Lawyers to fight gun license related cases.

[Bhargav]

Are there any special lawyers who fight gun license related cases? I believe a lawyer who specializes in constitution law can do it, no?.

I was wandering on www.lawyersclubindia.com and sent out messages to some of the lawyers which I found out using the "Search lawyers" tool but no one has replied anything yet.

Do we have a directory or does anybody know of a particular lawyer who has fought this type of cases before ? How much NAGRI can help ?

Thanks.

[goodboy_mentor]

Yes any experienced civil lawyer who has a good understanding of the Constitutional law would be a better choice. If you refer this link and the links within it, you will find there are already plenty of good judgments http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15638

You may raise a query in the "Experts" section of that website, you are likely to get number of replies.

I do not think there is any directory. You will have to search and do your due diligence about the lawyer.

[Bhargav]

Oh I see, thanks mentor

[goodboy_mentor]

I would like to add that you do not practically need a lawyer at the time of applying for arms license. Fill the arms license application form carefully without suppressing any fact that is being asked. The application will be either accepted or rejected by the licensing authority. If rejected appeal to the appellate authority. The role of lawyer begins once the application is officially rejected. Then he can step in and help getting a writ of mandamus issued from High Court.

[Bhargav]

Thanks for the info mentor but what exactly is this writ of mandamus?

[goodboy_mentor]

A writ of mandamus can be said to be a command, mandate or order by court to the government official to do his mandatory duty which he is obliged to do under the law. In India High Courts and Supreme Court can issue writs.

[Bhargav]

So in case if an application is rejected then how can a writ help? Coz that just means that a govt official must do his duty that's it.

[goodboy_mentor]

Because in most of the cases they do not do their duty as per law. Arms license is issued as per Section 13 of Arms Act 1959 provided the applicant is not disqualified under Section 14 of Arms Act 1959.

If the applicant is indeed disqualified as per Section 14 of Arms Act 1959 and the licensing authority has correctly implemented Section 14 then there is no point in approaching High Court since the High Court will also say the same thing.

But in most of the cases this is not the case. The usual modus operandi of the licensing authorities is:

1. Do nothing and keep the arms license applications indefinitely pending.

2. If they find that the applicant is chasing his application then they vehemently try to find some excuse for rejecting the application under Section 14 of Arms Act 1959. When they do not find any fact that confirms to Section 14 of Arms Act 1959 they arbitrarily reject arms license applications giving some irrelevant excuse.

This is when the writ of mandamus comes in and the court directs the licensing authority to do its mandatory duty by going strictly as per law. If you read the link containing the judgments that I given in one of the posts above, all those judgments are writs.

[Bhargav]

Oh I see, that makes sense but what is section 14?

[goodboy_mentor]

It is Section 14 of Arms Act 1959. It talks about the conditions for refusing arms license application. You may read it at http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/laws/act/ If you want to read the latest version of Arms Act 1959 with all the amendments, it can downloaded from the MHA website.

[Bhargav]

Sure, thanks mentor. I did google it and the reasons stated in sec 14 are pretty much the same reasons checked for conceal carry license here in the US.

[Bhargav]

Section 13(b) states this:

(b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under section 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same.

if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person has a good reason for the license? What does this mean, with this clause they can state that the person doesn't have any threat to life so not a satisfactory reason to grant the license. no??

[goodboy_mentor]

Ambiguities and lack of clarity in the laws in most of the instances is done intentionally to create problems so that the matter can be delayed, dragged to courts for ever. This was the trick that was openly used by the British rulers and unfortunately habit of using this trick continues even till today. Arms Act 1959 is one such example. It reminds me of the following:

Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure. - Thomas Jefferson

This is what my understanding is about the reply to your question:

1. There are plenty of High Court judgments that clarify that obtaining an arms license is not a matter of "threat" or "no threat" but it is a matter of citizen's right rather a fundamental right.

2. "Good reason" is not equal to "threat". And "bad reason" is not equal to "no threat". How? Self protection, sport and crop protection are good reasons that is exactly why these reasons are fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Also arms are fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In other words the Constitution has taken the burden on itself to justify these reasons to be good reasons. All laws flow from the Constitution, so is Arms Act 1959. Exactly because of these reasons, these "good reasons" are already acknowledged by Section 13(3)(a)(i) of Arms Act 1959. Extract of the same is produced below:

(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:

3. Please note the use of words "citizen of India" in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of Arms Act 1959. The words "citizen of India" are used due to good reason only. The words "citizen of India" are used because the arms besides being fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, are also a fundamental right for "citizen of India" under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Please note the use of words "All citizens shall have the right" in Article 19(1). Article 19(1)b is talking about arms only because they are acknowledged as fundamental right for "citizen of India" otherwise there is absolutely no reason to mention about arms. Since fundamental rights under Article 19 enjoy additional protection for "citizen of India" over and above to the rights under Aticle 21, Section 13 of Arms Act 1959 makes it obligatory for the licensing authority to issue the arms license to "citizen of India" for self protection, sport or crop protection provided that there does not exist a disqualification under Section 14 of Arms Act 1959.

Therefore "good reasons" for citizen of India are self protection, sport and crop protection.

Also whenever there is any ambiguity or lack of clarity in law, in order to understand the intent of legislature, the courts read the Objects and Reasons of the Bill that was passed to make it into law. The objects of the Bill that became Arms Act 1959 are:

(a) to exclude knives, spears, bows and arrows and the like from the definition of "arms".

(b) to classify firearms and other prohibited weapons so as to ensure--

(i) that dangerous weapons of military patterns are not available to civilians, particularly the anti-social elements;

(ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under licence unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privileges; and

(iii) the fire-arms required for training purposes and ordinary civilian use are made more easily available on permits:

(c) to co-ordinate the rights of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country:

(d) to recognize the right of the State to requisition the services of every citizen in national emergencies. The licensees and permit holders for firearms, shikaris, target shooters and riflle-men in general (in appropriate age groups) will be of great service to the country in emergencies, if the Government can properly mobiles and utilise them.

If you note the object numbered (i) the emphasis is that especially the anti social elements do not get "weapons of military patterns".

If you note the object numbered (ii) the emphasis is on "all citizens"(please note Article 19 also uses the words "all citizens") get weapons for self-defence.

If you note the object numbered (iii) the emphasis is on "fire-arms required for training purposes" and "ordinary civilian use" are more easily available. "ordinary civillian use" includes self protection, sport and crop protection.

If you note the object numbered (c) the emphasis is on co-ordinating the "rights of the citizen" with the necessity of maintaining law and order. Co-ordinating the rights means there are at least two rights that need to be co-ordinated. These are the right to keep and bear arms under Article 19 and self protection, sport and crop protection under Article 21. The "rights of the citizen" are mentioned in Article 19, 21 and Section 13(3)(a)(i) of Arms Act 1959. When a citizen exercises his rights as allowed by Section 96 to 106 IPC he is doing nothing but helping in "maintaining law and order".

If you note the object numbered (d) its tune and theme is in the direction that "all citizens" are armed to help the country during national emergencies.

[Bhargav]

Wow yeah that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation mentor.

[renjith747]

Hats off Good Boy Mentor