All fundamental rights are not spelled out in black and white(explicitly enumerated) in the Constitution. Example: right to information, right to Privacy, right to self defense, right to foreign travel etc. are nowhere explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Then how come they are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution? In order to understand that arms are guaranteed as fundamental right one needs to read the Preamble, Article 14, 19(1)(b), Article 21, Article 25, Article 51A(b),(c),(d),(i) and Article 246(5) and Arms Act 1959 and its objectives together.I mean look at the other rights. Clearly spelled out in black and white.
Few hints to understand, if one has the desire and inclination to understand:
(1) Preamble of the Constitution says:
If the justice, liberty, equality and fraternity are to be "secured" by getting disarmed, then why are we maintaining the armed forces and police? "We the people of India" are not separate from the State we have created. If the Preamble is getting offended by arms then "We the people of India" should have disbanded the armed forces and police long time back to honor the wishes of the Preamble of our Constitution. Otherwise the Preamble is surely not offended by arms.WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
(2) Article 14 says:
State is a juristic person in court of law and treated equally with citizen. Are we saying arms are not a fundamental right of the State? If yes then it logically follows that State be disarmed. Or are we saying arms are a fundamental right of only State?"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth"
The factual position is that arms are not an offense under Part III of the Constitution. If arms are not an offense under Part III, they are right under Part III, since Freedom and Liberty are guaranteed under Part III.
Because of Article 14 of the Constitution, anything that is an offense under Part III of the Constitution, the State cannot claim exception under the law from that offense. For example: murder, extortion, kidnapping, robbery etc. are offenses under Part III of the Constitution. There is no exception for the State to commit these acts under the law. Read 302 IPC, the State has no exception to commit murder since it is an offense under Part III.
But for the matters that are right under the Part III of the Constitution, the State can regulate these fundamental rights for its own interest and thus claim exception under the law. Example is Arms Act 1959, RTI Act 2005 etc. These laws have provisions for exception for the State.
(3) Article 19(1)(b) says:
In order to understand what Article 19(1)(b) means, we need to understand that fundamental rights are negative rights. By negative rights, it means you may or may not choose to exercise the fundamental rights.to assemble peaceably and without arms;
I will illustrate further with example of Article 19(1)(a), it guarantees freedom of speech and expression. "freedom of speech and expression" also includes "freedom of speech and without expression" since these two are negative rights and citizen may choose to use only freedom of speech without expression. Similarly when Article 19(1)(b) says "to assemble peaceably and without arms", it is not taking away or extinguishing any right by saying "without", it is merely stating one combination of the rights acknowledged by the Constitution. Please note that because of this fact, there is similar use of the word "and" in Article 19(1)(b) exactly as used in Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(e).
(4) Article 21 says:
Article 21 cannot say that citizen's self defense has to be done with bare hands only, but the State can do self defense with arms. Also Article 21 cannot say that citizen's do not have liberty to defend themselves with the best tools of self defense, but the State can do the same. That would be violation of Article 21 itself and Article 14.Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
(5) Article 25 says:
Kirpans are arms. If the arms are not guaranteed by the Constitution and it is also treating all the citizens equally as guaranteed under Article 14, then how can people professing Sikh religion enjoy the arms as fundamental right under Article 25 unless arms have also been equally guaranteed to all citizens under Part III of the Constitution?The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
(6) Article 51A mentions fundamental duties. All the Articles of the Constitution are at equal footing and in harmony with each other. Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties are two sides of the same coin i.e. one cannot exist without the other. If there is a Fundamental Duty under Aticle 51A, there is bound to exist a corresponding Fundamental Right under Part III. If any Fundamental Duty requires arms, there is bound to exist a corresponding Fundamental Right under Part III.
(i) Article 51A(b) says:
Noble ideals and national struggle for freedom were not without arms. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right of arms under Part III of the Constitution.to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(ii) Article 51A(c) says:
The duty of sovereign to uphold and protect the sovereignty cannot be expected be done without corresponding right to arms. It needs to be noted that in a free and democratic republic, the citizens themselves constitute the sovereign. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right of arms under Part III of the Constitution.to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(iii) Article 51A(d) says:
The duty to defend cannot be expected be done without corresponding right to arms. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right of arms under Part III of the Constitution.to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
(iv) Article 51A(i) says:
"abjure violence" does not mean that one has to suffer violence from criminals by staying without arms. It does not mean that there is no right to the means or the tools to suppress the violence, to create an atmosphere that is concomitant with principle of "abjure violence". It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right of arms under Part III of the Constitution.to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
(7) Article 246(5) delegates the legislative powers to the Parliament to regulate arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives. If arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives are not fundamental rights or are offense under Part III, question of providing legislative powers to regulate them does not arise. It needs to be noted that Parliament does not have the legislative powers to pass regulatory laws to "regulate" acts that are offenses or crime under Part III of the Constitution. Example: Parliament cannot pass laws to "regulate" the offenses under Part III, by passing regulatory laws to issue licenses for murder, extortion, kidnapping, robbery etc. Since arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives are surely not an offense under Part III, therefore we have Article 246(5) and exceptions for the State under the respective laws for arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives.
(8) Arms Act 1959 and its objectives. Keeping in view the above mentioned points, if one scrutinizes the objectives and provisions of Arms Act 1959, they point towards the direction that arms are fundamental right.
I had tried to explain this matter earlier at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785 I will be updating that post with more points including these, so that things are even more clear to the casual reader and are available at one location.