgun for self defence
3. 22 rifle for target shooting

Do we have any document which states the same... cos my ADM does not care a about any document other than the 2010 order....

Appreciate any help here.
Thanks,
Gaurav Modgil

[farook]

ADM does not care a about any document other than the 2010 order.

Does he care about the arms act of 1959 and the arms rule of 1962

[gmodgil]

I feel these People are going by the book(translating each word i guess).... If you go by the Policy guideline on the MHA Site... it clearly says that Arms license , even in NPB Category, be only given in those cases where there is a clear case of Threat to life... My case took a hilarious turn when i reported in my application that there was a crude bomb explosion in the peripheree of my house and my dog had died because of it.... the police still did not fee there is a threat to my life... i dont know what whould qualify as a threat to life thereafter

[farook]

A few reasons could be a business man travelling with huge amounts of cash ( that's how I got it ), an individual who has recently inherited a large amount of property and feels there is threat to his life, a person with a large dept that could cause a potential threat to his life by way of recovery agents or underworld agents. Needless to say the reason has to be backed by relevant documents like income tax returns, documents of property inherited or proof that your under dept.

[goodboy_mentor]

You gave no constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. This is merely a legal right subject to provisions of the Arms Act

Ignoring the fact that arms are fundamental right is loosing the half battle for gun rights in the very beginning. Arms are fundamental right, getting a license for arms is a legal right. Just like freedom of expression is a fundamental right but getting response to RTI is a legal right under RTI Act 2005. It is especially important for members and office bearers of NAGRI to understand these nuances, in order to convince the law makers and courts. This matter has been discussed in detail in various posts and threads on this forum, probably the last one is the following post: http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p197742

[mundaire]

In addition, from the discussion above :
The 'shall issue' clause which describes your 'legal right' to arms is limited to the following
1. Muzzle loader where license is required for crop protection. Maybe extended to shotgun if LA believes that muzzle loader will not suffice.
2. Shotgun for self defence
3. 22 rifle for target shooting

Do we have any document which states the same... cos my ADM does not care a about any document other than the 2010 order....

Appreciate any help here.
Thanks,
Gaurav Modgil

Refer to Section 13 of the Arms Act 1959, it's all there in black and white!

GoodBoyMentor, wishing for something doesn't make it real! If you truly believe that RKBA has been secretly hidden somewhere in our constitution, may I point you to the debate on this issue in the constituent assembly - where this matter was discussed and it was decided to abide by the wisdom of the father of the constitution and not to include RKBA amongst the list of fundamental rights.


Cheers!
Abhijeet

[Mozzad]

Sorry to hear your plight.I heard from my teacher that district collector helped him when police didn't give him license.