New Policy On Arms issued - ILLEGALLY!

[amit888_2000]

Dear Zake, I don't agree with u at all......on the contrary, I must add, let 20-30 people be the start......

we need few abt 5 people to start, then you all can follow, and i am sure, if we all unite, we all have that much courage and capabillity to awake the rest of the country.....AMEN

Pls dont get dishearted, we at NAGRI are actually doing at lot....

)))cheers!!!!
amit

[Raj Khalid]

Zake, I have been a pistol shooter for Maharashtra for over 30 years. We were the pioneers to get a State Policy which granted an arms license to a bonafide shooter, we are the only state where all renowned shooters have 5 licenses and a generous amunition quota, We are the only functional shooting State Association in real terms, we field the largest number of participants at each National So I am not "new" we have fought the good fight over the last 30 years. What we need is more people from across India to join hands with us.

It does not matter whether one is new or old, "out of the mouth of infants" as they say.

[goodboy_mentor]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

On reading of posts by various members, it appears to me as if we are only interested in filing of writ petition against this notification/policy. In my opinion case needs to be filed against Arms Act itself which gives government sweeping powers to violate the fundamental rights of citizens. Unless we make this a fundamental rights issue, there is hardly any sense in filing cases against notifications/policies. Arms Act/its implementation/bye-laws violate at least 3 fundamental Rights

RIGHT TO LIFE: Corollary to Right to Life is Right to Private/Self Defense as allowed by Sections 96 to 106 IPC. Self Defense cannot be done if citizens do not have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Arms Act gives powers to create denials, delays, restrictions that renders citizens defenseless against violent crime clearly violates Right to Life.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: Arms Act gives powers to create denials, delays, restrictions of area validity that renders citizens defenseless against violent crime clearly violates Right to Freedom of Movement as citizens are not able to travel anywhere within territory of India, unless they decide to risk their lives, where they think fit of moving in armed condition to safeguard themselves.

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION: Arms Act gives powers to create denials, delays, restrictions that renders citizens defenseless against violent crime clearly violates Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression since citizens are not able to openly speak or express opinions against various kinds of criminals in society as they are defenseless against violent revenge attacks by those criminals for speaking against them.

Maybe we contact this lawyer who has fought and won many cases related to Rights of people http://www.barandbench.com/index.php?ti ... ief&id=586

[Raj Khalid]

well done goodboy mentor.
I like your thoughts.
One question, why are so many people using aliases? We should be bold enough to say what we feel is the truth and put our names to it.

Raj Khalid

[goodboy_mentor]

well done goodboy mentor.
I like your thoughts.

Thank you for your comments.

One question, why are so many people using aliases?

No particular reason for aliases, appears just an "internet tradition" for privacy.

We should be bold enough to say what we feel is the truth and put our names to it.

No problem at all, when it matters to help the cause.

[hamiclar01]

One question, why are so many people using aliases? We should be bold enough to say what we feel is the truth and put our names to it.

What's good enough for Munshi Premchand, Agatha Christie and Ghalib, is good enough for me

[Olly]

You still haven't substantiated your statement.... or was it just a fling ?

Heard something called "registered shooters" and do you realize the implications?????

Pray, enlighten us on the implications of being a "registered shooter".... I am sure many shooters will thump your back for this....

What is so new in this that the licensing dept does not know already ?

[winnie_the_pooh]

You still haven't substantiated your statement.... or was it just a fling ?

Heard something called "registered shooters" and do you realize the implications?????

Pray, enlighten us on the implications of being a "registered shooter".... I am sure many shooters will thump your back for this....

What is so new in this that the licensing dept does not know already ?

Who is talking of the arms dept.

You are probably okay with the proposal for maintaining a record of the usage of the arms that you own,giving annual returns of ammo used,a central data base of your guns.

How about,


Scenario 1,Olly turns up to get his license renewed/verified as per new arms policy etc.

"You are a registered shooter.You only need guns for target shooting/practise.Why the hell do you need to keep them at home? From now on all registered shooters shall deposit their guns at the range and take permission to take them anywhere else,like your home.Also why do you need AIV when you are going to use the gun at the range"

Scenario 2.Olly wants to give notice for sale of his IOF 30-06 rifle as he is getting a Mauser Type A
"You want to sell your rifle/Why? You have fired only 2341 rounds from it in 3 years where as the life of the rifle is WXYZ rounds.No you can't sell it."

Scenario 3 Olly sitting at home polishing his ammo with brasso when the door bell rings

"Oye,we have come from the local thana.SP sahib has sent us to verify what ammo you have and to check that you are not selling any to the Naxalites.Show us how much ammo you have bought so far and give proof of the ammo fired in the form of empty cases.Even if you are short by one empty we have orders to take you into custody for misusing your rifle/gun/pistol/revolver.Chalo jaldi karo"

[ven99]

good info
thanks
amreeth

[goodboy_mentor]

WTP is absolutely correct, this is what is bound to happen, unless we rake up issue in courts as violation of at least 3 fundamental rights by Arms Act itself(as mentioned by me in my previous post in this thread). The government has cunningly converted the legal rights into a "need" or "no need" of firearms, based on twisted "threat" or "no threat" logic.
The Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and the law established by parliament have been cleverly violated and undermined. See in the past what government has cleverly done to deny legal firearm ownership(violation of fundamental rights as well as undermining the aims and objectives of an act of parliament i.e Arms Act 1959), which very few people realized:
a)It ensured that IOF is the only manufacturer of pistols/revolvers and rifles in India, so that it could fix prices as high as it desired(Presently it is selling at prices that are almost 10 times of that are prevailing in international markets for similar firearms).
b)Placed insurmountable restrictions on import of firearms for license holders, so that they could not import firearms at much cheaper rate(available outside India, at almost one tenth of price at which being sold by IOF).
c)Placed large number of bureaucratic hoops to cause denial, delay, harassment to license applicants and owners.
RESULT: Prices of firearms available in legal firearms market are beyond the reach of average Indian, hence even applying for firearm license does not make any sense for average Indian. Those who can pay the extortionate prices for legal firearms are discouraged from even applying due to bureaucratic hoops to cause denial, delay, harassment to license applicants and owners. Hence most of Indians have been denied firearms ownership even without explicitly denying firearm ownership. The number of firearms license holders have been confined only to very few, now government slowly and steadily wants their number to be reduced further and further. Millions of defenseless people in country are falling victims to all manner of violent crime every year by criminals, who get advantage due to the policies followed by government to disarm the citizens.

[omaar_sir]

"It has also been decided that each State Government "may" prescribe reporting on use of ammunition by the licensee and devise reporting mechanism under which each licensee "may" keep a record of the use of ammunition with him such as (i) date of use, (ii) place, (iii) number of bullets fired and (iv) purpose. The licensee "may" report use of ammunition during the previous year before purchase of ammunition in the current year to the authority concerned as per procedure to be prescribed by the State Government."


This is a part of the notification issued point no 14. It says 'MAY' and not "SHALL" which means that it is not compulsory to report the aforementioned points to the concerned authority unless specifically asked for by the district or state authorities...

This is just a wild guess and if we have any lawyers here they can help us further by looking into the notification.


thanks!

[raimanmeet]

Just to put the things in the right perspective especially in where the law stands:

1. Govt. Policies cannot be challenged. They are just means of giving directions to the subordinate authorities. Its only the Act, rules framed under the act and the notifications that are subject to challenge.

2. The new policy would have no bearing unless it also amends the Arms Act which needs Parliaments consent.

3. Even if the rules are amended they would still be contrary to the objects of the act.

I request everyone to not be worried to much from this new police and would appreciate if you could go through:
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9563

[Olly]

WTP,
I don't know how you will save your b**ls even if you are not a 'registered shooter'. The three broad categories that permit you to keep weapons are - Shooters, Family heirloom and Self /crop protection. Discounting the first, the other two categories are equally vulnerable... So while I would still have a chance to 'scratch' my b**l with the 30-06 or polish my brass, as a Shooter, the other two will also most definitely get f***ed.... So brother, non-shooters are also in the same boat and their happiness may be short lived too, unless energies are directed towards doing something meaningful....

Thanks for substantiating your arguments... !

[raimanmeet]

The proposal formulated by the MHA is contrary to the aims and objects of the Arms Act, 1959. The objects of the act 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, parti- cularly anti-social elements;
(ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitled them for the privilege; and
(iii) that firearms 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 rifle-men in generalfin appropriate age groups) will be of great service-to the country in emergencies, if the Government can properly mobilise and utilise them" -

The Govt. Can although amend the act but we need to understand that there is a difference between a policy and law. Only laws can be challenged before the courts and not policies. Presently the MHA may issue circulars in the manner in which it should grant licences but very soon they will have to amend the act to give effect the wider sanctions they want to impose. The amendments will be enforced only when passed by the parliament which is a lengthy process and will take time.

Even if the amendments are done it they can be challenged as being unconstitutional as they violate the basic objective of the act that was to get rid of the british disarmament policy and allow Indians to have weapons to achieve the above mentioned. There is nothing to be worried as of now. But we need to be prepared in case this becomes a law in the near future. Any legal action that needs to be taken should be very carefully evaluated as once a decision is passed by the courts then nothing can be done to overturn it. We need to collect all possible date and get ready to defend our right to bear arms.

[winnie_the_pooh]

Olly sirjee,

My post was meant to remove the feeling that many 'shooters' nurture that somehow would remain unaffected.

As far as the policy goes,rest assured it would not trouble me.In fact I,along with my father, now qualify for a PB license

I have no interest in any part of your anatomy.For that you will have to go to the 'other' forum that you frequent.