arms license

[rajveer]

For you only Sir,

“AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM,”

Is it what you asked for, if I am correct, and the meaning in common ENGLISH is

“No man shall be condemned unheard”

No confirmation needed, this is the right answer.

What about this,

IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT-IGNORANTTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT

Simple English translation
,
“Ignorance of fact excuse-ignorance of law does not excuse”’
]How many Legal maxims are we going to try?

Once again from my side ,
Something illegal is always ILLEGAL.
Regards.

[goodboy_mentor]

The awareness of Licensing Authorities about the Arms Act 1959 is well known. Have we ascertained the following facts:

1) Does his weapon require a license under Section 3 of Arms Act 1959?
2) Is Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 applicable in his case?
3) Have we ascertained that besides the firearm, does he also have its ammunition endorsed on license for "display"?
4) If he has ammunition also endorsed on license, have we ascertained what does he want to shoot, like shooting in event of self defense situation?

BTW(separate from this discussion) is there any legal document or judgement that clarifies the scope of license for "display" under Arms Act 1959? What is the legal procedure to be followed to issue a license for "display"? Is it same like that for "self protection" and "sport" like police inquiry etc.? When license is issued under Section 13 of Arms Act 1959 for the possession of "firearm" as described in Section 2 of Arms Act 1959, basically which fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution the license holder is enjoying?

[mundaire]

Something that may be pertinent to the discussion here:-

IIRC there was a judgement regarding an arms license holder who had used his firearm, issued for sport/ target shooting, in a self defence situation. The prosecution had slapped him with a case for misuse of arms as he had used his firearm for purposes other than for which the license had been granted. The court had ruled that even if the license had been issued for sport/ target shooting or any other purpose, if a person was faced with a threat to life it was reasonable that he would use any/ all means at his disposal to protect his life. The court basically threw out the prosecution case on the basis of right to self-defence/ right to life superseding any conditions which may have been imposed on the arm license.

Of course the above decision of the court was based on a special circumstance, which would not be the case if say, someone who was issued a license for display wished to use it for sport/ target shooting/ recreation. But if it comes to protecting your life, you can and should use all means at your disposal.

The above is based on my recollection of the case as it was reported in the media some years back. Maybe someone can search for the exact judgement and post a link to it here for everyone's benefit?

Cheers!
Abhijeet