Indians For Guns

(1) Who ever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years, but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or ammunition in contravention of Sec-7, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less that 7 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life & shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7, and such use or act results in the death of any person, shall be pinishable with death.
THE latest amendment made to this section in 1988, however changed its scope & contents completely. For the sake of comparison, the old section is reproduced below
"27 Punishment for possessing arms,etc., with intent to use them for unlawful purpose: Whoever has in his possession any arms & ammunition with intend to use the same for any unlawful purpose or to enable any other person to use the same for any unlawful purpose shall, whether such unlawful purpose has been carried into effect or not, be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with both".
THE original section was not happily worded. It used several words or phrases, like 'intent', 'unlawful purpose'. enable any person'.etc. which were susceptible of varying interpretation, constructions or connotations creating considerable confusion in interpreting the law honestly. Further, as would be noticed, the old section as worded, did not fix any liability on 'any other person' who was so' enabled to use the arms or ammunition for any unlawful purpose' which in itself is an offence. Anyhow,happily the latest amendment took care not to repeat those words/expressions.
NOW from the above new provision prescribes penalties & punishment for contravention of the provisions of (1) S.5 (mfg,sale,etc. of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition.) (2) S.7 (possession, mfg, sale,etc. of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition.) while the severity of punishment in the former case is comparatively lighter, the punishment in the latter case is quite severe to the extent of punishing with death in the given circumstances. perhaps for the first time, Capital punishment has been introduced in the arms law of the country. This extreme penatly, obviously, has been introduced as a deterrent against the growing use of sophisticated automatic fire-arms, like AK...series...rifles by the extremist & anti-social elements in our country..
Shall post cour laws on section 27 later on.
Hock,

For better understanding can you pl post relevant extracts of Sec 5 & 7.
Thanks

Sanjay, S.5.;- LICENCE FOR MANUFACTURE,SALE, ETC..OF ARMS & AMMUNITION ---No person shall--
(a) use,manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or
(b) expose or offers for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, Any fire-arms or any other arms of such class or di.scription as may be prescribed or any ammunition, unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
S.7--PROHIBITION OF ACQUISATION OR POSSESSION, OR OF MANUFACTURE OR SALE, OF PROHIBITED ARMS OR AMMUNITION -- No person shall----(a) acquire have in his possession or carry; or
(b) use manufacture, sell, transfer, convert,repair, test or prove; or
(c) expose or offer to sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof; ANY prohibited arms or ammunition unless he has been specially authorised by the Central Govt. in this behalf.
Further a gazette notification under rule 41 of the Arms act, the Central Govt. granted exemption to the licensed dealers and other licencees possessing any such ammunition at that time , from the operation of S-7. subject to some conditions for them...
HK,

I am neither a manufacturer or own a PB fire arm, just a regular licensee,so all of the above BS is a moot point.
Doesnt answer my Q or solve my problem if I were to take a head shot in self defense
I will still wind up in the cooler till proven innocent and my fire arm confiscated.
Merely quoting Acts dont help.,that we are aware off.

Sanjay";p="43207 wrote: all of the above BS is a moot point.
Doesnt answer my Q or solve my problem

sanjay guru i think you are being very ungrateful to a guy who is volunteering to help you

Sanjay";p="43207 wrote:Doesnt answer my Q or solve my problem
Merely quoting Acts dont help.,that we are aware off.

if wasting hours searching for relevant info then sitting in front of a pc at 9 pm and typing half a page just to help an unknown guy is BullShit and "Merely quoting Acts " for you then just go and find a criminal lawyer , pay him his thousand bucks and find answer to your "Q" and get solved your "problem". dont waste yours and others efforts on a free forum


anyway thanks hock for your efforts , keep it up man

shukriya
-
Zafar

Zafar
Two points,pl corelate the clarification sought/given wrt the original post and the captioned subject line chosen by the author,there is no common ground.
As a responsible fire arm owner I dont need to consult a lawyer,I am well aware of my rights.
As you say it is an open forum,then you should be aware that such posts can at times be extremely misleading for wannabe/new fire arm owners,as there is a very fine line between what your rights are and arent.
Hock Ann thanks for your time spent on the clarification,though it still hasnt answered the Q about the head shot bit

Sanjay

Law and the circumstances within which an incident occurs are open to interpretations by judge, lawyers, police FIR, alleged victim etc.

Hock ann has simply listed the pertinent material / sections-- its legal mumbo jumbo or BS but one should be cognizant of the ramifications to better evaluate the situation action and outcome. Shooting should always be the last resort.

Best

Thanks zafar & ngrewal, Since sanjay is aware of all the rules & arms acts may be he should over look my BS posts,may be the Arms Act is also a BS to him, i am just trying to help the thousands of visitors who are attached to this form i have only quoted from the manuals of arms law which i don't think is available in the market for every one right now and regarding the use of fire-arms in exercise of the right of self defence : The provisions of section 27 of the act are not attracted where the accused used his gun in ecercise of his right of private defence of property. S.27 of the Arms act contemplates possession of arms or ammunition with intend to use the same for any unlawful purpose.
To make use of gun in the exercise of the right of private defence would not be an unlawful purpose in view of section 96 I.P.C. Sec-27. of Arms Act would not apply in such a case.
(Bhupendra V. State : 1968.9 GUJ.LR 1063:ILR (1968 Guj.94) where should we fire for our self defence ?, just sticking to the example of the capacity of .22 caliber will not help others who are facing difficulties in getting licences for their safety instead the authorities would become more strict in issuing licences. & people who cannot afford to buy .32s ..or are more fond of .22s.. The fire-arms owners specially residing in the disturbed terrorists effected States of India, should know the important Arms acts. I my self reside in ASSAM and the licencees here face lots of problems due to law & orders precautions taken by security forces to stop terrorists activities.
HK,

HK,

No one is disputing the fact that the Indian Penal Code and even the Indian Arms Act recognize the right of an individual to use deadly force to defend his life and property .Infact he can do this to defend the life and property of others as well even if his own life or property is not in immediate danger.

However the fact is also this that in case you end up shooting some one or worse killing him,a case would be registered against you and your firearm confiscated.You would be lucky if the police during investigation are convinced by your story of using deadly force in self defence and that the force exercised by you was commensurate to the threat faced.Or in other words,had you not shot the individual you would have been in the danger of serious bodily harm or death.Otherwise you would be tried for murder and the case would drag on for at least a decade,if not more.

Also,even if the police during investigations decide to drop the case against you,you would still have to get an order from the court to get your firearm released.

Even if you are let off during investigations or are acquitted by the court,it would still be open to your assailant,if he survived or his/her legal heirs,if he did not, to go to the court to claim damages.

Does anyone recall the case in Mumbai a few years ago where a businessman out with his girlfriend shot (in the stomach) and killed one common criminal (from a party of two) as they were misbehaving, threatening him and his girlfriend? This happened in the Bandra area.

This incident was widely reported in the media and the businessman gained a lot of sympathy from the press and public at large. If I'm not mistaken even the police said it was in self defence. However some concrete info would be pertinent to this discussion.

AMK

as far as I know there were no charges against him

But then again, Mumbai police is a tad bit different than the rest of the (northern) world, where i had to go great pains to explain to a two star wallah, what 'target shooting' is-he wanted me to change my application from a np bore rifle to handgun, quoting 'danger to life'

hock ann";p="43227 wrote:The fire-arms owners specially residing in the disturbed terrorists effected States of India, should know the important Arms acts. I my self reside in ASSAM and the licencees here face lots of problems due to law & orders precautions taken by security forces to stop terrorists activities.
HK,

HK this sounds strange,and I am speaking from first hand exp here,was posted there.In the late 80's-when the terrorist problem was at it's peak in Punjab licences were issued freely
there,the VDC's (Village Defense Committees) were provided arms re .303's by the police.Folks were encouraged to arm themselves,as a matter of fact one old farmer knocked of a few blokes
who attacked his house with his shot gun and no questions were asked.

In the Jammu region even today VDC's are armed by the state,to actually help in the fight,esp in remote areas where it takes some time for the forces to reach in case of an incident.

diskaon";p="43246 wrote:as far as I know there were no charges against him

IIRC it happened in the late 90's,was covered extensively by the press,a business man from Punjab
was attacked in broad daylight in Patna,he did bring down one or two people not sure,but was not charged or at least at the time the incident was covered.Whether or not his fire arm was confiscated or not,have no idea.

Sanjay, here in assam we do have VDC's but armed with Torch & lathis its not like punjab where the village heads were issued prohibited arms by th Govt.to fight the extremist But here in assam during March/1990 many weapons were taken away from the licencee by the ULFA so that the licencee could not retaliate & later the State Govt. asked the licencees to deposit their weapons with the police for the safe deposit of the weapons.Even now killings takes place on the bourder areas of the TEA gardens even in towns many brick field owners/Hindi speakers/ labours were killed by the extremists the Govt. returned many weapons for the self defence only after the protest by the licencee, But now Govt. made it compulsary for every brick field owners to take 4 nos of arms licence & buy weapons for self defence. Many central ministers visited the State over the past few years & have suggested for issue of arms licences for the Hindi speaking people. So you do not know what is going to happen may be a grenade blast, or a shot from AKs..etc..First is self defence if possible to escape the assult AKs ammo no one knows except (GOD) the casualties of a burst fire by assault rifles only time will tell. If one survives then Judge is there to JUDGE his case.
HK,