PDA

View Full Version : Gun rights in India


7x57
02-01-2010, 1:58 PM
This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013102079.html) isn't showing up in search, but it's interesting (from ArmsAndTheLaw (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/02/gun_rights_doin.php)):


New groups mobilize as Indians embrace the right to bear arms

By Rama Lakshmi

In the land of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian gun owners are coming out of the shadows for the first time to mobilize, U.S.-style, against proposed new curbs on bearing arms.

When gunmen attacked 10 sites in Mumbai in November 2008, including two five-star hotels and a train station, Mumbai resident Kumar Verma sat at home glued to the television, feeling outraged and unsafe.

Before the end of December, Verma and his friends had applied for gun licenses. He read up on India's gun laws and joined the Web forum Indians for Guns. When he got his license seven months later, he bought a black, secondhand, snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver with a walnut grip.

"I feel safe wearing it in my ankle holster every day," said Verma, 27, who runs a family business selling fire-protection systems. "I have a right to self-protection, because random street crime and terrorism have increased. The police cannot be there for everybody all the time. Now I am a believer in the right to keep and bear arms."

Verma said he plans to join the recently formed National Association for Gun Rights India to lobby against new gun controls that the government has proposed, blaming the proliferation of both licensed and illegal weapons for a rise in crime.

Although India's 1959 Arms Act gives citizens the legal right to own and carry guns, it is not a right enshrined in the country's constitution. Getting a license is a cumbersome process, and guns cannot be bought over the counter -- requirements that gun owners describe as hangovers from the colonial past, when the British rulers disarmed their Indian subjects to head off rebellion.

In December, the Ministry of Home Affairs proposed several amendments to the Arms Act that would make it even harder to acquire a gun license, restrict the number of people eligible for nationwide licenses and curtail the amount of ammunition a gun owner can amass.

An official said that the ministry has called for public input. But in the meantime, the proposals have given rise to a nascent gun rights movement modeled on the strategies of the United States' National Rifle Association and echoing its rhetoric of civil rights, dignity and self-protection.

"We are outraged. We are not murderers. Instead of going after real criminals, the government is indulging in window dressing by bringing in gun control laws that target law-abiding citizens who have licensed guns," said Abhijeet Singh, 37, a software engineer who started Indians for Guns and is the coordinator of the new gun rights association.

"We want to remove the stigma on licensed gun owners," Singh said. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 87 percent of murders by firearms in India in 2007 involved illegally held guns.

There is no official tally of legal gun owners, but Singh cited a rough estimate of 4 million to 5 million.

Last week, the National Association for Gun Rights India began meeting with lawmakers and consulting lawyers in a bid to stall the proposals. The group's president is a 39-year-old lawmaker, Naveen Jindal, who studied at the University of Texas business school in Dallas. Inspired by American students' displays of patriotism, Jindal earlier launched a successful campaign for Indians' right to display the national flag outside their homes and offices.

Indian security experts appear dismissive of the group's efforts. "There is no place for a gun rights movement in India," said Julius Ribeiro, a former police officer who comments on security issues. "That kind of debate may work in America, but it will not work here, because laws are misused and guns can easily fall into the wrong hands. It can get dangerous in India."

Gun rights advocates respond -- using language familiar to Americans -- that guns are a deterrent to crime.

"An armed society is a polite society," said Rahoul Rai, a member of the campaign. He said the movement also reflects the rise of an Indian middle class that can "voice its fears about rising crime, interpret the constitution to articulate their rights to self-protection and bring like-minded people together through technology."

Shahid Ahmad, who runs a Web site called the Gun Geek , said the process of getting a gun license in India is so burdensome that it encourages corruption. To hasten the process, he said, many applicants ask politicians to put in a word in their favor, or attempt to bribe officials and police officers.

To illustrate the point, gun advocates refer to a 2008 incident in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The clamor for gun licenses was so high, according to news media, that officials tried to induce men with large families to participate in a vasectomy program by promising a license in return.


7x57

Super Spy
02-01-2010, 2:10 PM
Go Indian Gunnies!

TimRB
02-01-2010, 2:11 PM
Interesting that some things seem to be universal, world-wide: Gun-grabbers think honest people with guns is a problem despite what the statistics say. Shooters resent being treated like criminals.

But I just love this part: "...when the British rulers disarmed their Indian subjects to head off rebellion." There's a lesson well-learned in 1776.

Tim

six10
02-01-2010, 2:21 PM
And truth is ever-constant:

Getting a license is a cumbersome process, and guns cannot be bought over the counter -- requirements that gun owners describe as hangovers from the colonial past, when the British rulers disarmed their Indian subjects to head off rebellion.
Are guns EVER confiscated, banned, or melted down for any reason other than oppressing people?

Glad to see Indians are waking up to their right -and need- to own guns.

Hah! Took me so long to format my post Tim made the point ahead of me!

yellowfin
02-01-2010, 2:24 PM
Very good indeed! How can we help here? Perhaps reach out more to the Indian communities here? They'd certainly be a good constituency to cultivate.

7x57
02-01-2010, 2:32 PM
Glad to see Indians are waking up to their right -and need- to own guns.


Well, yes, but look at the watershed event.... :chris:

The only thing worse than the universe teaching you a hard lesson is learning the wrong one and scheduling yourself for another hard lesson.

7x57

7x57
02-01-2010, 2:33 PM
Very good indeed! How can we help here? Perhaps reach out more to the Indian communities here? They'd certainly be a good constituency to cultivate.

Well, yes, though consider that the ones who immigrate here are probably heavily biased towards those educated here. :chris:

7x57

Colt-45
02-01-2010, 2:35 PM
Very good read. +1

CCWFacts
02-01-2010, 4:09 PM
India is quite a violent and dangerous place, despite all the hippie images some people have. And the Indian police are totally unresponsive.

When I was there I did see a lot of private security guards with old rifles (Enfields?). Quite a lot of Indians own guns. Despite rumors of Hindus being vegetarian, many of them are not, and in fact some of the wealthy there are avid hunters. But the process to get a license is as slow and painful as the Indian bureaucracy can make it.

Shahid Ahmad, who runs a Web site called the Gun Geek , said the process of getting a gun license in India is so burdensome that it encourages corruption. To hasten the process, he said, many applicants ask politicians to put in a word in their favor, or attempt to bribe officials and police officers.

No doubt about that! I'm sure that India's elite can get permits very quickly, and can probably own and carry whatever they feel they need.

cbn620
02-01-2010, 4:36 PM
Interesting article. But I've heard rural Indians have a tradition of bearing arms. From what I have always understood, the laws there are not so universally enforced.

BigDogatPlay
02-01-2010, 4:40 PM
A good number of police, who were unarmed so it's hard to blame them, running away when the Mumbai terror attack began, gives one pause to consider why more citizens of India aren't protecting themselves.

CCWFacts
02-01-2010, 4:43 PM
From what I have always understood, the laws there are not so universally enforced.

They really are not. The government barely has control over certain large parts of the country. There are a handful of active or semi-active insurgencies, armed separatist movements, etc. That in addition to a whole range of bandit armies and general lawlessness. Plus widespread susceptibility to bribes.

gbp
02-01-2010, 5:14 PM
Having lived there for a couple of years, getting and keeping a permit is no easy task
granted there is a lot of corruption but it also works both ways (granting you and taking away)

loather
02-01-2010, 6:16 PM
They really are not. The government barely has control over certain large parts of the country. There are a handful of active or semi-active insurgencies, armed separatist movements, etc. That in addition to a whole range of bandit armies and general lawlessness. Plus widespread susceptibility to bribes.

Add to that the fact that India proper really should be a bunch of smaller ethnic countries. The only reason India is India in the first place is because of the British. When they were in conquering mode, they couldn't figure out what the hell was going on down there, and simply drew border lines and jumbled together a bunch of different ethnic peoples under the 'India' name. This is the reason that all the different Indian languages survive today: the cultural and ethnic languages of the past remain, yet English is their official language to avoid a perceived bias by the central government.

It's a serious cluster-orgy.

obeygiant
02-01-2010, 6:28 PM
Last week, the National Association for Gun Rights India began meeting with lawmakers and consulting lawyers in a bid to stall the proposals. The group's president is a 39-year-old lawmaker, Naveen Jindal, who studied at the University of Texas business school in Dallas. Inspired by American students' displays of patriotism, Jindal earlier launched a successful campaign for Indians' right to display the national flag outside their homes and offices.
"Texas" it's like a whole nother country.

Telperion
02-01-2010, 7:56 PM
I hope these people are able to make some progress. In some regions of India, the authorities have made a policy if you want a gun permit, you'll have to be sterilized. Some truly sick officials over there.

CCWFacts
02-01-2010, 8:12 PM
Add to that the fact that India proper really should be a bunch of smaller ethnic countries. The only reason India is India in the first place is because of the British. When they were in conquering mode, they couldn't figure out what the hell was going on down there, and simply drew border lines and jumbled together a bunch of different ethnic peoples under the 'India' name. This is the reason that all the different Indian languages survive today: the cultural and ethnic languages of the past remain, yet English is their official language to avoid a perceived bias by the central government.

Yeah. Not only do they all have their own languages, writing systems, religions and cultures, they were in fact long-established sovereign states until not so long ago.

The fault isn't completely of the British. I would lay a big chunk of the blame on Mohandas Gandhi, who for whatever reason had an obsession with creating a new country he called "India". No such country had ever existed, not under the Moguls, not under the various emperors, not under the British. Gandhi somehow became fixated on the idea of turning dozens of sovereign states into this new entity of India.

India keeps it hidden from the outside world, but they can barely keep things together.

yellowfin
02-01-2010, 8:18 PM
India keeps it hidden from the outside world, but they can barely keep things together.Anecdotally that seems a macrocosm for the Indian friends I've had. They are very polite, polished, and professionally successful, but they've have had various messes in their lives and seemed chaotic when you get past the front door. (Just like a lot of people in general, to be fair.)

pitchbaby
02-01-2010, 9:42 PM
All I've got to say is that the right to arms is a God given right as stated by our Constitution! Our rights don't apply to them, but the God that gave them to us is the same God that wants it everywhere. We were just fortunate that our forefather's were bright enough to recognize it!

MP301
02-01-2010, 9:43 PM
Interesting that some things seem to be universal, world-wide: Gun-grabbers think honest people with guns is a problem despite what the statistics say. Shooters resent being treated like criminals.

But I just love this part: "...when the British rulers disarmed their Indian subjects to head off rebellion." There's a lesson well-learned in 1776.

Tim

Yeah, them dam Brits always taking people's gun away! Somebody should do something....wait, I think they did.

And hey, it looks like a little bit of testicular surgery will get you a glock in India! What a deal! Not!

bigstick61
02-01-2010, 10:01 PM
One thing I've heard about India is that cartridges used by the military and weapons chambered for them are for the most part banned.

nick
02-01-2010, 10:28 PM
No .303 then.

7x57
02-01-2010, 11:08 PM
No .303 then.

Yeah. I don't know if that is the law there, but it's believable. Several countries have this form of insanity, including IIRC Mexico and perhaps France? Also, I believe that many of the British nitro express cartridges were invented because .450 NE was forbidden because the British issue cartridge was the same caliber. Or something like that, but with correct details. :D But it suggests a source for that sort of regulation, and the article says that Indian gun control laws are derived from those of the British empire.

You're somewhat passionate that we should not give up on the Right to Arms in Europe, so I thought this might be close enough to suck you in. :D

7x57

k1dude
02-01-2010, 11:08 PM
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi

bigstick61
02-02-2010, 12:12 AM
Yeah. I don't know if that is the law there, but it's believable. Several countries have this form of insanity, including IIRC Mexico and perhaps France? Also, I believe that many of the British nitro express cartridges were invented because .450 NE was forbidden because the British issue cartridge was the same caliber. Or something like that, but with correct details. :D But it suggests a source for that sort of regulation, and the article says that Indian gun control laws are derived from those of the British empire.

You're somewhat passionate that we should not give up on the Right to Arms in Europe, so I thought this might be close enough to suck you in. :D

7x57

The UK has never had bans on military calibers or weapons which can use them. But many countries have. The German Empire had them (which is what led to development of cartridges like 9.3X62, meant to provide a powerful cartridge in a Mauser action since the 7.92 was banned), as did Italy until not too long ago (that one banned all military cartridges, if i remember correctly, not just the ones used by the Italians; I think it was a postwar law), France recently got rid of theirs, and Mexico still has one (limited to calibers used by their military as well as a couple of others, and calibers above a certain size, with a few exceptions).

If I remember correctly, the Indian law only bans calibers actually used by their military, which ostensibly would include .303 British, 7.62 NATO, 7.62 russian short, 7.62 Russian Long, 5.56 NATO, 5.56X30, 9mm Luger, .30-06, .50 BMG, 12.7 Soviet, and 14.5mm Soviet. I'm not sure if there are any additional caliber restrictions. I actually have a feeling that there might be an exemption for .303, but I'm not sure about it. I'm sure someone from Indians for Guns knows; that's where I found out there was such a law to begin with (I was looking for info on .30 Luger Hi-Powers).

7x57
02-02-2010, 12:21 AM
The UK has never had bans on military calibers or weapons which can use them.

I was insufficiently clear. The British rarely hunt badger in the hedgerows and fox in the meadows of the home isles with express rifles. The ban I referred to was in India at least, perhaps also Africa--places inhabited by animals worthy of bullets weighted in ounces.

I am sure the source of that information was Cartridges of the World, if you wish to question it. I do not guarantee the accuracy of stuff I type in from memory. :D

7x57

7x57
02-02-2010, 12:22 AM
I actually have a feeling that there might be an exemption for .303, but I'm not sure about it.

If there was an exemption for anything, it would surely be .303.

7x57

Sutcliffe
02-02-2010, 12:36 AM
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi

They cannot believe that a man of peace opposes gun control.

7x57
02-02-2010, 12:38 AM
They cannot believe that a man of peace opposes gun control.

I don't believe that Gandi was talking about individual arms in that quote, only soldiers. If you can document otherwise, enlighten me, but I am doubtful that in context it really helps us much.

Pity, it's a good quote.

7x57

k1dude
02-02-2010, 1:08 AM
I don't believe that Gandi was talking about individual arms in that quote, only soldiers. If you can document otherwise, enlighten me, but I am doubtful that in context it really helps us much.

Pity, it's a good quote.

7x57

Ghandi could not have been referring to the fact that there were no Indian soldiers. There were hundreds of thousands between 1895 and 1947. There were two separate entities known as the Indian Army and the British Indian Army. I don't believe there is any other interpretation other than how it reads.

7x57
02-02-2010, 7:15 AM
Ghandi could not have been referring to the fact that there were no Indian soldiers. There were hundreds of thousands between 1895 and 1947. There were two separate entities known as the Indian Army and the British Indian Army. I don't believe there is any other interpretation other than how it reads.

Certainly there could be--it's a matter of context. As an extreme made-up example (which surely is not actually the case), in the right context it could have been irony or sarcasm. I made that up, and surely it is not the case, but I have heard the claim that he was talking about the British not permitting a proper indigenous military. That's not a priori implausible, as the forces you mention would have had British officers above some level, but of course could be entirely wrong when examined. It could also be wrong in more subtle ways--for example, was it before his personal evolution toward pacifism and therefore not something that belongs to his mature thinking?

The basic problem is that that quote is always separated from its context, so we have competing explanations that do not go back to the context in which it was made. We really should do that, because it's the other side that just makes stuff up when reality doesn't cooperate. We should know whether that quote is legitimately on our side or not.

OK, here's a start. Wikiquote gives this citation: Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 (Beacon Press paperback edition). Hopefully that would be enough for someone with the book to make a good determination.

7x57

bigstick61
02-02-2010, 7:54 AM
I was insufficiently clear. The British rarely hunt badger in the hedgerows and fox in the meadows of the home isles with express rifles. The ban I referred to was in India at least, perhaps also Africa--places inhabited by animals worthy of bullets weighted in ounces.

I am sure the source of that information was Cartridges of the World, if you wish to question it. I do not guarantee the accuracy of stuff I type in from memory. :D

7x57

I don't know about India, but I know such restrictions did not exist in Africa. The African colonies actually had fairly minimal gun control until almost the very end. Prohibitions tended to be geared towards natives., but those were on carrying arms or sometimes ownership in general, as opposed to caliber bans. I have read about British hunters hunting in India using .303, so who knows what is really the case.

1923mack
02-02-2010, 8:08 AM
Wow, tough choice, vacectomy or a CCW permit. Tough call!

Dark Paladin
02-02-2010, 8:39 AM
Wow, tough choice, vasectomy or a CCW permit HSC. Tough call!

There, fixed it for you. . .

7x57
02-02-2010, 8:48 AM
I don't know about India, but I know such restrictions did not exist in Africa.


I suspect the issue is that these were not mass-production items, but expensive handmade guns purchased by people with the money to do a lot of travelling. Selling a gun that they could take to Africa but not to India was presumably a bad marketing strategy when your customers tended to go to both, and elsewhere as well.

One reason not mentioned for some of the German 9.3's (though not 9.3x74, obvious) and such was to get adequate performance in a cartridge suitable for magazine-fed bolt-action rifles. Same as for .375 H&H, I guess. Regulating the barrels of a double seems to imply expensive handwork.


The African colonies actually had fairly minimal gun control until almost the very end. Prohibitions tended to be geared towards natives., but those were on carrying arms or sometimes ownership in general, as opposed to caliber bans. I have read about British hunters hunting in India using .303, so who knows what is really the case.

Here we go:


450 3 1/4 inch Nitro express

....John Rigby and Co. introduced this cartridge in 1898. For many years it was considered the standard elephant or dangerous game cartridge, and enjoyed great popularity....The 450 Nitro is considered adequate for dangerous African game--or any other game for that matter--under almost any conditions. It would most likely have been the only British cartridge used for big game hunting, except for a British law that prohibited importation of 45-caliber rifles or cartridges into India. British rifle makers had to come up with something new, so the 425, 470, 476, and others came into being. Nevertheless, the 450 NE was and still is a winner, and a great many double-barrel rifles for this cartridge are still in service.



Rigby's 450 Nitro Express (NE) cartridge design eventually became the king of the Cordite elephant slayers. It threw a 480-grain jacketed bullet at just over 2,100 fps. Every maker offered rifles in that chambering, and most of the world's hunters of dangerous game were happy. Then, for political reasons, the British government prohibited the importation of 450-bore rifles into India and the Sudan, so the British gunmakers invented variations on the 450 Nitro theme. The new elephant rifles were designated 465, 470, 476, and a few others. All of these cartridges worked just about like the 450 Nitro had, and you paid your money and took your choice. Each maker had his specialty.


I read the sections on .303 British and find no mention of bans on that cartridge (or any caliber except .45) during the colonial period, so it seems likely the law was quite specific to India and the Sudan and to .45 caliber.

7x57

bigstick61
02-02-2010, 8:51 AM
Interesting on the .45 caliber ban. I wonder what the intention was behind that law. i did mention the 9.3, though; the 8mm Brenneke I think was also designed to get around those laws. They applied to the whole German Empire too, not just to the colonies. I don't know if the caliber bans continued after 1919.

7x57
02-02-2010, 8:59 AM
I found a pretty good discussion (http://blog.ryjones.org/2008/11/29/the-gandhi-quote/) that favors the usual interpretation of the quote:


The Gandhi Quote
29 November 2008

Somehow, this evaporated from my blog, so I’m reposting it to make searching for it easier.

The Gandhi Quote

For a year or so now I’ve had this quote as my .sig:


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi


I have been asked many times for the source, and just as many times I have been challenged on the accuracy of the quote. Surely this is taken out of context, people ask. To end the debate once and for all, here is the complete quote:

GANDHI: An autobiography. The story of my experiments with Truth

Page 446, on which Gandhi is relating his struggles raising volunteers to fight for the Crown in World War I:


I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: ‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.’ The Commissioner refereed to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. And I had to justify my standpoint as courteously as I could.


In this wonderful book (go and buy it now, it covers everything from gun control to home schooling to constipation (a lot on this last topic, actually) Gandhi repudiates his views when they have changed, and calls out very clearly even minor errors he has made. Never in this book does he step back from condemning gun control; in fact, on page 477 he touches on the classic "when is it time to shut up and shoot the bastards" argument:


As I proceeded further and further with my inquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I came across tales of Government’s tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of it’s officers such as I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and what still continues to fill me with surprise, was the fact that a province that had furnished the largest number of soldiers to the British Government during the war, should have taken all these brutal excesses lying down.




I feel better about claiming the quote now. I'm sensitive to misquoting because it only feeds ammunition to our enemies--the truth is enough.

Interestingly enough, the quote *is* in the context of military service, as detractors claim, but they miss the point that he appears to be talking about training the general population to arms in a militia-like way. In that sense it appears to be closer to the sense of the founders than either a completely individualistic or a completely service-only interpretation.

7x57

gun toting monkeyboy
02-02-2010, 2:28 PM
Good for them. I want the world's largest democracy to be armed. Especially considering the neighborhood they are in. If there is anything that we can do to help, I think we should. As for a military caliber ban, who cares? What do you think 9x21 is for? Besides, an FAL in 7-08 would be a nifty toy. Or any of the dozens of other rifle cartridges we use that have never been considered for use by a military. As much as I like my old milsurps, I would be just fine for most of my shooting with non-military calibers. .222 Mini-14s, anyone?

joelberg
02-02-2010, 3:37 PM
Good for them. I want the world's largest democracy to be armed. Especially considering the neighborhood they are in. If there is anything that we can do to help, I think we should. As for a military caliber ban, who cares? What do you think 9x21 is for? Besides, an FAL in 7-08 would be a nifty toy. Or any of the dozens of other rifle cartridges we use that have never been considered for use by a military. As much as I like my old milsurps, I would be just fine for most of my shooting with non-military calibers. .222 Mini-14s, anyone?

I don't know about you, but all of my guns are in "military calibers" They would cost a lot more if they were in some strange non-standard caliber.

tube_ee
02-02-2010, 3:59 PM
All I've got to say is that the right to arms is a God given right as stated by our Constitution! Our rights don't apply to them, but the God that gave them to us is the same God that wants it everywhere. We were just fortunate that our forefather's were bright enough to recognize it!

If there is, in fact, no God, or even a different one (or ones) than you think there is...

which is something that no human being can actually know, one way or the other...

then where will you say your rights come from?

I'd prefer to put our arguments on solid ground, ground that does not fundamentally depend on propositions that are impossible to prove.

And do keep in mind that arguments based on Christian scriptures aren't going to carry any weight at all in a country where the vast majority aren't, you know... Christians.

Just a thought...

--Shannon

tube_ee
02-02-2010, 4:05 PM
I was insufficiently clear. The British rarely hunt badger in the hedgerows and fox in the meadows of the home isles with express rifles. The ban I referred to was in India at least, perhaps also Africa--places inhabited by animals worthy of bullets weighted in ounces.
7x57

7x57... wouldn't it be more likely that the Imperial prohibition was designed to prevent subjects in the "occupied territories" from accumulating "sporting" arms that could use the same ammunition as was used by the Imperial forces?

Especially if the majority of ammunition "in-country" was produced in England for use by British soldiers?

Viewed that way, such a regulation makes some sort of sense. Not too much, as if they could steal the ammo, they could likewise steal the guns, but at least you can see some logic behind it.

--Shannon

7x57
02-02-2010, 4:10 PM
7x57... wouldn't it be more likely that the Imperial prohibition was designed to prevent subjects in the "occupied territories" from accumulating "sporting" arms that could use the same ammunition as was used by the Imperial forces?


There may be some such thought going on, but I didn't think I wrote anything that denied it? I didn't mean to. It's clearly aimed at minimizing the effectiveness of any rebellion, but whether they were more concerned about keeping guns out of civilian's hands or instead denying ammunition to any native Indian troops that rebelled with their issue weapons I can't say.

I'm dead sure plenty of documentation exists on on the occasion and rationale of the ban (even records or accounts of parliamentary debate or cabinet discussion?), but I guess I'm not curious enough to attempt to find them.

7x57