'Weapons Not For Showing Off': Delhi High Court Rejects Man's Gun Licence Plea

[Biren]

Hi,

Came across Delhi High Court judgement where a person approached Delhi High Court after his application for gun license was rejected by Drlhi police and Lt. Governor.

https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/weapons ... ea-1722395


Rejecting the plea of a private company official for a gun licence, the Delhi High Court said he has not shown any circumstance that could create a perception that there is a threat to him
Delhi | Press Trust of India | Updated: July 09, 2017 10:18 IST

Gun licence is given to people only for self-defence, the Delhi High Court said. (Representational)
New Delhi: A person does not have a fundamental right to keep weapons, the Delhi High Court has said. Rejecting a private company official's plea for an arms licence, the high court said people keep weapons more for "showing off" and as a "status symbol" than for self-defence. The police and the Delhi lieutenant governor had also denied arms licence to the applicant before the matter reached court.

Upholding the decisions of the licensing authority and the lieutenant governor, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said, "We are not living in a lawless society where individuals have to acquire or hold arms to protect themselves."

The court said the object of the Arms Act was to ensure that weapons are available to people for self-defence, but it "does not mean that every individual should be given a licence". "The grant of arms licence is a privilege conferred by the [Arms] Act. There is no fundamental right of an individual to hold an arm," the court said.

"Possession of arms today has become a status symbol. Individuals seek to possess arms mostly for the purposes of showing off that they are influential people. Arms are even being used indiscriminately for celebratory firing at weddings," the court said.

The petitioner sought a gun licence saying he is responsible for dealing in cash up to Rs. 3 lakh every day and needed protection. The court rejected his contention, saying the cash belonged to his company and if there was any need to protect the money, the company would have taken some safety measures.
"The amount of cash mentioned by the petitioner is only about Rs. 2-3 lakh a day. Merely because an individual deals with cash of Rs. 2-3 lakh a day and that also of a third party does not by itself show that there is any threat to that individual," the court said.

The lieutenant governor had expressed the same view while rejecting the man's plea for an arms licence. The court said the petitioner has not shown any circumstance that could create a perception that there is a threat to him.

"License to hold an arm is to be granted where there is a necessity... and not merely at the asking of an individual at his whims and fancies," the court said.

Rgds
Biren

[milind]

Handling a cash of 2-3 lakh daily itself is eye catching for Gunda Elements and they will not bother who it belong to. They will not target the third party whom the cash belong to. The guy handling the cash is at risk irrespective of the owner of the cash. Self defense might not be fundamental right but it's constitutional right for sure. And the license should be granted if requested by any individual to protect himself and the family as the threat and accidents are sudden happening things.

We can not dig a well after becoming thirsty.

I am just casting my opinion and wish to know others view also. I have great respect and regards for our judiciary system but I would have appealed in higher court in this case.

Love
Milind

[pistolero]

,


Upholding the decisions of the licensing authority and the lieutenant governor, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said, "We are not living in a lawless society where individuals have to acquire or hold arms to protect themselves."

The court said the object of the Arms Act was to ensure that weapons are available to people for self-defence, but it "does not mean that every individual should be given a licence". "The grant of arms licence is a privilege conferred by the [Arms] Act. There is no fundamental right of an individual to hold an arm," the court said.

"

Legal Experts, is this not a Fundamental Right? To Defend oneself?

[goodboy_mentor]

This judgment appears to be less rooted in facts of law and more based on personal opinions and sermons. I would request members not to post these type of careless and poor quality judgments. This judgment appears per incuriam. Why? Read below -

A decision/judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the court. A decision/judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger bench; or if the decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the views of the Supreme Court.[5] It is a settled rule that if a decision has been give per incuriam the court can ignore it.

May read more details of per incuriam doctrine by clicking here

Read the following links which tell the legal points that were not brought to the notice of the court -

1. click here
2. click here

Self defense(subject to restrictions of Right of Private Defense under IPC Section 96 to 106) is certainly a fundamental human right, so is RKBA(subject to regulations of Arms Act 1959). If one reads link above numbered 1., will understand. Human rights are those rights that belong to us because we are humans. They are much above the Constitution, regardless whether Constitution guarantees them or not. These rights are rooted in humans and not rooted in Constitution. They cannot be violated for State interest or political excuses or reasons like emergency, national interest etc. etc.

Will try to explain this with some examples. For example right of self determination or freedom of speech and expression are human rights. They are not rooted in the Constitution. Constitution is not "granting" or "providing" them. It is merely guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental(human) right. Even if the Constitution is not guaranteeing them or the Indian State gets divided into new multiple sovereign States, with different Constitutions, the human rights of self determination or of speech and expression will remain. On the other hand, right to vote(under Election Commission of India) is a political right, a democratic right, rooted in the Constitution. Theoretically speaking, if Constitution is amended to extinguish the right to vote(under Election Commission of India), then this particular right to vote will cease to exist. But this will not extinguish the right to vote for self determination. Hope the matter is clear.