New Arms Rules 2016 notified by Government of India!

[goodboy_mentor]

Thanks for the information, that clearly means that even if the arms rule allows an individual to import arms, there are other rules/agencies which will stop you from getting one.
Isn't this bad for the Rule makers, they are not doing there job properly.
Can an individual file a case regarding this?

Yes the import policy created by the Directorate General Of Foreign Trade(DGFT) is not respecting the Liberty of Article 21 of the Constitution which is flowing into Section 10(1)(a) of Arms Act 1959. As mentioned earlier this can be corrected by the government itself or any body can approach the Courts for remedy.

[himanshuraj585]

Greetings to all members,

Sorry for posting my query again as I have to take a quick decision.. Pls reply....I do not have an Arms Licence and as I want to buy a blank revolver...can anybody please confirm if I can still own one without a licence or if it still needs a Licence as recently replica exemption notification was published by the government. If yes... do we need any special kind of Licence for blank guns and how tough it is to get it(only Blank guns licence).

Thank You.

[devender kumar]

If IOF 30.06 Modified Like AK-47 is Legal in India

[chandrashekhar]

But still gunshop owners selling.22 air rifle .....

[Basu]

Otherwise what else the gunshop owners should do ?
Who is going to bear the trading loss ?
It is quite logical to sell off the total inventory both by traders and manufacturers .

Basu

[chandrashekhar]

@Basu
I am not against to gun shop owners.....but confusion there about implementation of rule.....if rule is already implemented then they are not allowed to sell their Airguns to a unlicensed customer but they are doing means....I think I t is still not implemented...it is just my thought not the fact need experts advise

Added in 17 minutes 25 seconds:
and i heard that .22 airguns are stopped their manufacturing in india is it is true?

Added in 1 hour 12 minutes 46 seconds:
https://www.mygov.in/
write to Mr.Narendra modi that what you feel about this arms rule 2016....we can expect something good

[brihacharan]

Re: New Arms Rules 2016 notified by Government of India!
Postby kanwar76 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:33 am

Did a cursory read. Congratulations, .22 Airguns are firearms now, Anything above .177 or 15ft/lbs is a firearm!!!
Please "Enlighten Me".....WHERE'S THE FIRE????
Briha

[rahul_does]

Greetings to all members,

Sorry for posting my query again as I have to take a quick decision.. Pls reply....I do not have an Arms Licence and as I want to buy a blank revolver...can anybody please confirm if I can still own one without a licence or if it still needs a Licence as recently replica exemption notification was published by the government. If yes... do we need any special kind of Licence for blank guns and how tough it is to get it(only Blank guns licence).

Thank You.

Please go through the notification. I am sure it covers relevant provisions for blanks and replicas.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[broadway]

From what I understand, the govt thinks someone can use common hardware tools to modify the .22 air rifle barrel to shoot .22 ammunition. They think that people can use this for rebellion.

Why not ban plumbing stores? because its not hard to create a .22 gun. It won't shoot accurate but it will shot nonetheless.

If logic like this continues, I can guarantee that they will ban CNC machines next.

[rahul_does]

My lawyer wants a timeline. Do we have it in one place, here? Of course, I can search for it if am unable to get it here. Riding down to him.

"Just get me the timeline of the rules...when proposed, when placed before Parliament and when notified"

Just trying to be spoon-fed.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[goodboy_mentor]

"Just get me the timeline of the rules...when proposed, when placed before Parliament and when notified"

Draft Arms Rules 2015 put on MHA website on 30 April 2015 for suggestions from public. The link is http://www.mha.nic.in/sites/upload_file ... 0415_0.pdf

I do not think Arms Rules 2016 have been placed before Parliament. This fact needs confirmation. Section 44 of Arms Act 1959 allows the MHA to create Rules and Notify them and afterwards take Parliamentary approval. Please read Section 44 of Arms Act 1959 for details.

Arms Rules 2016 have been Notified in the Official Gazette on 15th July, 2016. May refer viewtopic.php?f=4&t=24511

But let me tell you, the real problem is not just Arms Rules 2016 but proper reading of Part III of the Constitution and Arms Act 1959. Supreme Court can read into and read down Arms Act 1959. Arms Rules 2016 are then a trivial matter in comparison.

[rahul_does]

"Just get me the timeline of the rules...when proposed, when placed before Parliament and when notified"

Draft Arms Rules 2015 put on MHA website on 30 April 2015 for suggestions from public. The link is http://www.mha.nic.in/sites/upload_file ... 0415_0.pdf

I do not think Arms Rules 2016 have been placed before Parliament. .... Act 1959. Supreme Court can read into and read down Arms Act 1959. Arms Rules 2016 are then a trivial matter in comparison.

Will convey.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[rahul_does]

"Just get me the timeline of the rules...when proposed, when placed before Parliament and when notified"

Draft Arms Rules 2015 put on MHA website on 30 April 2015 for suggestions from public. The link is http://www.mha.nic.in/sites/upload_file ... 0415_0.pdf

I do not think Arms Rules 2016 have been placed before Parliament. This fact needs confirmation. Section 44 of Arms Act 1959 allows the MHA to create Rules and Notify them and afterwards take Parliamentary approval. Please read Section 44 of Arms Act 1959 for details.

Arms Rules 2016 have been Notified in the Official Gazette on 15th July, 2016. May refer viewtopic.php?f=4&t=24511

But let me tell you, the real problem is not just Arms Rules 2016 but proper reading of Part III of the Constitution and Arms Act 1959. Supreme Court can read into and read down Arms Act 1959. Arms Rules 2016 are then a trivial matter in comparison.

I got the following information from AbhijitJi's blog.(http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/2016/07/22 ... ules-2016/)

21st / 22nd December 2009, when the Ministry of Home Affairs published it's draft Arms Policy for individuals and invited citizen comments within two weeks.

Could someone tell me when these were tabled in Parliament?

These new “Arms Rules 2016” were notified with effect from 15th July 2016, but only became available on the egazette website on 21st July 2016.

[chandrashekhar]

Even a foreigner have concerns about our gun laws

[goodboy_mentor]

I got the following information from AbhijitJi's blog.(http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/2016/07/22 ... ules-2016/)

21st / 22nd December 2009, when the Ministry of Home Affairs published it's draft Arms Policy for individuals and invited citizen comments within two weeks.

Could someone tell me when these were tabled in Parliament?

Arms Policy can be read at http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mh ... 130510.pdf It says it was issued on 10th January 2011. Arms Policy is completely illegal, anti Constitution and has no force of law because there is no provision for issuing a policy under Arms Act 1959. "Arms Policy" cannot be tabled in Parliament. Arms are clearly a fundamental right under Part III, even the Parliament does not have any right to create "policy" related to arms because the "policy" related to arms has already been laid down by Constitution under Article 19(1)(b) read along with Articles 51A(b),(c),(d)&(i), Articles 21, 25, 26, 27, 29. The doctrine of 2nd Amendment of US Constitution is very much present in the Constitution. How?

BECAUSE Article 19(1)(b) is saying it is a citizen's fundamental right “to assemble peaceably and without arms;” only and only because there exists another combination of fundamental right “to assemble peaceably and with arms” embedded in it. It is a matter of settled law whenever any issue arises which calls for an "interpretation of statutes" or where a word requires interpretation, the word is known by the company it keeps. It is clear and self evident the word "and" in company of Clause 1 of Article 19 has been used to join two negative rights. These combination of rights are preferred but Constitution is not offended by any other combination of any other fundamental rights. Since the rights in Article 19 are negative rights, one combination is freedom of speech and with expression and the other combination is freedom of speech and without expression. Similarly right to assemble peaceably and without arms has another combination embedded in Article 19. It is to the right to assemble peaceably and with arms. Someone may ask why the right to assemble peaceably and with arms has not been explicitly enumerated in Part III? It is because of volatile experiences of 1947 were fresh in the memory of members of the Constituent Assembly, the concern of the Constituent Assembly was to avoid cases of display of arms in terrorem populi. That is why in order to avoid cases of display of arms in terrorem populi, peaceable assembly without arms was considered the preferred mode of combination of rights under Article 19. This does not by any stretch of imagination mean that combination of right of peaceable assembly with arms does not exist. This gets clearly illustrated after reading below paragraph:

BECAUSE fundamental rights and fundamental duties are two sides of the same coin and since fundamental right to assemble peaceably and with arms and citizen's militia in personal capacity and control is embedded and exists for citizens under Article 19(1)(b), that is why there exists corresponding reflection of fundamental duty of citizen's militia in personal capacity and control, under Articles 51A(b)(c),(d) & (i) and it also gets manifested under the Punjab Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1918 and the Himachal Pradesh Village And Small Towns Patrol Act, 1964. Under these acts, in order to do patrolling, able-bodied male inhabitants exercise two fundamental rights, right to assemble (peaceably as well as violently if situation compels) and the right to keep and bear arms. Similarly the right to keep and bear arms, police powers and posse comitatus is also embedded in Civil Defense Act 1968.

BECAUSE the fundamental natural human right of right to keep and bear arms and police powers, both individually and as an assemblage also flowing from Article 19(1)(b) are embedded in Sections 37 to 39, 43, 46, 47, 52 and 60 in Chapter V Arrest Of Persons of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 129(2) in Chapter X Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility of the Criminal Procedure Code and Sections 96 to 106 Indian Penal Code flowing from Articles 21 as citizen's militia in personal capacity and control. Right to keep and bear arms is also getting manifested in a detailed manner in Article 246 read with entry number 5 in List I—Union List of the Seventh Schedule. Also the Article 40 of the Constitution talks of units of self government, since self defense is an inalienable right of every person including the government, it includes units of self defense in units of government. The Article 43 talks of cottage industries, it includes cottage industries related with the fundamental natural human right to keep and bear arms. Thus it is very clearly self evident that arms are recognized as fundamental natural human right by the Constitution of India under Articles 19(1)(b) and 21. Though it is very clearly self evident and no ambiguity exists, to put any doubts at rest, it is important to mention Justice Vivian Bose of Supreme Court in Krishna v. State of Madras, 1951 SCR 621 stated: “When there is ambiguity or doubt the construction of any clause in the chapter on Fundamental Rights, it is our duty to resolve it in favour of the freedoms so solemnly stressed.”

BECAUSE Article 51A(b), also a reflection of Article 19(1)(b) says:

"to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;"

BECAUSE ideals and national struggle for freedom were not entirely without arms. Freedom struggle indeed included armed struggle. There are countless and well documented accounts and cases of this fact. The freedom fighters who were fighting to violently overthrow the British rule were acting as militia in personal capacity and control. There can be no controversy or doubt about this fact. Pages of the history of the freedom struggle also stand in evidence for this. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right to keep and bear arms and militia in personal capacity and control under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. Following paragraphs also clearly demonstrate the awareness of the importance of noble ideals of the right to keep and bear arms for the goal of liberty were also part of inspiration of the freedom struggle:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." – M. K. Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

BECAUSE Mahatma Gandhi bemoaned the fact that the British had disarmed India and left passive civil disobedience as the Indians only possibility for fighting British repression and tyranny. He wrote about this in an article for the “Young India” magazine. Mahatma Gandhi advocated non-violence but did not preach cowardice by giving up the right to keep and bear arms, I quote "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour", Gandhi goes on further to state "But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature...."

"He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden." – M. K. Gandhi

BECAUSE the noble ideals that inspired our freedom struggle included the ideal of the right to keep and bear arms, that is exactly why throughout the freedom struggle our leaders protested against the Arms Act of 1878, demanding for every Indian citizen the enjoyment of right to keep and bear arms. For example in Nagpur around 1923 or 1924 there was a Satyagraha movement against the prevailing Arms Act. This movement attracted Satyagrahis from all over India, it went on for six months and the Indian National Congress put its seal of approval on this Satyagraha movement against the Arms Act. In fact even the Father of Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, protested for the right of every Indian citizen to keep and bear arms, going so far as to State that, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest”.

BECAUSE the noble ideals that inspired our freedom struggle included the ideal of the right to keep and bear arms, that is exactly why the Indian National Congress in it's historic 1931 resolution on fundamental rights passed at Karachi stated “This Congress is of opinion that to enable the masses to appreciate what Swaraj as conceived by the Congress will mean to them, it is desirable to State the position of the Congress in a manner easily understood by them...” “...The Congress, therefore, declares that any constitution...” please note these words - “any constitution“...which may be agreed to on its behalf, should provide or enable the Swaraj Government to provide for the following...” and various fundamental rights are enumerated, among which was also this one -- “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with regulations and reservations made in that behalf.” It is in line with this promise made to all the citizens of this country that framers of the Constitution ensured that arms are indeed acknowledged as fundamental natural human right under Articles 14, 19(1)(b), 21, 25, 26(b), (c) & (d), 27, 29(1), 300A, 301, 372(1) of the Constitution.

BECAUSE Article 51A(c), also a reflection of Article 19(1)(b) says:

"to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;"

BECAUSE sovereignty is a child and dependent of liberty and one of the pillars of liberty is the ability to unleash violence to the fullest as a last resort for self preservation. Thus the duty of citizens to uphold and protect the sovereignty cannot be expected to be done without existence of corresponding fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It needs to be noted that in a free and democratic republic, the citizens themselves constitute the collective sovereign and militia in personal capacity and control. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right to keep and bear arms under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

BECAUSE Article 51A(d), also a reflection of Article 19(1)(b) says:

"to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;"

BECAUSE the duty to defend the country cannot be expected to be done without the existence of corresponding fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It is important to note that the fundamental duty to defend the country whenever called in national emergencies, cannot be done unless the citizen is always well in advance, already well possessed with the best and the latest arms of the times and also well trained in their use. This is also the desire and mandate of the Constitution in Articles 51A(b),(c) and (d). It also needs to be noted that in times of emergencies, there is no leisure or luxury of time or resources to procure arms or train in the use of arms. Some general knowledge of use of firearms is important to the public welfare because it would be impossible, in case of war, to organize promptly an efficient force of volunteers unless the people had familiarity with use of weapons of war. The Constitution encourages and secures this right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons and daughters to do the same, exercises his individual right. No doubt, a person whose residence or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a gun for prudent self defense.

Needless to say, it follows from Articles 51A(b),(c) and (d) that there already exists a corresponding fundamental right to keep and bear arms and militia in personal capacity and control for every citizen under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. It also demonstrates that the ‘arms’ referred to in Article 19(1)(b) are those which ordinarily are used for national defense or public defense purposes. And further, that ordinarily when called for service, these citizens are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common militia use in modern times. It thus demonstrates that it is citizen's right and duty to be at all times armed. It also demonstrates the right of the citizens to keep, bear and use arms in defense of themselves, the State and it shall not be questioned.

BECAUSE Article 51A(i), also a reflection of Article 19(1)(b) says:

"to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;"

BECAUSE safeguarding public property includes safeguarding it with right to keep and bear arms. "abjure violence" does not mean that one has to suffer unlawful violence from criminals by staying without arms. "abjure violence" also means abjure suffering from unlawful violence. In order to create an atmosphere that is concomitant with principles of "abjure violence", it means that there is right to the means and tools of suppressing the unlawful violence. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right to keep and bear arms and militia in personal capacity and control under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

BECAUSE on behalf of safeguarding the fundamental right to keep and bear arms of the people under Part III of the Constitution, the Article 246 read with entry number 5 in List I—Union List of the Seventh Schedule delegates the right of legislative powers to the Parliament to regulate arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives. Article 246 read with entry number 5 in List I—Union List of the Seventh Schedule is an affirmative, enabling provision and not a restricting provision. If arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives are not fundamental rights or are offense under Part III of the Constitution of India, question of providing right of legislative powers to issue licenses or tax or exemptions for them does not arise. It needs to be noted that Parliament does not have the right of legislative powers to issue licenses or tax or provide exemptions for acts that are offenses or crime under Part III of the Constitution. For example Parliament cannot pass regulatory laws to issue licenses or taxes or exemptions for committing offenses under Indian Penal Code that flows from Part III, like licenses or taxes or exemptions for allowing murder, extortion, genocide, kidnapping, robbery, torture etc. Since arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives are surely not an offense but a right under Part III, therefore we have Article 246 read with entry number 5 in List I—Union List of the Seventh Schedule and have provisions for exemptions, licenses and taxation under respective laws, for the State as well as all persons under the respective laws for arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives.

Thus we also see that Articles 51A(b)(c),(d), (i) and 246 read with entry number 5 in List I—Union List of the Seventh Schedule which are reflection of citizen's rights to keep, bear and use arms and of militia under Part III, especially under Article 19(1)(b).

Some people have grown accustomed to a misconceived notion, that right to lawful violence or right to possess the means of lawful violence is the monopoly of State only. Emotion of fear is a powerful emotion that can cloud logical and reasoning faculties of mind. Such misconceived notions are also due to fear of responsibility and risk that comes with liberty and sovereignty. It needs to be noted that liberty and its child sovereignty are a shared responsibility of every citizen. Liberty and sovereignty are not risk free propositions. They are ignorant of the fact that for a community of sovereign citizens, the highest duty is to preserve its liberty and sovereignty by whatever means it can, which includes the right to keep and bear arms. Since India has long standing living historic tradition of citizen's militias that enjoyed the right to keep and bear arms, Articles 19(1)(b) and its reflections in Articles 51A(b)(c),(d) & (i) are only recognizing and guaranteeing this long standing living historic tradition of citizen's militias. It has already been clearly demonstrated that this view is supported by the Constitution under Articles 51A,(b)(c),(d) & (i). In other words the Articles 51A(b)(c),(d) & (i) do not except the State to have sole monopoly or superiority on right to lawful violence or its means.

BECAUSE the Constitution of India expects all the citizens in their personal capacity and control, to be already and always be, well armed and well trained in use of arms, that is exactly why the citizens are expected to do their duty of protection and defense of State under Articles 51A(b)(c),(d) & (i). In other words, the Constitution does not get offended by combination of right to assemble peaceably and with arms. As already mentioned earlier the example is when citizens do there duty under Articles 51A(b)(c),(d) & (i) or same getting manifested under the Punjab Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1918 and the Himachal Pradesh Village And Small Towns Patrol Act, 1964. Under these acts, in order to do patrolling, able-bodied male inhabitants exercise two fundamental rights, right to assemble (peaceably as well as violently if situation compels) and the right to keep and bear arms. They may have to assemble peaceably and with arms. If occasion demands the peaceable assembly may turn into violent assembly. Similarly the fundamental natural human right to keep and bear arms and police powers, both individually and as an assemblage is also embedded and reflects in Sections 37 to 39, 43, 46, 47, 52 and 60 in Chapter V Arrest Of Persons of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 129(2) in Chapter X Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility of the Criminal Procedure Code and Sections 96 to 106 Indian Penal Code flowing from Article 21 as citizen's militia in personal capacity and control.

BECAUSE arms are fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b), any legislation related to them need to pass the test of strict scrutiny. In other words as held by Supreme Court in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India and Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 1, a law made under Article 19 (It includes Arms Act 1959, it's Arms Rules and Notifications.) needs to be tested not merely against “reasonableness” under Article 14 but also be subject to “strict scrutiny”.

BECAUSE Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 3 SCC 244, held that "the right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly." and same position has been consistently held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments since then. It also means every legislation that in any way has implications with the right of self defense, like Arms Act 1959, it's Arms Rules and Notifications need to pass the following test that -

1. Right of self defense is a very valuable right
2. Right of self defense serves a social purpose
3. Right of self defense should not be construed narrowly

BECAUSE Article 21 of the Constitution includes a fundamental right to health. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right “is a most imperative constitutional goal.” Consumer Education and Research Center v. Union of India , (1995) 3 SCC 42; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Orissa, AIR1997 Ori 37. If a person is kept unarmed by some vague, unreasonable and burdensome provisions of enactment like Arms Act 1959 and thus unable to effectively exercise his or her Right of Private Defense, as laid down from Sections 96 to 106 Indian Penal Code, becomes victim of any of the heinous crimes listed therein, it very severely affects or destroys the mental and physical health. Thus it clearly violates Article 21.

BECAUSE in Consumer Education and Reseasrch Center v. Union of India (1995) 2 SCC 42, this Hon’ble Court ruled that the health “is a most imperative constitutional goal.” If a person is kept unarmed by some vague, unreasonable and burdensome provisions of enactment like Arms Act 1959 and thus unable to effectively exercise his or her Right of Private Defense, as laid down from Sections 96 to 106 Indian Penal Code, becomes victim of any of the heinous crimes listed therein, it very severely affects or destroys the mental and physical health. Thus it clearly violates Article 21.

These new “Arms Rules 2016” were notified with effect from 15th July 2016, but only became available on the egazette website on 21st July 2016.

As per my understanding after reading Section 44 of Arms Act 1959, the Parliament has not delegated COMPLETE "legislative powers" to make Rules to the government. That is why the Rules created under Section 44 need approval from both the houses of Parliament. Once they get approved by Parliament, only then the Rules get "force of law". But I am unable to understand why the Parliament has allowed government to Notify the Rules when they have not been approved by Parliament? How will public know what has been approved and not approved by Parliament, if the Rules are not notified again after Parliamentary approval? Probably it falls under "non application of mind" by Parliament.

Even before legislative approval from the Parliament, the government is trying to enforce Arms Rules 2016. Read http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mh ... le2016.PDF It is clear injustice and violation of due process of law in broad daylight by those who are supposed to uphold and protect it. This matter can also be raked up by opposition parties in Parliament, that how can government try to enforce a law which has not become a law?