Since I had to outline each of these points for someone via mail today, thought I'd share the same with everyone on this thread - in case anyone asks you for specifics comparing the new amendments with the current law and their negative impact.
Changes being made to the Arms Act 1959/ Arms Rules 1962
Listed as per point no.'s in the MHA order dated 31st March 2010:
ii) Grant of Arms License for Non-Prohibited Bore (NPB) weapons
a) Applications for grant of NPB arms licenses may be considered from persons who may face or perceive grave and imminent threat to their lives, for which the licensing authority will obtain an assessment of the threat faced by the persons from the police authorities.
This is in direct contravention of Section 13 sub-section 3, which clear states:
13.
(3) The licensing authority shall grant---
(a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required---
(i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection
In legal terms the use of the term "shall grant" means that the licensing authority is obligated to grant the license, unless the applicant is disqualified as per the terms outlined under Section 14 of the Arms Act. Also even a cursory reading of the objects of the Arms Act, make it clear that the Arms Act was meant to ENABLE citizens to own arms UNLESS they are disqualified from doing so (criminal record, of unsound mind etc.). In essence this change would ensure that ONLY VIPs are ever granted licenses.
b) No license may be granted without police verification, which will include report on i) antecedents of the applicant, ii) assessment of the threat, iii) capability of the applicant to handle arms, and iv) any other information which the police authority might consider relevant for the grant or refusal of license. Steps are being taken to delet the proviso to Sec. 13 (2A) of the Arms Act, 1959.
c) The police authorities may be advised to send the police report within 45 days positively failing which the police officials concerned may be liable for action.
In the above point, there is a clear admission of the fact that the MHA's order has PRESUPPOSED parliamentary approval by issuing an order PRIOR to the relevant section 13 (2A) being amended/ deleted by parliament!
The MHA's official line that this is being done to make it mandatory for the licensing authority to wait for the police verification report.
In practice, this section is applied in a minuscule number of licenses applications, and that too when the Licensing Authority is completely satisfied as to the antecedents of the applicant AND the police is taking an inordinate time to send the verification report.
In almost every normal case, the license is NOT issued UNLESS the verification report is duly received. This provision was originally included in the Arms Act, to ensure that the Licensing Authority's power to issue licenses is not diluted by creating two distinct authorities for the same task. Without any penalties being imposed on the concerned police officers, the police will now be able to indefinitely delay an applicants verification report, in effect denying licenses through a process of infinite delay.
A mandatory police report is a positive reiteration of the Arms Act's original objectives, but there must be clearly outlined and strict penalties imposed on police officers who delay sending in the verification report within the stipulated time. Just making an open ended statement like "failing which the police officials concerned may be liable for action", means absolutely nothing and will do nothing to deter corrupt or inefficient officials from harassing applicants. ALSO, the time period in the order was stated as 45 days, but in the proposed amendments, it has now been inexplicably increased to 60 days!
iv) Currently there is no fixed norm for how much ammunition quota is allocated to each licensee (how much he can purchase at one time and how much in the entire year) - this is decided by the licensing authority on a case by case basis. It is meaningless to own a firearm, unless one is proficient in it's use. Needless to say this means that at the bare minimum the arms license holder needs to shoot several hundred rounds each year to learn how to use the firearm effectively, safely & responsibly and also to maintain his/ her level of proficiency. In stead of an arbitrary and uniformly small quota for everyone, a more rational step would have been to first set up a panel of experts to determine how much minimum amount of ammunition is needed by every licensee to properly train with his/ her firearm.
v) Reporting use of Ammunition - currently there is no such provision in the Arms Act or Arms Rules. This seeks to make mandatory for every licensee to PROVE on which date, which place and for what purpose he used each round of ammunition. It is not practically feasible to implement this order and will simply lead to harassment of arms licensees and rampant corruption.
From both points iv) & v) it would seem that the ministry is of the view that arms licensees may potentially sell their ammunition in the black market. While from even a cursory reading of news reports over the past year reveals that black marketing of ammunition is primarily done by smugglers, police personnel and arms dealers. What does the Ministry really seek to achieve by implementing these ill thought out points?
vii) Area validity of arms license - Currently applications for extension of area of validity for an arms license (district/ state/ tri-state/ all India) are being handled by individual States. While applications for district/ state/ tri-state are handled by the local licensing authority, applications for All India Validity (AIV) are handled by the State's Home Department. As things stand today, requests for AIV are not easily granted, but the Home Ministry now wishes to make it impossible - except for a selected category of VIPs & VVIPs!
The Ministry has listed as the ONLY persons to be granted AIV as (i) sitting Union Ministers/ MPs (ii) Personnel of Military, Para Military (iii) officers of All-India Services and (iV) officers with liability to serve anywhere in India, and (v) Sports persons. Everyone else who applies for an AIV, will have to have his application directly approved by the Union Home Ministry - which as we all know will be impossible, except for those with very high connections.
To further ensure that even those who currently hold AIV licenses would be soon loose them and be relegated to district/ state validity licenses, the ministry has stated that AIV shall only be granted for 3 years and would need to be renewed separately each time with due justifications provided by the applicant. In essence perpetuating a class system by creating a recognised "elite" segment of society which would be the only ones able to hold AIV licenses. The irony is, that except for sports persons, all other mentioned categories are currently offered protection by use of government arms or guards - at the tax payers expense. The very same tax payer, whom they wish to disempower and limit his ability to protect his own life beyond the borders of his district/ state!!
No where has the Ministry been able to provide justifications for doing this. When every citizen has the fundamental right to protect his life & property, does the ministry contend that this right ends his/ her district's or state's borders? The restriction on area of validity of arms licenses is a throw back to the British days, when our colonial masters feared that Indian arms license holders may congregate at predetermined places and engage in an armed rebellion against the state. What justification has our democratically elected government got to place the same restrictions on the citizens of a free India? India is a republic and if the citizens decide to replace the government, they don't need to engage in any armed rebellion - they can and will simply vote them out of power!
viii) Renewal of arms licenses - The home ministry wishes to make it compulsory for the antecedents of every arms license holder to be reverified by the police every alternate license renewal cycle (i.e. every six years). Currently there is no such requirement, however if an arms license holder is involved in any criminal case the arms are required to deposited by him for the duration of the case. If convicted, he would necessarily loose his license. Arms can also be forced to be deposited by the police if they fear that personal enmity etc. may lead to violence. The local police is well aware of all the arms licensees in their jurisdiction and this system works quite well. A compulsory reverification every 6 years serves absolutely no purpose, other than to increase the harassment faced by arms license holders and will simply lead to more corruption and waste of police time.
-- 27 Jul 2010 10:31 pm --
Will also (soon) post a scanned copy of the MHA order dated 31st March 2010, obtained via RTI.
Cheers!
Abhijeet
