ARMS AMENDMENT RULES 2012

[goodboy_mentor]

@rabepobemababe

Much of what you have said against the UID, including the examples from other countries (which were cited in galore by both pro-UID and anti-UID organizations), has already been agitated upon before the apex court in India, and did not hold water.

Much of what was also said before apex court in in the additional district magistrate Jabalpur V Shivakant Shukla case (1976) "did not hold water". Oh yes, it was also a mere "coincidence" that the only dissenting judge who dared to stand by the Constitution and basic human rights of people was not promoted and his junior was promoted as next Chief Justice of India. And after many decades the same matter did "hold water" before the same apex court! Any reasonable person who is aware of what is happening in this country and is applying his reasonable part of mind can understand what is going on in every organ of the State, how much we are a republic or a banana republic. Care to read these links:
1. http://indiancorruptjudges.com/
2. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... r-c-lahoti
3. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/21-sc ... ls/981224/

Regarding CIA & FBI having access to the servers of NADRA, hackers have had access to even CIA and FBI servers

Hacking, stealing, selling is always possible, I am not talking about all this. I am talking about secret direct connection from servers or transfer of data by one government to other governments or other organizations for some consideration/compromising sovereignty as well as privacy of citizens without acknowledging this publicly.

Canada does not have the population of India, nor its complexity and diversity, and so might have thought it unnecessary to maintain a gun-registry. Indian circumstances are different. While we draw from the wisdom of others, we also apply the same to our circumstances.

Canada did not dismantle the registry because it is not complex or diverse. Canada dismantled the gun registry because it did not produce any result and was very costly to run it. Care to explain what magical difference is going to happen in India with similar registry?

In this era where everything is digital, it is amazing to see that you are against digitization of data.

Nobody is against digitization of data. The problem is there are no checks and balances about what is to be collected and what is not be collected, how the data is going to used, what is the security of data. There is no statutory provision to protect data or privacy but government is rushing to digitize everything.

You have already mentioned that anyone can obtain arms license information by sending a Rs.10/- R.T.I. application to the Public Information Officer concerned, unless the P.I.O. is cautious to reject it under Section 8 of the R.T.I. Act 2005. Private information of citizens is in public domain because PIOs do not know when to apply Section 8 of RTI Act and there is no data protection or privacy law. For example arms license information of individuals is getting published in newspapers to create cheap sensation with some oblique motives, for example like in this one http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17948

Another height of stupidity is that some licensing authorities have put all personal and private details of arms license holders on public websites, that includes the license application number, license holder name, his father's name, address, type of firearm, quantity of firearms, firearm number, licensing authority, area validity, date of issue/date of expiry of licenses of all legal arms holders in the area. May read this link http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12138

In Jessica Lal type of scenario where the firearm used to commit the crime is readily recovered from the culprit, the next step would be to prepare enough forensic ballistic evidence to produce in the court. If it is an illegal fire-arm, then that establishes the guilty mind,

If it is illegal firearm then it is mens rea and if it is legal firearm then it is not mens rea? This does not appear convincing or reasonable. Then why there is Section 27 in Arms Act 1959 dealing with "intent of use"(mens rea) regardless of the legality of possession?

In case the weapon is not found, but the suspected criminal is found, the next step in investigation would be to search for the weapon. Many a time, firearms used for committing a crime are found in places such as hollow tree-trunks and village-wells.

How is database going to help finding weapons from hollow tree trunks or village wells? As per records of National Crime Records Bureau, almost more than 98% of murders are done with illegal weapons and almost around 85% are non firearms like sharp edged or blunt edged objects used as weapons. How will databases help finding all these illegal weapons used in almost more than 98% of murders?

Digital data will help in establishing the credentials, or the lack of them, in respect of a firearm used in committing a crime.

How is legal or illegal firearm credentials establishing actus rea or mens rea? Does some one committing murder under 302 IPC with help of legal firearm not make him guilty?

Say, a Marwari businessman in Dibrugarh applies for a gun-licence to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, and claims that he holds no other gun-licence and has no criminal record.

Technically almost all 1.2 billion citizens can get arms licenses except a minuscule number of convicted criminals/those offending Sections 9 and 14 of Arms Act 1959. Rather than creating records for 1.2 billion people, is it not cost effective, simpler and beneficial to create records of those few convicted people who cannot get gun license than targeting all the arms license holders? The attitude and behavior of government looks like is planning to gradually reduce the number of arms license holders and creating a road map for slow and steady confiscation of all arms from citizens. Looks like an Orwellian strategy.

If the Deputy Commissioner takes the second option, and if a crime gets committed with that weapon later, he would stand the personal risk of being pulled up by his superiors (this happened in Andhra where a factionist was granted a gun-licence within a week of applying by an officer, and later used that weapon to kill another factionist. The officer continues to be in thick soup even now).

The weapon can be used for crime even by a person without a criminal record. Due to this fact ultimately the license is issued on good faith. That is why there is provision of Section 40 of Arms Act 1959 to protect the licensing authorities.

What is explicitly stated in Constitution of India is what is apparent.

What is explicitly stated in the Preamble, Articles 14, 19(1)(a),(b), 21 and 51A(d) read together, everything is very much apparent provided one uses mind in a reasonable manner. But if one does not use mind in a reasonable manner then practically nothing is apparent in the Constitution. The Constitution itself endorses the general principles of interpretation through Article 367(1), which states that unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897 shall apply for the interpretation of this constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an act of the legislature. Courts have ruled in cases such as Jugmendar Das vs State 1951, that not only the general definitions given in General Clauses Act, but also the general rules of construction given therein are applicable to the Constitution. Also the due process is firmly a part of Constitutional law established by Supreme Court.

Secondly, Constitution of India does not lay down what is an offence and what is not. Indian Penal Code does. Please go through your law books once again.

Rather than merely going through law books, it would be better to refresh the basics. Since everything is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it has to be read and interpreted with due process. Parliament is creation of the Constitution and in order to implement the Constitution, it is legislating on behalf of the Constitution. IPC also flows from the Constitution to penalize for acts that are offenses in the Constitution. Since IPC is flowing from the Constitution, the offenses therein are also existing in the Constitution. It is not always necessary that offenses have to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. And BTW Part III of the Constitution has also explicitly mentioned some offenses. Don't believe me, please read Part III again.

Let me illustrate with a simple example. Right to Life is guaranteed under Article 21. Since it is guaranteed under Article 21, any extinguishing of life of one person by another person without due process of law is offending Article 21. Corollary to it we have penal provisions like 302 IPC etc.

Another example - Since right to life is a life of dignity, an act of defamation hurts dignity, hence is an offense for Article 21. Corollary to it we have laws against defamation in IPC.

If you still think right to bear firearms is your Fundamental Right, why don't you take it to the court and see?

Of course it will be done in due course of time. Also this matter has already been taken up in one High Court.

The fact needs to be understood that wherever in Article 19(1) two rights of citizens are joined, they are joined with conjunction "and". When Article 19(1)(a) says "to freedom of speech and (with) expression", since fundamental rights are negative rights, it also includes another unstated combination "to freedom of speech and without expression".

Similarly when Article 19(1)(b) says "to assemble peaceably and without arms", it also includes another unsated combination "to assemble peaceably and (with) arms". This combination of two fundamental rights(to assemble peaceably and (with) arms) gets reflected in the corresponding fundamental duty of citizens in from of Article 51A(d) and other statutory provisions flowing from Article 51A(d) like The Punjab Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1918 or The Himachal Pradesh Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1964.

If you further analyze the provisions of Arms Act 1959 and its Objects and Reasons, you will further find details about this fact. One of them is the seperate use of words "citizen" and "person".

A firearm licence in India, as on date, is not a "right" of any kind. It is the discretion of Government whether to grant it to one or not, and in my opinion it will always remain that way.

Surely you are entitled to your opinion but the facts of law speak otherwise. No matter what Supreme Court has said or not said, the fact remains that Arms Act 1959 is flowing from the Constitution and arms license is not a privilege granted by the Government. It is also a legal fact that Government has no discretion to refuse except only refusal as is allowed in the Arms Act 1959. In other words if the person is not offending Sections 9 and 14 of Arms Act 1959, it is his right to get a license. Since it is a matter of right, that is why Section 14(2) prohibits refusal of license merely on the ground that person does not own or possess sufficient property. Since it is a matter of right, that is why Section 14(3) makes it mandatory for licensing authority to give the refusal of license in writing, so that applicant can approach High Court or Supreme Court to get his right enforced. There are plenty of High court judgments also, for example this judgment http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 64#p147708

[spin_drift]

@rabepobemababe

I am not adverse to the idea of having a centralized data base in principle.

What I am concerned is how the DB is going to be used\misused.

For instance will it be used by government during times of national emergency such as in time of war or unrest to call upon all the arms holders to provide assistance to the law enforcement agencies or paramilitary forces to maintain law and order or to defend our national assets?
Or will it be misused by the employees of the government to harass the law abiding citizens who chose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms legally?

In my opinion the government first needs to create laws and policies that would and prevent the misuse of the DB and then the DB.

Also, there are many unanswered questions regarding policy of administration of the centralized data base in question.
For example:
1). Who will create the DB and maintain the DB? It would be desirable if it is done completely by some government agency rather than a contractor.
2). Who all will have access to the DB?
3). What will be the cost of setting up the DB and maintaining the DB per annum?
4). Usefulness of the DB in comparison to the cost?
5). What all safeguards are being planned to prevent the DB from being misused?
6). If someone or a number of persons are found misusing the DB, what punitive actions will be taken against them?
7). Will there be regular DB auditing to check misuse? If yes, then how often will it be carried out?

We as a community are not opposing this move just for the heck of opposing it; we are opposing this because we have genuine concerns regarding the possibility of misuse of the data base.

Also, from the actions of the government it appears that the government does not trust it’s own citizens….. the very citizens who elected them to office, then why should we as citizens trust the actions of the government.

[Hammerhead]

I appreciate your concern about Government curtailing the rights of its citizens. But I am of the opinion that digitized centralized licence data is unlikely to curtail any rights of the citizens. It may actually help the rule-bound ones to get quicker firearm licences.

In my opinion the government first needs to create laws and policies that would and prevent the misuse of the DB and then the DB.

We are going to make new laws to create another new law that will protect the newly made law, a dog is just chasing it's tail. Are we all belong to a gun rights forum - Haji

---------------------------------------------------------
Here is an article that might help you .........

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws


Recent months have seen a former Marine from Indiana, a Tea Party activist from California and a nurse from Tennessee all arrested and charged in New York City for possession of firearms they had legal permits to carry back home. All were “nabbed” when they naively sought to check the weapon with security.

These innocents fell afoul of the nation’s toughest gun laws. But few New Yorkers know how those laws came to be.

The father of New York gun control was Democratic city pol “Big Tim “Sullivan — a state senator and Tammany Hall crook, a criminal overseer of the gangs of New York.

In 1911 — in the wake of a notorious Gramercy Park blueblood murder-suicide — Sullivan sponsored the Sullivan Act, which mandated police-issued licenses for handguns and made it a felony to carry an unlicensed concealed weapon.

This was the heyday of the pre-Prohibition gangs, roving bands of violent toughs who terrorized ethnic neighborhoods and often fought pitched battles with police. In 1903, the Battle of Rivington Street pitted a Jewish gang, the Eastmans, against the Italian Five Pointers. When the cops showed up, the two underworld armies joined forces and blasted away, resulting in three deaths and scores of injuries. The public was clamoring for action against the gangs.

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them as shtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

Congressional hearings in the 1950s, followed by the feds’ prolonged assault on the Mafia succeeded in tamping down traditional gangland violence, but guns are still easily available to criminals.

Today, the spate of tourist arrests has some politicians scrambling to reassess the laws. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver says he’ll hold committee hearings to examine enforcement of the law and recommend possible changes.

That’s a good first step. Every state but Illinois has some form of concealed-carry permission — although some, like New York, California and New Jersey, are heavily restricted. Some sort of reciprocity is needed.

Meanwhile, savor the irony of an edict written by a corrupt politician to save his bad guys from the electric chair’s now being used against law-abiding citizens from other states.

And the rest of the story? Big Tim was already suffering from tertiary syphilis when he wrote his law. He went mad soon thereafter and was sent to a sanitarium in 1912. He eventually escaped. His severed body was found on railroad tracks in The Bronx in August 1913.

The dedicated lifelong “public servant” left behind an estate valued at more than $2 million.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... z26mnjodFe

[goodboy_mentor]

You are correct, arms licensing is not about maintaining law and order but is a political tool to fool people into submitting to the control of corrupt governments, so that their henchmen can have an easy time looting and terrorizing common people into submission. There are no exceptions or ifs and buts to this fact. History is witness to this fact. Don't have to go far, it was started in this country by the British after the revolt of 1857 to prevent another popular uprising by the people of this country. It is difficult to understand that instead of getting rid of arms licensing started by British, why the present government is so bent on following the same British policy?

‘‘Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial ... the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding’’ — U. S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

[drifter]

Agree with goodboy_mentor and mundaire. We have enough rules regulatgions and policies, implementaion is where we are lacking. I consider this the similar to the anti corruption movement by Anna Hazare we have enoug laws to tackle corruption but the guilty are in power and in most cases find a loophole.

The proposed gun registry format is similar to a situation like in a school where the headmaster wants to maintain a register of all the disciplined and good students, in case of bad behaviour or incidents the culprits can be identified after referring the register and their name does not reflect in it. This idea sounds skewed to me.

Regards,
drifter.

[rabepobemababe]

I will post replies one-by-one, since my internet connection is getting disrupted while I type long messages.

@xl_target,

I am wide awake to the realities of my country, and perhaps do not need to smell coffee.

The reality is that there is a law (and an amendment to it) that has been passed with 'aye's from a good majority of members present and voting in the law-making body of India. These members represent people of this country. The existing law requires that my gun-licence details are entered into a centralized digital database. I am aware that my Voter ID details are already stored in one such centralized digital database, the details of the passport issued to me by Government of India in another, my PAN card details in another, the annual property returns (APRs) submitted by me in another (which gets displayed on a Government of India's website to the public), so on and so forth. Therefore, I am absolutely at ease with the new law, and find no occasion to fret and whine about it. But I notice that certain others do find the law repugnant. Now, the options before such people are to either (i) make the same body which made the law repeal it, or (ii) get the law struck down by a court of law. As long as (i) or (ii) does not happen, the law will be there (probably for a long time) for all to follow. This reality is to be accepted, if necessary by smelling coffee.

Regarding my statement on the Social Security Number verification for purchasing a gun in the U.S., Wikipedia says:

“Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws.....State level laws vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction....”

A website on buying guns in the State of Florida says:

“Before a gun dealer, manufacturer or importer can hand over a gun you have purchased from them, you must fill out a form that must be approved by the Department of Law Enforcement. This department maintains a database of people who are prohibited from buying a gun based on court records. The buyer must list his name, date of birth, gender, race, and Social Security number. He also must present proper identification such as a current driver's license. The purpose of this check is to make sure that the applicant is not a convicted felon, or someone who meets the above-stated criteria banning them from gun ownership. This instant check costs $8...”

The website is here:

http://www.ehow.com/list_6664381_florid ... -laws.html

Now, I do not live in the United States. But I am told that there are over 1,200 laws on firearms in the 50 States of the United States of America. In regard to these laws, as far as I am concerned, both xl_target and Jennifer D. Melville are two online sources giving out information on the gun laws of the United States. Besides, atleast two english dailies here reported that non-verification of the Social Security Number at the time of gun-sale is responsible for the Gurudwara Shooting in the U.S. Hence my statement.

[goodboy_mentor]

@rabepobemababe
There is no hurry to reply just for the sake of replying. I would would request you that before replying, please take time to read a comprehensive book about myths and facts related to guns, gun control available for free download at http://gunfacts.info/ The research done in this book is reasonable and data sourced from government statistics.