4th firearm (22lr) on a licence....

[neeraj]

U may or may not agree. However the fact is that the language is clearly emphatic where the word 'using' in Section 3(3) has been put in by the legislature. Had it been 'acquistion or possession' , I would have endorsed your interpretation. It's not wild imagination. No body is entitled for 4th Fire Arm other than the exemptee Sports Persons as per 12.9.1985 notification as amended upto date. The interpretation of Delhi Police also supports the same. U may please check it with NRAI and they will also concur with the provisions of law. An advisory needs to be issued for the same to all the licensing authorities. As far the constitution is concerned, Arms Licences are just a privlege and not a fundamental right after the 44th Amendment of the Constitution. U may refer to many judgments of Allahabad and Madras Highcourts on this issue. The grantor is the liscening authority and grantee is the licensee. The grantee can exercise his rights only which are available under the Act. Similarly, there is no inheritence word ever used in the Act, Rules or MHA Advisories. It is 'family heirloom' only where the legal heirs can retain the weapon on sentimental grounds or sell it. They are not supposed to 'use' the weapon for self defence, protection or sport. I am thouroughly clear on the concepts and would like to substantiate it with the interpretations made in various court judgments in this regard. Thanks.

[Anand]

Hello Neeraj,
you said "Had it been 'acquistion or possession' , I would have endorsed your interpretation."

"(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member of the rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognized by the Central Government using a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice"

If you look at only (3) above, then your interpretation may seem to be correct, however (2) below, is specifically mentioning the exemption of 2 categories from this 3 gun limit, those categories being: dealers and members of recognised rifle associations. With regard to the members of such associations,the use of the word "using" is merely to specify that this exemption is applicable only in the case of .22 Bore Rifles and Air rifles and not any other firearms.

"2[(2)]Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person, other than a person referred to in sub-section (3), shall acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, more than three firearms:"

You also said in your comments that:
"2. This exemption for the target practice is available even to those shooters who do not hold any licence in Form III or do not possess any weapon(s) at all. They are exempted from holding a licence for such target practice and can use the said .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice. Rule 15 of the Arms Rules has to be read to clearly understand this exemption provided under the Act. The licence granted to the Club or Association covers the legal requirement for such weapons."

If this were infact the case, then why specifically mention anything about members of rifle associations at all in (3) above?
This is a good discussion and will help in clearing the air, so please do not take offense to any members' opinions or interpretations.
Regards,
Anand

[neeraj]

Your Question Mr. Anand

If this were infact the case, then why specifically mention anything about members of rifle associations at all in (3) above?

I reply to your query:

The Arms Rules, 1962 were brought into effect w.e.f. 1.10.1962 simultaneously with the Arms Act, 1959 from that date. The Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983 brought significant changes in Section 3 w.e.f. 22/4/1983 wherein Sub Section 2/3 & 4 were inserted. To provide clarity under Rule 15 which was already in force, it was brought into the Act that the provision of acquisition, possession of firearms the maximum number of three weapons are allowed. However, it will not be applicable to dealers (for sale purchase for which they are regulated by Licences in Form XI, XII and XIII and their licensed capacities are defined) and to the members of rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognized by the Central Government (for which they are granted Licence in Form No. VI) for USING a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle FOR TARGET PRACTICE. Specific Rule for Target Practice is Rule 15 of the Arms Rules. So a conjoint reading of the Sub Section (3) and Rule 15 clarifies the intention of the legislature in this regard. Section 3(3) is not to be read in isolation. Only two categories are expemted under the Act to possess more than 3 fire arms on their licences: First as already mentioned 5 categories of Sports Persons (Notification No.SO 667(E) dated 12.9.1985) and Institutional/Companies/Firme including banks (Notification No. SO 954 dated 8/12/1987) from the applicability of Section 3(2).

Grant of 4th weapon as such is ultra vires the Arms Act, 1959 and the members of NRAI are advised to seek necessary clarification from their licensing authorities in this regard or from NRAI. They are sincerely advised to get the 4th weapon deleted from their licences in order to avoid the offence under the Arms Act.

I wd also like to add that prior to the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983, the word USE was not there in Section 5.

Lastly, I wd like to add that I am not averse to healthy discussion. I have got activated on this forum to clarify the mist if any on any of the provisions of the Arms Act and Arms Rules, which is a beautfully drafted legislation and it took 7 years for the Parliament to finalize its each word and phrase. Like the law has used two words Person and Citizen at various places. The relevance needs to be understood.

Regards

[goodboy_mentor]

However the fact is that the language is clearly emphatic where the word 'using' in Section 3(3) has been put in by the legislature. Had it been 'acquistion or possession' , I would have endorsed your interpretation.

Section 3(2) is talking about three gun limit for acquistion or possession or carrying. It is not talking about using. And Section 3(3) is corrolary to Section 3(2), and thus explaining who are exempt from Section 3(2). Since Section 3(3) is corrolary to Section 3(2), the word "using" is about rifle clubs using .22 rifles and air guns.

As far the constitution is concerned, Arms Licences are just a privlege and not a fundamental right after the 44th Amendment of the Constitution. U may refer to many judgments of Allahabad and Madras Highcourts on this issue.

It is all playing with the words that has been done to create confusion in Arms Act 1959. The words fundamental right and privilege are used interchangeably in written Constitutions. Similar misnomer is "prohibited bore" and "prohibited arms" which are actually not prohibited.

The judgments which you might be referring are plain perverse and per incuriam since they did not take into account all the relevant facts. There have been recent Allahabad High Court judgments stating that arms are part of Article 21. They can be read here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 64#p147708 and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... ff#p162758

It is indisputable fact that all laws are flowing from the Constitution, so is Arms Act 1959. Article 19(1)b is acknowledging arms as fundamental right. I have explained it here in detail http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic ... 59#p158059

Rights in Article 19 are flowing from Article 21. Since Article 19 provides more protection to rights than Article 21, that is why Section 13(3)(a)(i) of Arms Act 1959 is making it obligatory for licensing authority to issue license to citizens of India. It is well settled principle of interpretation that if two views are possible, and one view that makes a legal provision unconstitutional while the other view makes it constitutional, then the latter should be preferred. Hence, we should construe this provision of the Arms Act in a manner that it is in conformity with Article 19 of the Constitution. I have explained this matter in detail here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 08#p161218

The grantor is the liscening authority and grantee is the licensee. The grantee can exercise his rights only which are available under the Act.

By no stretch of imagination, the licensing authority is "grantor" of any license, it is merely an implementing authority under law. The word "grant" has been used in Arms Act 1959 as a misnomer instead of word "issue".

They are not supposed to 'use' the weapon for self defence, protection or sport.

Are you saying you are supposed to use your bare hands only for self defense which is fundamental right? If yes then nothing can be more unconstitutional and perverse than this. Since self protection, sport and crop protection are without any doubt fundamental rights under Article 21, that is exactly why Section 13(3)(a)(i) of Arms Act 1959 is making licensing authourity to issue license to citizens of India for self protection, sport and crop protection.

Like the law has used two words Person and Citizen at various places. The relevance needs to be understood.

The relevance is very simple, since arms are fundamental right of citizens under Article 19, it is made obligatory for licensing authority to issue license to citizen, provided the citizen is not disqualified under Section 14. Person is used for non citizens since arms are also part of Article 21. For persons the matter of issue of license under Section 13 is left to the discretion of licensing authority.

[Anand]

Hi again Neeraj, I am not a lawyer but I am looking through the Arms Act as I type this

Form VI license granted in the name of a military mess, club or association for the purposes of target practice, is issued specifically in the name of the association and not in the name of one or more of its members (although they may be held responsible for the safety and proper use and storage of the firearms covered).

Rule 15 merely states that, it is lawful for any member of such a mess or association to use the firearms covered by the mess/club/association license in accordance with the conditions of the license (it does not specifically limit it to .22 bore rifles and air rifles.)

The Section 3(3) specifically refers to a member of a rifle club or rifle association using a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice. Note that it does not refer to an association or mess or club itself.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that, (please correct me if I am wrong on this, but) a Form VI license may be granted to a club/mess/association for Rifles of any N.P Bore including .22 and for even pistols, revolvers and shotguns.

So if this is true, then does it mean that members of these associations are allowed target practice only with .22 bore rifles and air rifles, while the club/mess/association has license for other firearms? Why grant a license in Form VI to these clubs/messes/associations for other bores if its members can only use .22 rifles and air rifles?


1.I believe that Rule 15 of the Arms Rules 1962 only deals with the legality of the use of firearms by the members of a club/mess/association that has a Form VI license with no mention of the number of firearms or with their bore/caliber allowed to such members.

2.I believe that Section 3(3) deals with application (or the lack thereof) of Section 3(2) to :
a.) Dealers
&
b.)Members of Rifle Associations specifically with regard to .22 Rifles and Air Rifles and no other Bore/caliber or
type of firearms

If what you said were to be correct, then, in 3(3) the words "member of a" and " using a .22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice" should not have been there.

Regards,
Anand

[neeraj]

Dear Mr. Anand

I have minutely gone through your observations and have in reply to state:

Section 3(2) limits the number of weapons with a rider that no person, other than a person referred to in sub-section (3), shall acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, more than three fire arms:

Now Section 3(3) says that nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member of the rifle club.....................

It gives an exception to Rule 3(2) but it does not mean that dealer and members of rifle clubs for target practice are not governed by the Arms Act. Separate Rules are there for dealers to obtain licences and similarly separate rules are framed for members of the rifle club or rifle association for target practice. The exception is provided as a felicitation from the applicability of Section 3(2). If I go by your version, dealers may claim exemption from the language and retain any number of weapons, but its not so since they are subjected to different rules and licences. Similarly Sir, no blanket permission is given to members for target practice. They may do practice without holding a licence in their name for target practice in clubs and associations and use .22 bore rifles or air rifles.

Still I am not closing this discussion and trying to get pan India feedback of the different licensing authorities on the issue and will revert if anything material surfaces.

[Anand]

Hi Neeraj,

You said: "The exception is provided as a felicitation from the applicability of Section 3(2)."
My point exactly!

You also said: " If I go by your version, dealers may claim exemption from the language and retain any number of weapons, but its not so since they are subjected to different rules and licences."

The pertinent point here, is that the dealers & Rifle association members shall not be affected by the 3 gun limit, not that they should have no limit at all. The statement clearly is aimed at NOT affecting dealers and members of Rifle associations by the 3 gun limit, while still limiting them under the terms and conditions of their licenses.

It is my understanding that this was elaborated in this way, to avoid potential confusion as to whether dealers also are subject to the 3 gun limitation which was created in 1983, and was primarily aimed at the common person/citizen.
This is only logical since it would be impractical to have a limit of 3 firearms on dealers whose business cannot be easily conducted with such constraints.

Similarly, in case of Members of Rifle associations, it is made explicit as "a .22 bore Rifle or an Air rifle" meaning one .22 Rifle only, in addition to the 3 gun limit (and not an unlimited number of .22 rifles) and that too for target practice only (and not for any other purpose).
To make it explicit removes any potential confusion.

I appreciate you taking a very positive attitude towards our "argument" ! This exchange is very interesting to me and I am sure others will join in.


Regards,
Anand

[goodboy_mentor]

Still I am not closing this discussion and trying to get pan India feedback of the different licensing authorities on the issue and will revert if anything material surfaces.

I appreciate your efforts. But in order to correctly interpret Arms Act 1959, one needs to first understand the basics i.e. from which Articles of Constitution it is flowing from. In other words arms are fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 and Arms Act 1959 is just a regulatory law for this fundamental right. Therefore interpretation of Arms Act 1959 has to be done in the least restrictive manner since rights are broad and powers are narrow. Wherever in doubt within Arms Act 1959, the the presumption is in favor of the right and not power. Else if those licensing authorities are ignorant of these basic facts, they will be interpreting Arms Act 1959 like in that proverbial story of five blind men trying to identify an elephant.

The original Arms Act 1959 contained very few provisions that were ultra vires to the Constitution. But most of the later amendments are against the Constitution on various grounds. Same is the case with Sections 3(2) and 3(3) which were added later on. Anyways for the sake of this discussion, assuming that Section 3(2) and 3(3) are not against the Constitution, I will try to explain below how a mountain out of mole hill is being attempted to be created out of Section 3(3) by trying to needlessly find meanings, connections of the the word "use" and "target practice" in it and erroneously connecting it with Rule 15. Below is the explanation -

Section 3 of Arms Act 1959 does not have any prohibition on the "use" of firearm in it i.e. it is not mentioning that one needs to have license to use a firearm due to a very good reason. Reason is because restricting the lawful use of firearm only by holding license under Section 3 would be unconstitutional on plenty of grounds. For example if "use" of firearm for all lawful purposes(includes all fundamental rights)is tied to license, one would not be able to use the firearm for self defense which is fundamental right and thus is perfectly lawful under Sections 96 to 106 IPC. Example - If violently attacked by an armed gunman, the Section 3 would not allow the victim of crime to snatch the gun and use it for his self defense! Hope the matter is clear to you now why the "use" of firearms is not tied down to holding of license under Arms Act 1959.

Similarly later amendments to Sections 5 and 7 to add the words "use" and "manufacture" are clearly against the Constitution of India. I will explain about unconstitutionality of "manufacture" later on, let us discuss about "use" at the moment. It is clear from reading Sections 5 that though a firearms manufacturer or firearms dealer has firearms in his lawful possession, but he cannot use any such firearm for his self defense. In other words Section 5 is forcing him to die by not allowing its use for self defense which is guaranteed by Constitution. Similarly if a victim of violent crime is attacked with a prohibited firearm, he cannot snatch it and "use" it for his self defense because of Section 7. In other words Sections 5 and 7 want to help the criminals and not the victims!

It is wisely said law is an ass. But it becomes a bigger and a glorious ass if enacted by asinine legislature!

[goodboy_mentor]

In continuation with above post and discussion, Supreme Court judgment related to vagueness in laws can be read here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17944

[Safarigent]

Its sad to see someone purpoting to be an advisor to the police so woefully lacking in intelligence.

[neeraj]

Thanks for the kind comments. The issue is not as straight forward as you feel. Please wait for the findings within next few days. Regards

[sa_ali]

Please wait for the findings within next few days. Regards

This is typical police words, with all due respect. You are legal adviser and in 2-3 replies to your queries, you have asked for more time.

[Safarigent]

Waiting for your reply neeraj.
I read the arms act again and i still cant see any logic in your argument.

[hardeepsinghbedi]

Dear Everyone,


Please anybody can confirm if I have already three weapons on my arms licence out of which two weapons are .22 rifles. I am a NRAI member and also state level shooter and DC office is ready to enter 4th weapon on my arrms licence but I want to purchase .12 DBBL gun instead of .22 Rifle because I already have two .22 rifles on my arms licence. If DC office enter fourth weapon as .12 DBBL gun that I am doing according to law or getting 4th weapon as .12 DBBL Gun is illegal.

[goodboy_mentor]

Not illegal. Please read Section 3(3) of Arms Act 1959. When DC office is ready to enter the 4th weapon, I am surprised why are you hesitating?