Right to keep and bear arms in Nepal

It is quite wise to discuss the right conferred by the Second Amendment of US Constitution, to give meaning to the constitutional right of bearing arms. 
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.”
Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. [Cited from Article of Cornell Law School]

In context of Nepal, the Constitution of Nepal does not provide the fundamental right to the citizens to bear arms. The Constitution also gives power to the GoN to requisition, acquire, or create encumbrances on arms held by person in Nepal because it being the matter of public interest.