Friday, July 01, 2011

From India: You can't refuse an arms license to someone

by saying 'there might be a law & order problem'. Some real interesting stuff, but I'll pull two bits out. First, what happens when owning arms is a 'privilege':
Revenue authorities or police officials cannot refuse to issue arms licence by citing the likelihood of law and order problem as all citizens of the country are entitled to possess weapons, under licence, for self-defence unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege, the Madras High Court has ruled.
He pointed out that the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted to lessen the rigours of the colonial Arms Act, 1878 which made it difficult for law abiding citizens to possess firearms for self-defence whereas terrorists, dacoits and other anti-social or anti-national elements were using not only civilian weapons but also bombs, hand-grenades, Bren-guns, Sten-guns, rifles and revolvers of military type.
So the judge recognizes the fact that the bad guys do not obey the law; that's a Good Thing. real interesting part is what follows:
The The 1959 Act was also intended to recognise the right of the State to requisition the services of every citizen during national emergencies. “The licensees and permit holders of fire arms, Shikaris (hunters), target shooters and rifle-men in general (in appropriate age groups) will be of great service to the country in emergencies, if the Government can properly mobilise and utilise them,” the Act read.
Damn. That sounds kind of like 'the Militia will be called up in time of emergency', doesn't it?
God knows they could have used it in Mumbai a couple of years ago. Or just a lot more honest citizens with arms in that city

Found thanks to Uncle

1 comment:

Gerry N. said...

Or even policemen who are issued weapons AND ammunition and have been taught how to actually fire those weapons. Reports I read from the Mumbai massacre stated that policemen's weapons were in such poor condition that they couldn't have been fired even if the "cops" were inclined to do that. Some had ammunition in them that was so corroded the weapon was inoperable. The policemen who were armed carried revolvers only as badges of authority. None of the police even drew their weapons.

When you have a nation of cowering sheep supposedly protected by weak, toothless sheepdogs incapable of protecting even themselves, what would one expect?