I think the Law may have dribbled itself into a corner. There is no standard definition for “Arms”; even a common slingshot would come under the purview of the Arms Act since it is capable of being used as a weapon (“projectile” being propelled by “other forms of energy”). We need to remain focused on essentially two words here: “Firearm” and “Ammunition FOR ANY FIREARM
”. If you’re bothered about Section 2 (iii), i.e., “ … other articles containing, or designed or adapted to contain, explosive, fulminating or fissionable material or noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, whether capable of use with firearms or not …
”, neither the Taser nor Pepper Spray canister contains the items cited nor “NOXIOUS GAS”. Pepper Spray, like chemical MACE/CS/CN irritant is actually a non-explosive, non- fulminating, and non- fissionable POWDER
delivered via a non-noxious liquid vehicle
. And neither the Taser nor the so called “Tear Gas” comes under the reference of “Firearm”. I use the term “Reference” deliberately because neither the Arms Act nor the Arms Rule have a precise legal definition for Firearm that jives with the characteristics of the Taser and the so called Tear Gas. Also see Classification of Arms and Ammunition per Column 2 and 3 of Schedule 1.
Now for a brief discussion on the phrase, “or other such thing
”: Firstly, a reasonable, commonsensical interpretation would be, “or OTHER MATERIAL SIMILAR TO
explosive, fulminating or fissionable material or noxious liquid, gas…”.I can’t think of any other such similar thing, can you? This brings us to the pivotal point of this “Law”; whether this “Law” is in fact LEGAL
! The Arms Act as well as the Arms Rules is liberally strewn with sufficiently vague language to make its interpretation arbitrary and discretionary. For instance, “other articles containing, or designed or adapted to contain … or other such thing, whether capable of use with firearms or not,…
“.Arms Act. Chapt. 2 (iii). “"arms" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence,
…” Arms Act. Chapt.2( c). "firearms" means ARMS OF ANY DESCRIPTION designed or adapted to discharge a projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of any explosive OR OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY, and includes-- (i) artillery, hand-grenades, riot-pistols or weapons of any kind designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas OR OTHER SUCH THING,…
“.Arms Act. Chapt. 2 (e). “..weapons of any description …
“(OK. SO WHAT’S THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF “WEAPON”?).Arms Act. 35 (ii) (ii). Many, many more examples of such occurrences of this “Law” being over-broad and unconstitutionally vague, which makes for it being no law. To be constitutional, a law must be specific enough to define parameters of required expectations and not depended on "the subjective understanding” of enforcement personnel or the courts operating without any specific guidance as it gives them unleashed discretion. More importantly, constitutional expectation of “equality under the law” is a farce in such cases if dispositions in different courts for similar “crimes” have been adjudicated differently.
It would be interesting to see if this Law could survive a halfway serious legal challenge.
Mr. Amrinder Sehgal of Mascot Technologies (New Delhi) has Chinese Tasers for sale at Rs. 11,000/- including Shipping. They come with three replacement cartridges. That is US $270 (around $200 more than if directly purchased thru’ WWW dot ALIBABA dot COM. They have the same effect of the US brand TASER (which costs $300 – 350). Mascot Tech also markets other interesting articles that might raise a curious eyebrow for die-hard fans of the Arms Act, e.g., steel batons, telescoping rods with stun gun and “tear gas” capability, tec. (Why does it almost always take a Sardar to be first in line when standing up to arbitrariness?).
India Customs has come a long way from the greedy ‘bukhards
’ they once were seen to be. Since they are “Masters” in classifying contraband, who knows, on a good day, our friendly masturbators may actually approve your parcel for delivery. In my opinion, one test of legality for possession is if the article has been declared as a “Taser” gun (or something similar) by the Shipper, and is delivered to you as such upon payment of Import Duty. Of course, Taser possession and Taser use are two different issues one needs to assess. But I suggest you contact Mr. Sehgal for details if you are considering doing business with him. I don’t recommend contacting the Customs “Masters” or local police as their response will, in all likelihood, be a biased, personal opinion. And this might alert them to more biased scrutiny of honest, law-abiding citizenry who already possess these articles of personal safety and protection. See Link below
http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/110 ... _2010.html