Indians For Guns

SYED833 wrote:dr,jayakumar.

hear is a form, from home ministry for the rti..

http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/rti-form.pdf

this is a link for CIC online..

http://rti.india.gov.in/index.php

hope it helps,,all the very best doc

syed

boris wrote:i remember 2 years back a certain IPS officer in a club tell some gun enthusiasts "china has such strict laws atleast here you have luxury to buy firearm"

winnie_the_pooh wrote:

boris wrote:i remember 2 years back a certain IPS officer in a club tell some gun enthusiasts "china has such strict laws atleast here you have luxury to buy firearm"

Well,if this had been China and had one of his buddies in the IPS (I am assuming he himself is honest ) been caught taking a bribe,he would have been marched into a stadium,a pistol put to his head and would have had his brains blown out.

sarge wrote:Wish you all the best. Hope and pray you succeed.

-- Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:51 pm --

Why NRIs returning are allowed to Import? Why not residents? A person staying and earning abroad is allowed to import. Whereas a loyal Indian residing and earning in the country throughout his life is treated like a step-citizen. How can an NRI be granted a license to possess a fire arm in the first place? The very fact that a citizen is granted a fire arm license proves that he is a law abiding citizen, and far from a terrorist. Then why the restriction on importing a fire arm?

boris wrote:

sarge wrote:Wish you all the best. Hope and pray you succeed.

-- Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:51 pm --

Why NRIs returning are allowed to Import? Why not residents? A person staying and earning abroad is allowed to import. Whereas a loyal Indian residing and earning in the country throughout his life is treated like a step-citizen. How can an NRI be granted a license to possess a fire arm in the first place? The very fact that a citizen is granted a fire arm license proves that he is a law abiding citizen, and far from a terrorist. Then why the restriction on importing a fire arm?

sir its the govt's age old favourite "dollar bolta hain"

sarge wrote:Wish you all the best. Hope and pray you succeed.

-- Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:51 pm --

Why NRIs returning are allowed to Import? Why not residents? A person staying and earning abroad is allowed to import. Whereas a loyal Indian residing and earning in the country throughout his life is treated like a step-citizen. How can an NRI be granted a license to possess a fire arm in the first place? The very fact that a citizen is granted a fire arm license proves that he is a law abiding citizen, and far from a terrorist. Then why the restriction on importing a fire arm?

The grounds:

The grounds that will be urged in the petition would be as follows:
a) RKBA is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution of India. (See Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. Dist Mgistrate & Ors., AIR 1993 All. 291)
b) The prohibition violates article 14 of the constitution of India: the present policy creates a economic disparity between the have and have nots with regard to right to bear arms. The economic disparity is due to the people who can afford to purchase arms and those who cannot.
c) does not achieve the object proposed: Every policy, statute, notification should show that it strives to achieve the objective behind it. The objective behind the prohibition was the growing insurgency but allowing importation of arms will only allow law abiding license holders to import arms and will not be available to the anti-social elements.
d) Safety concerns: The weapons manufactured by IOF and the foreign manufactured ones lack the safety mechanism as compared to their foreign counterparts.
e) US Constitution v. Indian Constitution: Majority of the provisions that we see under the Indian constitution in Part III dealing with the fundamental rights were borrowed from the US constitution. Although over the years the their interpretation has changed. One of the vital rights present under the US constitution thats did not find itself under the Indian constitution was the second amendment (RKBA). In the Constituent assembly debates not much ink has been spilt in why it dis not find a place except that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar did not consider that Indians would need the guns after they have achieved the Independence but now is the ever increasing need for right to carry arms.
f) Self Defense: an inherent right of every citizen is at stake as the authorities are unable to cater to the needs and protect the citizens. Mumbai Bomb blast and the news reports esp in which Mr. Abhijeet Singh expressed his views on this. The news reports of how the politicians who have police protection enjoy the privilege of easily procuring a license whereas a common citizen is bluntly refused. see http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... +guns.html
g) Governments misdeeds cannot lead to curbing our rights: The Indian authorities in the past have miserably failed to ensure a safe crime free environment in India. Many of the government officials have indulged in illegal activities of supplying firearms to naxals and anti social elements. The Hon'ble Home Minister Mr. Chidambram recently after the Dantewara massacre was posed with a question by one of the Journalists "Where do the Naxals get arms from?" His candid reply was we all know it, even you know it, do a google search. If the authorities know where the illegal arms come from why can't they stop it?
See generally:
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_mi ... ar_1322245
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 201490.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 908341.cms
http://www.morungexpress.com/frontpage/29482.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 29002.aspx
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 134069.cms
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 041041.htm
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... /index.cfm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 299010.ece
http://sify.com/news/women-empowered-wi ... eeibj.html
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSD ... -SqEOJ9lag

h) Present Law v. The old law: When Arms Act of 1959 was put into place it was to regulate the firearms in India and not to curb the right to bear arms. The object of the act clearly states:
--------That weapons for self-defense are available to all citizens under license unless their antecedentsor propensities do not entitle them for the privilege.
--------That firearms required for training purposes and ordinary civilian use are made more easily available on permits.
--------To co-ordinate the rights of the citizens with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country.
--------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 utilize and mobilize them.

These objects are mentioned before the act in the original text but usually not available on the ones that are online. The objects of the statutes aare a major tool in interpreting them.
The above mentioned objectives with the main intent of getting rid of the british act of disarming citizens shows that how the authorities and the administration has interpreted the act is untenable and misconceived. The Govt. to hide their failures are trying to shift the blame on the law abiding citizens.
I) The state sanctioned killings and its failure: the scars of 1984, babri maszid, godhra, minorities in Orrisa and the recent Mumbai attack are still fresh. The police could do nothing but was simply a mute spectator and in certain cases the perpetuator of the crimes, which entitles every citizen all the more reason to carry a firearm.

raimanmeet wrote:Dear Dr. Jaykumar,

I applaud your efforts of trying to get the restrictions on import of firearms set aside. Its not an easy task but nevertheless can be achieved. You will have to collect a lot of data and engage a lawyer highly skilled in the area of constitutional law.

The Exim policy that was imposed in early 1980 was due to the recent terrorist activities in Punjab and Northeastern states. In particular the Operation Blue star and a few incidents in other parts of the country were the reason for such a ban on the import of weapons.

As rule of thumb the courts do not entertain cases where a policy is in question, it would be a difficult task to ask the court to look into the policy issue when a few people such as renowned shooters are allowed to import firearms. I would suggest a holistic challenge to the whole gun regime after a through research would help us attain a small relief. In my opinion I would harp upon the economic disparity in procuring india made firearms and that can be imported from abroad at a much cheaper price.
Do keep us posted about your progress and let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this issue.

A few months back I initiated a post http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9563 where I raised the following grounds for challenging the said ban. I hope it would be worth going through it:

The grounds:

The grounds that will be urged in the petition would be as follows:
a) RKBA is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution of India. (See Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. Dist Mgistrate & Ors., AIR 1993 All. 291)
b) The prohibition violates article 14 of the constitution of India: the present policy creates a economic disparity between the have and have nots with regard to right to bear arms. The economic disparity is due to the people who can afford to purchase arms and those who cannot.
c) does not achieve the object proposed: Every policy, statute, notification should show that it strives to achieve the objective behind it. The objective behind the prohibition was the growing insurgency but allowing importation of arms will only allow law abiding license holders to import arms and will not be available to the anti-social elements.
d) Safety concerns: The weapons manufactured by IOF and the foreign manufactured ones lack the safety mechanism as compared to their foreign counterparts.
e) US Constitution v. Indian Constitution: Majority of the provisions that we see under the Indian constitution in Part III dealing with the fundamental rights were borrowed from the US constitution. Although over the years the their interpretation has changed. One of the vital rights present under the US constitution thats did not find itself under the Indian constitution was the second amendment (RKBA). In the Constituent assembly debates not much ink has been spilt in why it dis not find a place except that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar did not consider that Indians would need the guns after they have achieved the Independence but now is the ever increasing need for right to carry arms.
f) Self Defense: an inherent right of every citizen is at stake as the authorities are unable to cater to the needs and protect the citizens. Mumbai Bomb blast and the news reports esp in which Mr. Abhijeet Singh expressed his views on this. The news reports of how the politicians who have police protection enjoy the privilege of easily procuring a license whereas a common citizen is bluntly refused. see http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... +guns.html
g) Governments misdeeds cannot lead to curbing our rights: The Indian authorities in the past have miserably failed to ensure a safe crime free environment in India. Many of the government officials have indulged in illegal activities of supplying firearms to naxals and anti social elements. The Hon'ble Home Minister Mr. Chidambram recently after the Dantewara massacre was posed with a question by one of the Journalists "Where do the Naxals get arms from?" His candid reply was we all know it, even you know it, do a google search. If the authorities know where the illegal arms come from why can't they stop it?
See generally:
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_mi ... ar_1322245
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 201490.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 908341.cms
http://www.morungexpress.com/frontpage/29482.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 29002.aspx
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 134069.cms
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 041041.htm
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... /index.cfm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 299010.ece
http://sify.com/news/women-empowered-wi ... eeibj.html
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSD ... -SqEOJ9lag

h) Present Law v. The old law: When Arms Act of 1959 was put into place it was to regulate the firearms in India and not to curb the right to bear arms. The object of the act clearly states:
--------That weapons for self-defense are available to all citizens under license unless their antecedentsor propensities do not entitle them for the privilege.
--------That firearms required for training purposes and ordinary civilian use are made more easily available on permits.
--------To co-ordinate the rights of the citizens with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country.
--------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 utilize and mobilize them.

These objects are mentioned before the act in the original text but usually not available on the ones that are online. The objects of the statutes aare a major tool in interpreting them.
The above mentioned objectives with the main intent of getting rid of the british act of disarming citizens shows that how the authorities and the administration has interpreted the act is untenable and misconceived. The Govt. to hide their failures are trying to shift the blame on the law abiding citizens.
I) The state sanctioned killings and its failure: the scars of 1984, babri maszid, godhra, minorities in Orrisa and the recent Mumbai attack are still fresh. The police could do nothing but was simply a mute spectator and in certain cases the perpetuator of the crimes, which entitles every citizen all the more reason to carry a firearm.

Subal das wrote:it is very silly and unhealthy ban, police can import, army can import, renowned shooters, diplomats can import, transferring residence can import, they are making exclusion once it suits them. if there is some many exclusions then something wrong with the ban in first place.