First Firearm ‘Difficult to Carry Due to Large Size’ No Need to Get a License for Another Weapon: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court refused to intervene in the authority’s decision to reject a person’s application for a second gun licence, on the grounds that the first licensed gun he owned, a 12-gauge gun, was too heavy for him to carry.

workbench Judge Anoop Kumar Dhand He observed that the right to bear arms in India is completely different when compared to this right in the United States of America (“USA”) and the United Kingdom (“UK”). It has been accepted that no one has the fundamental right to own a gun, especially today, when gun possession has become a “show” and a “status symbol” rather than self-defense.

“The purpose of the Arms Law was to ensure that weapons could be used by citizens for self-defense, but this does not mean that every individual should be given a license to possess a weapon. “We do not live in a lawless society where individuals must acquire or keep guns to protect themselves.”

It was learned that the applicant worked in the police force and owned a 12-caliber pistol, which was given to him by his father for security purposes. Counsel argued that under the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Act”), there is no bar against possessing two weapons at the same time and, therefore, the authorities should be directed to grant the petitioner an additional license for the second weapon.

On the contrary, the defendants argued that since the plaintiff already had a gun licence, there was no justification for obtaining a license to carry a second firearm simply because the first gun was difficult to carry because it was too large. to carry.

The Court examined the Law and found that its objectives showed that the legislature intended to ensure that self-defense weapons were made available to licensed citizens. However, it was found that the right to own firearms in India is not a fundamental right as clearly held in the Supreme Court case. Rajendra Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh.

The court compared the right to bear arms in India and the USA and held that the right to bear arms in the USA refers to the right of people to self-defence and is constitutionally recognized under Article 2.^And Amendment that gives US citizens the authority to retaliate against any cruel threat. But carrying and possessing a firearm in a country was merely a matter of legal privilege, and no citizen had a general right to carry a firearm.

In this context, the Court held that the Arms License is a provision of law and the Licensing Authority has the discretion to grant or deny such a licence. It was concluded that the applicant did not explain any justification for requesting a second license and that the size of the existing gun was too large and could not be a justification for obtaining a second gun license.

“An individual does not have a fundamental right to possess a gun, and today possession of this gun is for “show” purposes, as a “status symbol” rather than for self-defense, to show that one is an effective person… A license to hold a gun can only be requested in line with the whims and desires of an individual. “It will be given not only by doing so, but also when there is a necessity.”

Accordingly, the Court rejected the petition stating that the applicant could not demonstrate a special situation that his life was under serious threat and that he was required to carry two different firearms for this reason.

Title: Brijesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 341

Click Here to Read/Download the Order