Weapon Possession Driven by Desire to Showcase 'Status Symbol' Rather Than Self-Defense : Raj HC

Weapon Possession Driven by Desire to Showcase 'Status Symbol' Rather Than Self-Defense : Raj HC

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court held that the growing trend of weapon possession among individuals is more motivated by a desire to flaunt it as a 'status symbol' rather than for self-defense.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that carrying and possessing firearms is a statutory privilege, not a fundamental right. The Court clarified that no citizen has an unrestricted right to carry a firearm, as it is not guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The object of the Arms Act was to ensure that weapon is available to a citizen for self-defence but it does not mean that every individual should be given a licence to possess weapon. We are not living in a lawless society where individuals have to acquire or hold arms to protect themselves. Licence to hold an arm is to be granted where there is a necessity and not merely at the asking of an individual at his whims and fancies,” it added.

Case Brief:

The observations were made while hearing a police official's plea challenging the rejection of his request for a pistol license. The State opposed the plea, stating that the official already holds a licensed 12-bore gun in his private capacity and has not demonstrated the need for a second weapon.
 
The petitioner argued that the 12-bore gun, a gift from his father, was too large to carry. However, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to provide a valid justification for needing a second license.
 
This cannot be a ground to claim licence for second weapon that the first weapon i.e. 12 bore gun is big in size and Revolver/Pistol is small in size,” the Court ruled.
 
The Court compared the gun laws of the United States and India. It noted that in the US, the right to bear arms is recognized as a fundamental right for self-defense under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
 
This amendment empowers the citizens of USA to retaliate against any tyrannical threat thereby employing self-defence as a primary justification for keeping the weapon/gun. However, this law is also not absolute in the United States. It is also subject to scrutiny and reasonable restrictions by the United States,” it added.
 
Arms licence is a creation of statute and the Licensing Authority is vested with the discretion as to granting or not granting of such licence, which would depend upon the facts and situation in each case,” it added.
 
During the heraing, the Court observe that the counsel for petitioner failed to make out a special case that his life is under serious threat and for that he needs two different licences, to carry two different firearms.
 
In the facts of the case, after having perused the impugned orders, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in this petition, as the refusal to grant second licence for Revolver/Pistol is well reasoned by the respondents,” the judge said while dismissing the plea.

Advocate Mahendra Sharma represented the petitioner.

Advocate Suman Shekhawat represented the State.

Case Title: Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State of Rajasthan
 

 

 
 
 
Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy