In the case of Meet Malhotra vs. Union of India and Others, the petitioner had obtained a firearm license and was a life member of the National and State Rifle's Associations. Along with the point 22 rifle and point 32 revolver that were previously authorized on his license, he also purchased a point 22 bore target pistol.
The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, which was passed in 2019 revised the Arms Act, 1959, lowering the allowed number of firearms from three to two. Before the changes, Section 3 permitted people to carry three guns at once. The Act's Section 3(2) did not apply to the individuals listed in Section 3(3), which included gun dealers and Rifles' Associations or Clubs.
Thus, the Joint Commissioner instructed the petitioner to give up one of his firearms when the allowed number of firearms was decreased from three to two.
The petitioner claimed that, in accordance with Section 3 of the Act, he was exempt from having to deposit a firearm since he was a member of the NRAI. He further argued that Rule 40 of the Act's provisions, which acknowledged the unique character of members of the NRAI or any other associated State Rifle Association or Shooting Club, demonstrated the fact that a member of a club or association was regarded differently.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that sub-sections (2) and (3) could not be read as imposing no limitations on the number of firearms that a member of a rifle club or organization may own.
The court in this case said right away that it was well established that neither the Constitution nor the Arms Act granted citizens an unassailable right to hold, possess, or bear firearms. While evaluating the Act, the court stated that even while a person may belong to a club or association for rifles, the Act's provisions, nonetheless, apply to his or her own right to bear or possess a firearm.
The court additionally found that Rule 40, as cited by the petitioners, could not be read to confer a distinctive or unique status on a member of a club or association. The rule, according to the court, only addressed the number of firearms that various sportsperson categories and sports organizations are permitted to own. Finally, the court highlighted that the class of members protected from restrictions on arms includes dealers in firearms, the NRAI, State Rifle Associations, and their connected units in response to the Petitioners' argument under Section 3(2) of the Act.
According to the court, the rationale behind exempting dealers from the two-weapon limit was that someone who was involved in the business of purchasing, selling, exporting, or importing firearms would undoubtedly have more than two firearms in his hands. Similarly, NRAI and other such clubs would always keep more than two weapons on hand. That did not, however, imply that any individual member of a club or association would be allowed to possess firearms indefinitely.
Although Section 3(3) may have stopped at exempting sellers from the limitations set by Section 3(2), the court also acknowledged that it also addressed the case when a member of an association or club was permitted to own more than two weapons. The Court ultimately decided that a member of an association or club could only temporarily carry more than two firearms if they were also in possession of a third handgun that belonged to their association or club.