Indians For Guns

Why GUNS are important. A history lesson...

MUST be armed and it is our Constitutional right .

Subject: Gun Control History Lesson...Please Note.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.
6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
Note, that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and the expense of successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

Take note my fellow indian, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subject

It's always better to have a gun and not need it when need a gun and not have it !
If you have a gun always keep with you not in a home.

I have seen the above figures before and totally sympathise with the Aussies! No Government is willing to accept that arming citizens to protect them selves by the creation of pro-gun laws is the most common sensical approach to citizen safety.
It is as if, once in the position to make rules for others they know what is best for the people even when the evidence points otherwise! It is as if they make up their mind regarding an issue and then try and support it with arguments and evidence(if at all)

If these figures can be shown to be accurate and from reliable sources, then the more gun friendly media/ honest media (or what little there is left of it) can be approached to make a significant impact to create more people friendly laws not based an mere assumption or bias.
Anand

we are subject not a citizen which we all Indian had seen the firing on vt station and taj hotel the terrorist are firing fear less un countable bullets on a people their because they know that the we Indian don't have a arms to protect themselves and another innocents I blame the Indian ministers and the officers who deny and reject the application on a region saying that it is unsafe for yourself and other and make us unsafe from robbers and other criminals I ask only one simple qiston is that if the criminals now that the person I am trying to rob has a arms will he do they self feel safe in the police protection and think we common people also is safe like them

Refusal to recognize citizens right to defend themselves is an extension of the govt's desire to see people dependent upon them.A feeling that law and order is the monopoly of the state.This comes about when the 'State' starts seeing itself as a distinct entity from the 'People'.This in turn is usually the product of 'liberals' as identified by those that reject 'everything' that the 'conservatives' stand for even if that includes the very basis on which the state was founded,coming into power.These days liberals are nothing but busybodies driven by a desire to grab power,firm in their belief that they know best what is good for you and me, and that political power will help them implement their beliefs.

Great Britain is a case study on what happens when these busy bodies are allowed a free run.The recent riots is but an example of what will ultimately happen when these 'liberal' ideas are implemented.Arundhati Roy for P.M. any one.

I blame the Indian ministers and the officers who deny and reject the application

I do not blame ministers or babus, it us who is to be blamed for not applying our minds to understand the law and the loopholes in the law and contesting it. Rather most of the license applicants want the "easier" way like "sifarish" etc. from some local M.P. or M.L.A. to do the job.

I would request all to think deeply and apply their minds and especially those from legal background, try to find error in my understanding of the matter below:

Arms Act 1959 is a law to regulate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution. The law cannot override the Constitution and arms license issued under Arms Act 1959 is already guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 3(1) of Arms Act 1959 says:

No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder:

Is Section 3(1) of Arms Act 1959 not ultra vires?

Also since arms are a fundamental right and the Constitution is giving guarantee for the same to every citizen, if a citizen makes a firearm for his personal use, for the enjoyment of his own fundamental right, the law cannot override the Constitutional guarantee given to him. The law should be giving an oportunity to such citizen to come and get such license. But is the Arms Act 1959 allowing this? No. Instead it is compelling such citizen to make an open declaration to implicate himself under Arms Act 1959 by violating the guarantee against self incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. A very similar case decided by U.S. Supreme Court can be read here: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/R ... &issue=006

Similar to Arms Act 1959, we have other laws also that are also violative of the Constitutional guarantees. Example is The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933. It is a law to regulate the fudamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constituion but its provisions are similar to Arms Act 1959 which are violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Nobody in the government is going to correct these kind of laws, it is only the people of this country who have to fight as citizens so that they are not treated as subjects any more.

-- Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:27 pm --

goodboy_mentor wrote:
I would request all to think deeply and apply their minds and especially those from legal background, try to find error in my understanding of the matter below:

Arms Act 1959 is a law to regulate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution.

Also since arms are a fundamental right and the Constitution is giving guarantee for the same to every citizen,

I do not have a classic legal background , except for Corporate Laws. However, I have read the Constitution of India
multiple times to pass an exam and I can say that:--

a) The Arms Act is NOT for regulating RKBA. It is for regulating the manufacture, ownership and use of firearms.

b) RKBA is not a fundamental right in India; no where the constitution says so. The idea to put RKBA as one of the Fundamental
rights existed pre-independence, but the members chickened out during drafting.

The implications are :--

While we may appeal for being denied firearms license /firearms being confiscated unjustly etc, Government will be full within its right to bring a law
to completely eliminate private ownership of firearms ; if it decides so. We will not have any recourse.

goodboy_mentor wrote:

I blame the Indian ministers and the officers who deny and reject the application

I do not blame ministers or babus, it us who is to be blamed for not applying our minds to understand the law and the loopholes in the law and contesting it. Rather most of the license applicants want the "easier" way like "sifarish" etc. from some local M.P. or M.L.A. to do the job.

GM is absolutely correct, the Indian citizen has no one to blame but himself by having voted the politicians into office who passed these laws.
The only way to change the situation is to vote them out and replace them with someone who will do what you want.
We like to whine and moan about the babus, politicians and the government but how many of us are willing to do something about it.
How many of us even vote? Or when we do vote In a democracy, do we vote strictly on party line?
If one don't cast his/her ballot, one has no right to whine about the state of affairs.

The implications are :--

While we may appeal for being denied firearms license /firearms being confiscated unjustly etc, Government will be full within its right to bring a law
to completely eliminate private ownership of firearms ; if it decides so. We will not have any recourse.

In a democracy, every citizen has some recourse.
You can vote a politician, who won't conform to your point of view, out of office. You can personally run for office or campaign for your own candidate.
If you feel a law is unjust or unconstitutional, you can challenge it in court. Unlike many countries, in this world, a citizen of a democracy has some recourse.
Will it be easy to fix these kinds of problems? No. However, but it can be done.

Keep in mind that the intent was for politicians to serve the people and not the other way around. Remember, they CAN be voted out of office; them AND the party that they represent.
Only YOU have the power to do that.

xl_target wrote:

The implications are :--

While we may appeal for being denied firearms license /firearms being confiscated unjustly etc, Government will be full within its right to bring a law
to completely eliminate private ownership of firearms ; if it decides so. We will not have any recourse.

In a democracy, every citizen has some recourse.
You can vote a politician, who won't conform to your point of view, out of office. You can personally run for office or campaign for your own candidate.
If you feel a law is unjust or unconstitutional, you can challenge it in court. Unlike many countries, in this world, a citizen of a democracy has some recourse.
Will it be easy to fix these kinds of problems? No. However, but it can be done.

Keep in mind that the intent was for politicians to serve the people and not the other way around. Remember, they CAN be voted out of office; them AND the party that they represent.
Only YOU have the power to do that.

XLT,

I was pointing to the absence of a legal recourse , not towards a movement.

Of course, we can always support/launch any movement to advance a cause in democracy.

I would request you to read your post, the last ( XLT's post ) in this thread of 2009.

http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic ... 4&start=30

However, I have read the Constitution of India multiple times to pass an exam

Read Article 19(1)b very carefully once more with a "legal eye". If you are still not able to see that Constitution is acknowledging arms as a fundamental right, then read this very carefully, it is explained in very detail beyond any reasonable doubt at: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/R ... -36011.asp

Also the very first objective of The Indian Arms(Amendment) Bill (No.49 of 1953) which later became Arms Act 1959 says:

"(a) to exclude knives, spears, bows and arrows and the like from the definition of ‘arms’."

What does the above objective mean legally? It means that arms are inherent fundamental right of people and hence certain types of arms can be kept outside the perview of regulations to regulate the fundamental right of arms under Arms Act 1959.

Arms other than firearms are not normally regulated under the Arms Act 1959, unless the Central Government issues a notification under Section 4 of Arms Act 1959, specifying specific arms for a specific area to come under regulations of Arms Act 1959. What does this legally point to? Nothing except that arms are a fundamental right of citizens.

The idea to put RKBA as one of the Fundamental rights existed re-independence, but the members chickened out during drafting.

The draft Constitution did have an explicit enumeration of RKBA. The present Constitution also has an explicit enumeration but only people who read it carefully with a "legal eye" can see it.

Government will be full within its right to bring a law to completely eliminate private ownership of firearms ; if it decides so. We will not have any recourse.

It is incorrect that we will have no recourse. There are various grounds to challenge such law.

Guns are good for making noise at weddings.

Government will be full within its right to bring a law to completely eliminate private ownership of firearms ; if it decides so. We will not have any recourse.

On 29.8.2011 in Writ - C No. - 49301 of 2011, Allahabad High Court says:

Keeping a fire arm for the purpose of personal safety and security is a mode and manner of protection of oneself and enjoyment of fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution............It is not a kind of privilege being granted by Government.........

Complete judgment can be read at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 64#p147708

Guys watch this. Survivor of a shooting incident who lost her parents in a shootout advocating pro concealed carry laws.

Lets cursor over what the history has been telling us for centuries (x posting):-
Disarming the populace was begun by Islamic rulers like Alauddin Khilji, Aurangzeb and completed by the British.
Aurangzeb issued a firmaan in 1695 that no Hindu (except Rajputs) shall ride horses, bear arms, travel in palkis, on elephants or thorough-bred horses. (Muntakhab-ul-Lubab, ii, 395; Maasir-i-Alamgiri, 370 and News Letter, 11 December 1694).
Source: http://www.aurangzeb.info/2008/06/exhibit-no_7371.html


In 1699 Guru Gobind Singh Ji commanded every Khalsa Panthi to carry a kirpan.

Prior to those times the right to bear arms was well recognized and in practice, check for example what Medhatithi says about it and check the descriptions of how native populace then used to fight back. In his Manubhashya written sometime in the 9th century Medhatithi says:

"A kshatriya is to live by bearing weapons, but other groups are permitted to also bear arms for self protection."

As a justification he says the

"king's arms cannot reach all men, and that there are some wicked men who attack the most valiant of the king's officers, but are afraid of persons bearing arms"

.

Another source:

"Medieval Indian society, both urban and agrarian, was to some extent an armed society. In cities and towns the elite carried swords like walking sticks. In villages few men were without at least a spear or bow and arrows, and they were skilled in the use of these arms. In 1632, Peter Mundy actually saw in the present day Kanpur district, “labourers with their guns, swords and bucklers lying by them while they ploughed the ground”.70 Similarly, Manucci described how in Akbar’s days the villagers of the Mathura region defended themselves against Mughal revenue-collecting officers: “The women stood behind their husbands with spears and arrows, when the husband had shot off his matchlock, his wife handed him the lance, while she reloaded the matchlock.”71 The countryside was studded with little forts, some surrounded by nothing more than mud walls, but which nevertheless provided centres of the general tradition of rebellion and agrarian unrest. Armed peasants provided contingents to Baheliyas, Bhadauriyas, Bachgotis, Mandahars and Tomars in the earlier period, to Jats, Marathas and Sikhs in the later..."

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/tlmr/ch7.htm

Regards,
Virendra

The previous attempts were practically nothing when compared with Arms Acts promulgated by the British, after the revolt of 1857 under the excuse of "maintenance of the public peace" and "the prevention of crimes" and the same policy has been carried forward without any interruption in practice. If one reads the Chapter 4 of the book titled "Socio-Historical study of police administration in Bombay Presidency (1861 to 1947)" available at
http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/ds ... /2009/4326 it becomes clear. I quote the relevant parts below:

An important step for the prevention of the armed revolt in the future had already been taken before the formal transfer of power to the Crown with the promulgation of the Arms Act (XXVII of 1857) on 11 September 1857 for regulating the import, manufacture, sale, possession and use of arms and ammunition. The political necessity was only barely concealed when, in explaining the object of the measure, it was stated that "the expediency of disarming the population, with a view to the maintenance of the public peace and to the prevention of crimes of the more violent class . . . had for many years previously been under the consideration of the Government, and had been strongly advocated by many old and experienced officers.

The Arms Act was continued in force by Act XXIX of 1860 and was replaced by the more elaborate Act XXXI of the same year, which empowered the government, inter alia, to disarm any province, district, or place and to prohibit the possession without licence of arms of any description. As criminal elements would always possess and use arms illicitly, how this legislation promoted an increase in violent crime by restraining the capacity of the people to deter or offer resistance was problem.

An official Report noted in 1909. The general peace of country is secured by the provisions of the Indian Arms Act, which restricts the possession of fire-arms and other weapons within narrow limits. Imperial Gazetteer of India, Part IV, 1909, Reprint Edition, p. 389. Commenting on the Act, Mahatma Gandhi said much later: "Among the many misdeeds of British Rule in Indian History will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of Arms as the blackest". Dangwal -Ibid. . p. 4.

Dear Members; I hope I’m not crucified here for asking this, but like I read somewhere and always quote”It’s better to ask and look like a fool than not ask and be a fool forever.” I’ve been itching to ask this from sometime in this forum and a recent brutal killing two three days back, a kilometer or two from where I stay has to be honest got me worried, very scared to an extent and curious about RKBA and has prompted me to ask this on this forum.
Here is the incident and could have happened to any of us law abiding middle class citizens
____________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx? ... 06b5046435
The incident

A group of seven friends including four boys and three girls were standing outside a hotel in Amboli when one Jitendra Rana fell on one of them, Solanki. Solanki asked him to stay away. When Rana then fell on and passed a comment at one of the girls, it angered Solanki, who slapped him. Reuben also slapped Rana. Rana went away and came back with a group of 12 to 15 men.

Four of the men carried knives, sickles and cricket stumps, and attacked the group. Reuben and Keenan were seriously injured. The two were rushed to a hospital where Keenan died and Reuben was in a critical condition.

Police have arrested four men on charges of the murder of Keenan and for the riot. On Sunday, police went to the locality to investigate the incident when they were roughed up by locals. The police arrested 17 people for this.
_____________________________________________________________________________
My question to you all Is Gun Ownership or an armed citizen really a solution to a flawed law & order and a corrupt and weak law enforcement.(I’m excluding the reasoning of gun ownership for sports). What if the man who was brutally murdered carrying a licensed firearm 1) The firearm would have been a deterrent and maybe scared off the attackers 2) What if shot one of the attackers, wouldn’t he be in a major lengthy and expensive legal hassle, which of course if better than getting killed. 3) Worse what if the attackers instead of carrying knives, sickles and cricket stumps were themselves carrying firearms.

What about countries like US where we keep reading about school killings, shootings etc because citizens there have very easy access to all kinds of firearms.

Will things not get worse with the law enforcement situation in the country with people having easy access to firearms. I know there’s a gargantuan effort being put by several members here towards RKBA and educating people about it, I’m an ordinary middle class concerned citizen who genuinely wants to understand, digest and learn more about it, and I rather question things, try to understand the logics than blindly accept and follow.

Thanks in advance… Moin.