Review of Arms Act and Arms policy

[goodboy_mentor]

Police "verification", we all know another reason for bribes by already corrupt police for "verification". Language of draft talking about "Proliferation" appears CAFI plant.

[shadow]

"Amid reports of many arms licence holders misusing their legal weapons in one or the other way, the Centre has come out with a comprehensive draft to bring changes in the existing arms and ammunition policy for individuals—suggesting scores of new provisions ranging from setting up a national database of licensees to making the police verification exercise strict and mandatory."

What misuse reports are they talking about?

[winnie_the_pooh]

I think I will summarize what I alarms me about this proposed amendment-

1.If it goes through it would be an acceptance that private ownership of firearms leads to arms proliferation.

2.It would mean that the Parliament believes that privately held firearms are a threat to the law and order of the country

3.The National Data on firearms would mean that if and when the govt. feels that as the Parliament has accorded it's approval by accepting that privately held firearms are a serious impediment to social development and law and order,all privately owned firearms shall be handed over,it would be in a position to enforce this.

4.The movement of licensees from state to another would be stopped altogether.

5.MP's and other eligible for AIV can carry them to only 3 states and shall lose this privilege when they demit office.

6.The govt would be in a position to reduce ownership of firearms to 2 or even one

[tingriman]

Here is what I have already submitted:

Sir,

Needless to say that I am a law abiding and tax paying citizen of the country, my view on the new Arm Act drafts are submitted below.

Proposition in draft

3. Proliferation of arms and ammunition in the country disrupt the social order and development. The proliferation of arms, whether licensed or illegal, vitiates the ‘Law and Order’ situation. Holding of sophisticated arms by the conflicting parties directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts. Therefore, in principle, proliferation of arms needs to be curbed. In this context, there is a compelling need to review the provisions of Arms Act/Arms Rules with regard to grant of arms licences for possession of arms and ammunition by individuals and manufacture of fire arms in the country.


Comments:-

Sir, this statement, with respect to legal weapons, is totally false and is devoid of any factual evidences. USA, Singapore and other countries where gun laws are liberal, the crime rate is dramatically at the lowest. In fact, gun controls are blessings for criminals when criminals have guns and their victims don't, crime becomes a safer occupation as gun bans don’t disarm criminals but attract them. An unarmed man is incapable of functioning as a free citizen; his property, his body, his very life are at the command of others, since there is no risk inherent in committing depredations upon him, as it is well said that an unarmed man is a subject while an armed men is a citizen. Some may say that liberal guns laws are responsible for increase in crime rate and terrorism, but in fact, this is a grossly incorrect statement. Statistics on recorded crimes and terrorism clearly point out that terrorists use illegal, unlicensed, firearms smuggled into this country. Moreover, these anaemic calibres, which civilians are allowed to possess legally in our country do not serve their purpose. For committing their act of terrorism, they need sophisticated, automatic and very high calibre weapons (like AKs, LMG, SMG, grenade launchers, Pikka guns, mortars & rocket launchers, RDX and detonating devices) for which no government will issue a license for civilian use. This explains that the problem of insurgency or crime has nothing to do with the Arms control. Guns are like any other mechanical tool, ‘they don't kill people on their own’. It is the inherent predatory nature of the ‘criminal human mind’ which is primarily responsible for committing crime against his fellowmen. If guns are not available, then to a ‘criminal’ or a person with an ‘unsound’ mind, any ordinary tool like a screw driver, kitchen knives, agricultural implements (sharp or blunt) or even stones can serve the purpose. There are number of incidents and ‘killings’ reported world wide arising from ‘error of judgment’ while driving. Many innocent lives are lost each day on account of road accidents, thousands die each year on account of train accidents, air crash, boat capsizing, Several kill themselves by jumping from high rise buildings or drinking pills or insecticides/medicines used for agricultural propose. Does this mean that the best approach to prevent a loss of valuable human lives each year, we should ban driving, ban plying of trains and aircrafts, ban kitchen knives, ban agricultural implements/insecticides, ban some otherwise life saving medicines, ban building high rise buildings and ban everything which is responsible for loss of human lives? Would any government advocate such a ban?

Compare the statistics of the percentage of people killed each year with legally owned fire-arms, with those killed by illegal firearms. Documented records clearly indicate that in almost all the firearm related crimes, illegal fire-arms are invariably used. The Arms Act has proved to be a complete failure to check the free flow of illegal weapon and the ease with which the criminals and terrorists are getting their supply of highly destructive weaponry. The law instead of helping and coming to the aid of the law abiding citizens has on the contrary become its worst enemy. Neither can they defend themselves from these criminals/terrorists nor can they save their hard earned property. In fact the Arms Act has almost ‘neutered’ the law abiding citizen from keep a weapon for self defence. The worst possible fall out of this short sightedness, or even plain ‘cussedness’, on the part of the ‘powers that be’ is that our country is bereft of a ‘second line of defence’. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Imperial Japanese Navy), during WWII warned against attacking the U.S. and said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." What would happen to India, in the absence of a second line of defence, if China were to attack us in the near future? We would over run like ‘grass’ in front of a raging prairie fire! Legally armed citizens, can not only provide the bulwark of a second line of defence but also help the government to curb the crime and fight militancy.




Proposition in draft

6. Grant of Arms licences for PB Weapons – Applications for grant of arms license for PB weapons from citizens of India facing grave and imminent threat to their lives are considered by Central Government. It has been decided that applications for grant of arms license for PB weapons may be considered from the following category of persons alone:-

(i) Those persons who face grave and imminent threat to their lives by mere reason of being residents of a geographical area (or areas) where terrorists are most active and/or are held to be prime ‘targets’ in the eyes of terrorists and/ or are known to be inimical to the aims and objects of the terrorists and as such face danger to their lives.

(ii) Those Government officials who by virtue of the office occupied by them and/or the nature of duties performed by them and/or in due discharge of their official duty have made themselves targets in the eyes of terrorists and are prone to terrorist attack.

(iii) Those MPs and MLAs including non-officials/private persons who by virtue of having been closely and/or actively associated with anti-terrorist programmes and policies of the Government or by mere reason of their holding views, political or otherwise, not to the liking of the terrorists, have rendered themselves open to attack by the terrorists.

(iv) The family members/kith and kin of those who by the very nature of their duties or performance (past or present) or positions occupied in the Government (past or present) or even otherwise for known/unknown reasons have been rendered vulnerable and have come to be regarded by the terrorists as fit targets for elimination.




Comments:-

After putting an end to the mutiny of 1857, British Viceroy, Lord Lytton (1874 -1880),brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878). An act, which exempted Europeans and ensuring, that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description, unless the British masters considered him a "LOYAL" subject of the British Empire. Father of the Nation M. K. Gandhi, referring to Arms Act of 1878 remarked, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" (page 238, My Experiment with Truth, M K Gandhi) India won her independence in 1947, but our Government still took 12 years to formulate the new Arms Act.1959 which was further supplemented by the Arms Act Rules of 1962. Although a little better than the Arms Act of 1878, the new Arms Act of 1962 unfortunately, did not show any sign that the Government of Independent India trusted its Citizens. While the new legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the ‘Licensing Authorities’, it however ensured that procurement of Arms License remains a distant dream for the ordinary citizen. The concept of ‘Prohibited and Non-Prohibited bore/calibres’ was used by the British, to ensure that Ammunition used by the military, police and paramilitary forces do not find its way to ordinary citizens, specifically freedom fighters who had loyalties amongst a major percentage of serving personnel in the British Army and Law Enforcement Units. After partition and independence, the Government of Pakistan showed broader vision and faith in their citizens by waiving aside a redundant relic from the colonial era. On the contrary in India, all the calibres which are/were used by Military/Law Enforcement Units of our country, were made sacrosanct and placed out of the reach of civilians who had to settle for less effective calibres like .32 ACP, .25 ACP, 22 LR etc. The minimum calibre, advocated world wide for self defence purpose is the 9 mm P/9x19 mm. Another school of thought advocates the .380 ACP/ 9 mm short/9x17 mm as qualifying round for SD purpose. Statistics on the other hand reveal that the ballistics of the .380 calibre is inadequate to ‘stop’ an assailant, in an actual street fight. In fact hand guns legally allowed to India for self defence are termed as peanut shooters/mouse guns in all other nations.

This then brings us to the question, after gaining independence’ what positive changes have we seen in the Indian Arms Act? The obvious answer is ‘Nothing’. In fact the situation has worsened. Is this the ‘freedom’ envisaged for the citizens, by the ‘Father of the Nation’ and other enlightened beings? DO THE CITIZEN STILL NOT TRUST WORTHY IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTED GOVT? ARE THE LIVES OF MINISTERS, MPs, MLAs AND BUREAUCRATS MORE VALUABLE THAN THOSE OF COMMON CITIZENS???? thoughts.......any answers..



Proposition in draft

4. Quantity of ammunition permitted under various categories - It has been decided to prescribe a uniform norm and allow 50 cartridges of the appropriate bore per annum in respect of PB and NPB weapons held by licensees. However, in respect of PB and NPB weapons allowed under the family heirloom policy, the quantity of ammunition will be restricted to 30 cartridges per annum since, ordinarily, there is no threat to the legal heir and the weapon is transferred to him on sentimental grounds. A higher quantity of ammunition will be allowable on merits in exceptional cases for good and sufficient reasons to be given by the licensee, with the approval of Secretary (Home Department) of the State concerned.


Comments:-

Sir, this total violation of civil rights to defend themselves. The guns are not “Allah-Din ka Chirag” that like in dire need when you take it out and press the trigger, the bullet will go at the right intended target. To attain proficiency in shooting which is requisite factor in self defence situation, target practice is needed. AND THIS VERY IMPORTANT IN CASE OF LOW CALIBRE WEAPONS LIKE .32/.22LR THAT WE DO POSSES IN INDIA WHICH DON’T HAVE SUFFICIENT STOPPING POWER. People in other countries go to the shooting-range once a month and fire at least 100 rounds for keeping themselves up to date and their morale and confidence level high with the gun. And our committee in his new draft is thinking of decreasing the ammunition quota to 50 cartridges per year, it is an unpleasant surprise! How many, people are there in the committee who understand guns and their role in self defence situation? Does this committee have any of its members from Indian Military, para-military or any State Police organisation? I am sure none is there. Decreasing the ammunition quota is totally unjustified. Instead, the ammunition quota needs to be increased particularly in case of weapons permitted for self-defence and sports, this is an important aspect, and otherwise fire-arms are totally useless tools.



Proposition in draft

24. Import of arms & ammunition- Import of fire-arms is under restricted list of import issued by DGFT, which allows import in deserving cases. It has been decided to continue with the existing policy on imports.

Comments:-


Due to the new Arms Act, the indigenous Arms manufacturing Industry has remain fettered, due to a complete ban on import of machinery, required for production of quality weapons. Today very inferior quality shotguns are produced, which due to ban on import of machinery and coupled with the ban on
Imports of firearms are sold with unjustified high price tags. The quality of these indigenous weapons, produced by the few licensed arms manufacturers, which includes the Government owned Indian Ordnance Factory, have no takers in the international market. Countries which have a GDP less than most states in our country, dominate the world market, through the production and sale of quality weapons thereby earning huge foreign revenue. The situation took a downturn in the 1980s, knowing fully well, that terrorists, criminals, separatists never use licensed weapons but resort to illegal, unlicensed and higher calibre weapons to wreck havoc on society and create mayhem, the myopic policy makers in the Government, citing internal disturbances and insurgency, completely banned the import of Arms and Ammunition of any kind for the civilian market. The Indian Ordinance Factory-a Public Sector Undertaking is the only factory which produces weapons meant for the civilian market, though its priority is to supply Military and Law Enforcement Units. The weapons they produce are grossly substandard, highly over priced and below the benchmarks to qualify for self defence or target practice. Abhinav Bindra would never hope to qualify for the Olympics, leave alone winning a gold medal if he were to use an IOF produced gun. Some of the ‘gems’ produced by the IOF is the infamous .315 Rifle, when fired, the exiting round, instead of flying true and straight, actually flips over, a ballistic feat which would be appreciated more by the ISRO Scientists.

The revolvers produced by the IOF, is at best a crude copy of the British Webley & Scott. Some of the copies of the original Webley & Scott revolvers produced illegally in Munger, Bihar have a better finish. The .22 and 30-06 rifles are no better, repulsive and inferior quality wood are used for the stock which are so heavy and unbalanced, that the owners of these rifles would be better off, if they were used as clubs. How may IOF products meant for civilian market in India qualify to be exported? Why our Ministers, MPs, MLAs and bureaucrats want imported weapons? Why all the weaponry confisticated by the custom officials was issued/is being issued to these people even at very highly subsidized rates besides they are provided with highly trained members of police/para-military forces? Why they cannot do with IOF products? Simply because they know well that IOF products are not just reliable. THE LIFE OF COMMON LAW ABIDING AND TAX PAYING CITIZENS IS AS VALUABLE AS THAT OF THESE VIPS, TAX PAYING CITIZENS HAVE THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO POSSES RIGHT KIND OF WEAPON FOR THEIR SELF DEFENCE. There is no provision in our constitution to prohibit citizens from acquiring weapon of any particular make/foreign make (currently as long as it is NPB), this ban on import violates this fundamental principle in the first place. Also opening of import will enable my government to earn huge revenue from the imported quality arms/ammunitions apart from opening new competition amongst the private manufacturers.



Submitted for n/a please,
Regards,
xxxxxx

[lionheartguru]

guys

I am more than delited to be a part of a group of people who are pro-active and intellectual at the same time.
However i say this once again just discussion will not help us a lot...
Drafting a mail will certainly help but not in private ... it should be in public...
we are just a bunchfull of people who are agressive in our actions , but what about the rest of the 1.3billion indians who are un-aware of these policies/procedures/acts/laws and all...

the more we attract the public (by spreding the word) the sooner are we gonna achieve the true freedom...

jai bhavani

[m24]

All the members who have already posted their response at the MHA id, do I have your permission to use the material that you all have eloquently put in your responses as part(if required) of my response??

Regards

[Anand]

m24,
Absolutely,you have my permission
Regards,
Anand

[ravi.sharma]

Great Job GBM, Anand & Tingriman, will do my job very shortly.

guys

I am more than delited to be a part of a group of people who are pro-active and intellectual at the same time.
However i say this once again just discussion will not help us a lot...
Drafting a mail will certainly help but not in private ... it should be in public...
we are just a bunchfull of people who are agressive in our actions , but what about the rest of the 1.3billion indians who are un-aware of these policies/procedures/acts/laws and all...

the more we attract the public (by spreding the word) the sooner are we gonna achieve the true freedom...

jai bhavani

What lionheart has mentioned is very true. The mails we send shall be a minor dent for MHA, we need more and more response. Out of 2800 members at IFG only few of us are taking the trouble to draft and send our response to MHA. Just imagine, like us their shall be Anti's as well who will appreciate this policy and shall thank the government to take so called "Good measures" to curb the crime rate in India. The point they don't understand is the government is actually cutting down the liberty of Law abiding citizens then actually working on reducing the crime rate.

Though great efforts by the guys who have posted their response, I still feel that we need a single draft signed by As Many Members As Possible and send it to MHA. Single response from a group of people shall have much wattage then segregated responses from Individuals.


Ravi.

[tingriman]

I still feel that we need a single draft signed by As Many Members As Possible and send it to MHA. Single response from a group of people shall have much wattage then segregated responses from Individuals.

Since members active on this board belong to different parts of country, Is it possible that each of us may make a representation and get it signed by the citizens/Panchyats members etc of his respective area and send it through fax or dak to MHA. In this way, we shall be covering almost entire country and each representaton bearing the signature of atleast 25 or so citizen will have a considerable weight. I would have been the first one to go this route, but unfortunately I am presently over-seas, feel like helpless executing this plan.

Any suggestion..

regards,
tingriman

[goodboy_mentor]

I would like to add following points which I consider very important if weight-age is to be given to facts:

"Proliferation of arms and ammunition in the country disrupt the social order and development. The proliferation of arms, whether licensed or illegal, vitiates the ‘Law and Order’ situation."

The above statement is irresponsible and shows bias present in draft. If the above case was true, then neither the Police nor the Military should possess arms. Since we all know how impractical and dangerous that would be to our society, ideas like this should be refrained from. On the contrary the policy should be based on facts, be objective and not on individual biases and discriminatory thinking. Please note:

a)The facts as per the National Crime Records Bureau http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2007/home.htm are contrary to the views on which this draft seems to be based on. Ref: Chapter 3 page 8 Table 3-(G) for "Victims of Murder by Firearms during 2003-2007" Total number of victims for 2007 : 33,428, Victims by licensed firearms: 598, Victims by unlicensed firearms 4240, % of victims by firearms 14.5, % of victims by Licensed firearms 1.7%. This data proves beyond any doubt that 85.5% of murders are by weapons that are not firearms and only 1.7% of murders are by licensed firearms. It shows that the problem area is in 98% cases where weapons used is illegal. The focus of MHA on just less than 2% of cases proves beyond any doubt that this draft has been drafted by keeping a very strong bias/discriminatory thinking against ownership of firearms, hence it should be modified completely and be written/implemented such that it empowers the 98% victims of murder/violent crimes to have firearms to deter violent crime, defend their lives and future perpetrators of violent crimes don't get soft targets to kill at will. Every form of violent crime is committed after proper "cost/benefit" analysis by criminals, for example England has the tightest of "Gun Control" laws and highest number of violent crimes due to the simple fact that criminals get citizens disarmed by the law to commit crime upon them. Whereas on contrary France has has comparatively most liberal gun laws in EU and has lowest violent crime.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html)

b) If the state is directly or indirectly denying the means to defend ones life from violent crime(by making the process of acquiring firearms for self defense difficult and beyond reach) to citizens by placing restrictions, making the process complicated, it's actions are indirectly violating the the "Right to Life" enshrined to all the citizens by Article 25 of the constitution.

[tingriman]

Well said goodboy_mentor, These facts from NCB with respect to draft policy are very strong and valid in support of our cause. Let me request that these facts must be brought to the MHA as soon as possble. Members preparing their comments to the draft policy are requested to include these points in their comments.

Thanks goodboy_mentor for enlightment and new ideas,

regards,
tingriman

[vkjalan]

Waiting for an Update

[shadow]

Dear Comrades,

I am kind of feeling a little embarrassed in requesting for this but that is not really going to help me and my fellow IFG-ians. My request too is similar to that of VKJ.

Can someone please help me with a draft to oppose this policy with suitable case studies & insights especially addressing the point wherein there are looking at making the process of fresh applications more stringent. I am a novice, do not have any licence or the expertise as such & in the process of enrolling in MRA. Neither have I done in-depth research on the subject yet to really write an appeal to MHA supporting it with relevant acts, policies & case references.

However am keen on joining hands with the fellowship here & fight against the injustice.

Aspiring to be a good shot in near future,

I remain,
Shadow

[mundaire]

Gents give me till tonight/ tomorrow, will try and ensure there is something in everyone's inbox by then, with a request to e-mail AS WELL AS to speedpost it to the given addresses. People can send it in as it is or make their own amendments as they see fit. Am working on it right now...

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[goodboy_mentor]

Me too is actively working on it.