The Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with the competent authority’s order rejecting a man’s application for a second gun license, which was applied for on the grounds that the first licensed gun he owned, a 12-gauge gun, was too heavy to be carried by he.

Bank of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the right to bear arms was completely different in India compared to that right in the United States of America (“US”) and the United Kingdom (“UK”). It was argued that no one has a fundamental right to keep a gun, especially when nowadays its possession has become more of a “show off” and a “status symbol” than for self-defense.

“The purpose of the Arms Act was to ensure that the gun is available to a citizen for self-defense, but it does not mean that every person should be given a license to own a gun. We do not live in a lawless society where individuals must acquire or own guns to protect themselves.”

In the case of the petitioner, he worked in the police department and had a 12 gauge gun which was given to him by his father, which was required for safety reasons. Counsel submitted that under the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Act”) no prohibition against possession of two arms at the same time was provided and therefore the authorities must be directed to grant the petitioner the additional license for the second arm.

On the contrary, it was contended by the respondents that since the petitioner already held a gun permit, there was no justification available for obtaining a second permit to carry another firearm, merely on the ground that the first weapon was difficult. to wear

The Court examined the law and found that the object of the law indicated that the legislature intended to ensure that self-defense weapons were available to licensed citizens. However, it was observed that the right to own a firearm was not a fundamental right in India as explicitly held in the Supreme Court case of Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court compared the right to bear arms in India and the US and held that in the US, the right to bear arms refers to the right of the people to self-defense and had constitutional recognition under 2.^when amendment that empowered American citizens to fight back against any tyrannical threat. However, the carrying and possession of firearms in a country was only a matter of statutory privilege and no citizen had a general right to carry a firearm.

In this context, the Court held that the Arms License was a creation of the statute and the Licensing Authority was vested with the discretionary power to grant or not grant such licence. It was held that the petitioner had not disclosed any justifiable reason for wanting a second license and the size of the existing weapon being too large could not constitute a reason for claiming a second license.

“He has no fundamental right to own a gun, and owning one these days is more for ‘show’ as a ‘status symbol’ than for self-defense, proving that he is an influential person… The license to bear an arm it means to be granted where there is a necessity and not merely at the request of an individual according to his whims and fancies.”

Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioner’s claim, ruling that he failed to discern a special case in which his life was seriously threatened and for which he had to carry two different firearms.

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 341

Click here to read/download the order