The Right to Bear Arms- Around The World
- Kattabazaari
- Mar 31, 2021
- 5 min read
We have all heard about USA's 2nd Amendment. But did you know that India was about to have the freedom to bear arms as a constitutional right too?
Why owning guns isn't a constitutional right in India?
This month we found out that India "almost" had the constitutional right to bear arms but how did it never get implemented. What happened? Lets find out but first lets look at a brief timeline of events that lead to owning arms a "privilege" rather than a "right".
1800s-
The illegal and unauthorised use of British weapons during the British rule by the Indian soldiers led to the introduction of the Arms Act of 1878. The act ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the Crown was satisfied that he was a loyal subject of the Crown.
1959-
In 1959, a whole new Arms Act was passed. It was better than the Britisher’s edition, but at the same time, it was also reflective of the Indian Government’s distrust in its own citizens. This act gave arbitrary use of powers to the licensing authorities.
1962-
The act of 1959, was supplemented by the arms rules in 1962. They both together regulate, i.e., prohibit the acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, export, import and transfer of firearms except with a license, which in itself is quite difficult to obtain since the process is tedious and may take even years to complete.
1930-
Mahatma Gandhi was a pro gun lobbyist. On 2 March 1930, Gandhi sent a letter to Lord Irwin shortly before the Civil Disobedience Movement. In the letter, he says “It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture. And, by the policy of cruel disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lacking the inward strength, we have been reduced, by all but universal disarmament, to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness."
Also Read: Guns and Indians
1947-
It was the time during partition and thousands of people had died due to the violence. Delhi itself was under curfew as Patel and the others met. And as they looked at the carnage around them, they appeared to have lost appetite for gun rights. Patel said: “In the present state of our society (this) will be a dangerous thing."
Countries where owning guns is a constitutional right
Except for most of the countries who have acknowledged the repercussions of adding owning arms as a fundamental right, there still exist some nations who still believe that owning guns is better off as a constitutional right.
Take a wild guess about the number of countries who still practice this law- 10? 1? 6? 3?
Keep on scrolling to know more!
United States of America
Also Read: In god and guns they trust
Gun ownership in the United States is rooted in the Second Amendment of the Constitution: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, the right is not unlimited. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits individuals under eighteen years of age, convicted criminals, the mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others from purchasing firearms. Some states, such as Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify federal gun legislation but are unconstitutional.
In January 2016, President Barack Obama took several actions intended to decrease gun violence, including a measure requiring dealers of firearms at gun shows or online to obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks. As of 2019, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity magazines. The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has 46 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns, according to a report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey.
Guatemala
Guatemala is one of the most dangerous countries on this list, with 32.3 deaths by firearm per 100,000 residents, and as of 2016, the capital city of Guatemala was ranked the 9th most homicidal in the world. Guatemalan law states that “all citizens have the right to have firearms in their place of living,” although they can only be acquired by licensed gun owners. No reason is required to possess a firearm, but owning one for personal security reasons does require government approval.
Also Read: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
Minimum age is not defined for gun ownership, although there is a minimum age of 25 for carrying firearms, and across the country there are 12.1 firearms per 100 civilians.
A gun licence requires proof that the applicant does not suffer from any mental illnesses, that they haven’t deserted either the Guatemalan army or police force, and they must have a clean police record. Carrying guns in public places is permitted with a license.
Mexico
Article 10 in the Mexican Constitution states that Mexicans “have the right to possess firearms in their home, for their security and legitimate defense, with exception to those prohibited by Federal Law.” In order to legally acquire a gun, an individual must obtain a one-year gun permit within 30 days of purchasing a firearm.
In a country of nearly 132 million people, there is only one shop that sells firearms, which is located in Mexico City. Despite this limiting factor, Small Arms Survey reported that in 2017, Mexico had 12.9 guns per 100 civilians, although of the 16,809,000 guns estimated in circulation in that year, only 3,118,592 were legally registered.
A report on gun trafficking between the US and Mexico revealed that almost 90% of the guns recovered and identified from Mexican crime scenes can be traced back to firearm dealers in the neighbouring country.
Gun Ownership is not a Human Right!
As the vicious debate over gun control continues unabated, it is important for us to understand why owning guns as a fundamental right is not the best way to protect self. Some pro gun lobbyists make an argument that gun ownership is a "human right" but it is easy to say that gun ownership doesn’t really meet any of the standards we use to define a human right. Owning a gun does not place one in a protected class of society. It’s not integral to the inextricable identity of a human being. While a gun owner may participate in gun culture, may enjoy interacting with guns and fellow gun owners as a recreational activity, may even integrate that activity heavily into daily life, gun ownership still isn’t about identity.
Gun ownership is something else: a privilege. And privileges are contingent on meeting reasonable standards. People are not entitled to privileges. They are accorded on the basis of fitness to have them.
Comentarios