Victim Disarmament Policy is the more accurate name for the illegal so called “Arms and Ammunition Policy” issued by MHA on 31.3.2010 in form of an executive order to all States and Union territories. If one reads the the notification issued by MHA, the point number 3 is almost identical in text, language and meaning to the point number 3 under Objects of Arms Amendment Bill 2010 that is now suppossed to be with Standing Commitee on Home Affairs, it becomes clear that Arms Amendment Bill 2010 is nothing but a clever attempt to get the illegal notification legalized by the Parliament(as required under Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959) and also change original objects & reasons of Arms Act 1959 by keeping the Parliament in dark. It is a government policy that attempts to deny the most basic of human rights, that of self-defense and defense of loved ones.
In the guise of moving a minor amendment to the Arms Act, ostensibly to make police verification mandatory, the Ministry of Home Affairs has quietly moved to change other important aspects of the the law with the goal of undermining every citizen's legal right to keep and bear arms. Even though the Arms Act does not allow it to do so, the Ministry has formulated an "Arms Policy" which has in effect changed the law and how it is implemented, without seeking parliamentary approval or following proper procedures. The Ministry has sent a circular to all State/ UT Home Deptt.'s ordering that this new policy be followed strictly with immediate effect.
1) It is IMPORTANT to NOTE that while the Arms Act gives the Central Govt. the power to make rules, which MUST then be approved by parliament within a stipulated time period - there is NO provision for making policy without parliamentary approval. Why is it that the Ministry has not made the changes it seeks to make a part of this Amendment to the Arms Act? Is it because the Ministry fears that the parliament would not approve the changes it wishes to make and so an attempt to bypass parliament is being made?
2) The very basis of the new Arms Policy is the flawed assumption that “The proliferation of arms, whether licensed or illegal, vitiates the ‘Law and Order’ situation” – what is not made clear is how the Ministry has arrived at this conclusion. In fact the Ministry has admitted in parliament that it has conducted no study/ assessment linking firearms to rise in crime rate. Such statements are also a direct insult to the lacs of honest law-abiding citizens who keep & bear arms responsibly, by equating them to common criminals.
3) The new Arms Policy requires a citizen to prove grave & imminent threat to life prior to grant of arms license. This is an attempt to illegally amend the relevant Sections of the Arms Act which clearly outline conditions under which arms license applications are to be approved or denied. Also, proving grave & imminent threat is impossible for an ordinary citizen and will lead to large scale corruption as well as denying honest citizens the only means with which to protect themselves. This despite the Arms Act 1959 stating as one of it's primary objectives to make it easier for law abiding citizens to own arms for self-defence & sport. The arms license application criteria should be objective and any citizen who is not disqualified should be automatically approved. This is the only way to ensure the process is free of fear or favour.
4) The new Arms Policy directly changes the existing Arms Rules 1962, without following proper procedure – (a) by changing the relevant authority for issuing All India Validity arms licenses, which was previously the State Govt. and has now for all (non VIP) cases been made the MHA, Govt. of India. (b) by introducing a new class system within the law, by allowing State Govt.'s to continue to issue All India Validity arms licenses ONLY for a select ruling elite. Besides everything else, this sort of discriminatory policy is against the very spirit of the Arms Act as well as the Indian Constitution.
There is a need to go into the proper depth of causes or solutions this new Amendment to the Arms Act and Arms Policy aim to address. A detailed study, comments and suggestions by Home Committe are needed.
Victim Disarmament is when a kidnapper, murderer, torturer or rapist knows, thanks to government policy and the existing Arms Act 1959, that his victim is very unlikely to have a (legal) weapon to deter him.
Victim Disarmament is when people must fear death or violence to themselves or their families, based on their race, religion, caste, language or political beliefs, and know they have no practical means or legal right to resist.
Victim Disarmament is an enabler for murder, torture, rape, mutilation, political terror, and other crimes. Is it moral, or admirable, to support laws and politicians that create situations like those above, or allow them to persist?
But some of you maybe thinking, but isn’t that is what the police are for? To protect me for these terrible things. Let me ask you a few leading questions:
How long does it typically take the police to answer your emergency call?
If you are cornered in a dark road, or your door is in the process of being broken down, will you have time to call police? Will the attacker wait until police arrives and then attempt to commit murder, kidnapping, rape etc.? And, when the police finally do arrive, are you sure they’ll actually help you?
Where were the police during terrorist attacks like 26/11, 2002 Gujrat genocide & 1984 Delhi genocide? Did the police protect the victims of those tragedies?
Why is it considered moral (by some) to deny these victims an effective means to deter these violent attackers? Why do they want you to believe in “Dial the Police and then Die.” How much is a life worth?
A bank guard can keep a gun to protect your money but, you can’t keep a gun to protect yourself or your near and dear ones. Logic and history prove that gun licensing pose grave threats to life and liberty. It is used only as a political tool by tryrants under various pretexts. It was used recently by the British, Hitler, Stalin and other endless tyrants since the start of civilization.
"Both the oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle
Use your common sense and try to answer the following questions:
Question 1: Every car is registered; every driver is licensed. Cars are important and dangerous. Guns are important and dangerous. So what’s the problem with gun owner licenses?
Answer:
1) Practically speaking, registration and licensing laws do not affect criminals, they only affect innocent citizens.
(2) Fundamentally speaking, citizens in a free society do not have to get permission from anyone to exercise their right to self-defense, just as they don’t need permission to freely speak or worship. Licensing and registration schemes require citizens to get permission to defend themselves, so those schemes don’t belong to a free society.
(3) Historically speaking, registration and licensing have been part of “gun control” programs that made possible, the calculated mass murder of between 70 and 170 million people. Licensing make genocide easier, not harder. Don’t make genocides easier anywhere in the world.
Question 2: Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Owning a weapon should be considered a privilege, too.
Answer: Driving a car on tax-funded roads might be subjected to the tax-funded government regulations. Exercising the right to self defense, however, doesn’t depend on tax-funded resources and should never require anybody’s permission.
Question 3: Gun registration and owner licensing helps police solve crimes, just like the cars’ license plates and the drivers’ licenses.
Answer: License plates and driver’s licenses don’t prevent any crimes, they only help track suspects after the fact. Serious criminals frequently use stolen cars and plates; many drive without valid licenses. Likewise, serious criminals will not be licensed and will use unlicensed or stolen guns, and also the tracking feature is worthless anyways if the police don’t find the gun.
Question 4:You’re just paranoid; don’t you trust our government to license and register weapons while preserving your right to self defence?
Answer: Wrong question. The government is supposed to answer to you and me. Why does the government so distrust the vast majority of decent non-violent firearms owners that it wants to identify and track every owner and every firearm? Something seriously not good in intentions or implications.
