Chandan22 wrote:I'm exploring the legality of being denied to carry my legally licenced weapon.
I do not have clear cut answer to this because the Constitutional and legal basis of licensing for matters that are for personal or private defense itself appears shaky and weak. It is Constitutionally and legally very clear and well settled matter that State is not competent to infringe the right of private defense(Sections 96 to 106 IPC) because it is a natural and human right. The right of private defense includes the right to mode and means of private defense. Mode and means of private defense includes RKBA. RKBA is a basic natural and human right. From which Articles of Constitution the State is getting the right to make natural and human rights a matter of licensing?
If you read Arms Rules 1962, on the very top it says "G.S.R. 987, dated 13th July, 1962-- In exercise of the powers conferred by Secs.5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21 41 and 44 of the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:" Please note Sections 3 and 4 are missing. Any thoughts why? It can mean that the Parliament has not delegated to licensing authorities, the powers of licensing for matters of self protection/ self defense(this is a non commercial matter) because they are beyond the legislative powers of State. In other words the Sections 3 and 4 cannot not be part of Arms Rules 1962 for non commercial matters. Section 39 says that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the district magistrate. Any thoughts why? Why it is the district magistrate and why it is not the licensing authority? It is to see if the person is not offending Sections 9 or 14 of Arms Act 1959, otherwise his license is deemed to have been issued. You may also read the following post
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 08#p229997
Now after reading these posts, if any of your lawyer friends could throw some more light on this matter? I am also interested to know this since I am writing about rebuttal to Draft Arms Rules.
Chandan22 wrote:There are some confusions related to what constitutes a public place and a deemed private place etc.
Public place is a place that is open to public. They may have some reasonable restrictions. Shopping malls are public place. They may have some reasonable restrictions. For example they may not allow persons who are drunk to enter and create public nuisance. Drunk persons cannot claim that it is their right to enter shopping mall in a drunk condition. But a person carrying weapon for self defense is something else. To trust the person or not trust the person? This is the question that needs answer. All the fundamental and human rights are also based on foundation of trust. You breach the trust, you get punished by law.
Private place is a place that is private. Your home is your private place. You decide who can or cannot enter your home.
"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992