Indians For Guns

We can only hope and pray that one day NAGRI will have the same political clout that the NRA (USA) has.
You have to understand that there is a lot of journalistic whining in the article but what the NRA does is makes sure that the Government and its agencies follow the existing laws (for the most part). Journalists fume about the power of the NRA but if the government and its agencies didn't interpret the constitution any way they wanted to or if they did follow the laws exactly, the NRA would not be needed.

If you live in India, you should join NAGRI

The controversial proposal by officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives calls for a measure strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association: requiring gun dealers to report multiple sales of rifles and shotguns to ATF.

The gun issue is so incendiary and fear of the NRA so great that the ATF plan languished for months at the Justice Department, according to some senior law enforcement officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity but would not provide details.

The NRA got wind of the idea last month and warned its 4 million members in a "grassroots alert" that the administration might try to go around Congress to get such a plan enacted as an executive order or rule.

An ATF spokesman declined to comment about the matter. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. declined to be interviewed. Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said "the administration continues to support common-sense measures to stem gun violence."

In the past few days, the plan has quietly gained traction at Justice. But sources told The Post they fear that if the plan becomes public, the NRA will marshal its forces to kill it.

Such is the power of the NRA. With annual revenue of about $250 million, the group has for four decades been the strongest force shaping the nation's gun laws.

The fate of the Mexican gunrunning rule is only the most recent example of how the gun lobby has consistently outmaneuvered and hemmed in ATF, using political muscle to intimidate lawmakers and erect barriers to tougher gun laws. Over nearly four decades, the NRA has wielded remarkable influence over Congress, persuading lawmakers to curb ATF's budget and mission and to call agency officials to account at oversight hearings. The source of the NRA's power is its focus on one issue and its ability to get pro-gun candidates elected.

The result is that a president such as Obama, whose campaign platform called for tougher gun laws, finds his freedom of action circumscribed. The issue has bedeviled Democrats for years, especially after defeats in the 1994 midterms and the 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee.

"That was the shift of the tectonic plate for the Democrats on the gun issue," said James Cavanaugh, former ATF special agent in charge in Nashville. "The thing that really, really, really scared the Democrats was Al Gore losing his home state, and the reason was the gun issue. They all know it."

The gun lobbyists are well aware of their power. "The White House is sensitized enough to understand it really is the third rail of American politics," said Richard Feldman, a former lobbyist for the NRA and a gun industry trade representative who has discussed gun policy with White House officials. "They have figured out that it is a lightning-rod issue, and they don't want it to injure them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 0121406431

if the government and its agencies didn't interpret the constitution any way they wanted to or if they did follow the laws exactly, the NRA would not be needed.

Same thing here in India. The Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of RKBA, but the government wants the people to be kept ignorant.

[quote][/quote]
As per my understanding according to our laws and constitution we have a right to self defense and protection. We like the USA dont specifically have RKBA like their 2nd ammendment. Like the colonial rulers our lawmakers and Administrative officers have kept special rights for themselves and for the common man it is still a previlage to own and keep firearms and again only granted when deemed appropriate by the IAS/ IPS the brown sahibs who are special and for sure not commoners and in some cases worst than the Gora sahibs. i do wish thatwe do ahve a lobby as strong as the NRA and only see NAGRI doing something if we all support and become members and get more members and help the cause... We should truly ask ourselves .. Am i doing my bit..?? r u??

As per my understanding according to our laws and constitution we have a right to self defense and protection.

Unfortunately this is also the assumption of most of the people, the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, mainly out of ignorance. This ignorant assumption is made on the premise that only enumerated fundamental rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. Actual fact is that not all fundamental rights are enumerated in Pat III of the Constitution but are still guaranteed. For example the right to privacy, the right to information, the freedom of press etc., though not enumerated are also guaranteed by our Constitution. These rights have been inferred by courts by following the "due process" for interpreting the Constitution.

In the case of U.S. Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is making a positive obligation on the State by saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This does not mean if 2nd Amendment would not have been there, then RKBA would not have existed under the U.S. Constitution. The other place to infer RKBA is from the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where it says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which is very similar to our Article 21 of the Constitution. This discussion about inferring RKBA using the due process can be read in detail from US Supreme court conversation transcripts related to Otis McDonald Vs City Of Chicago available at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 35&start=0

When the Constitution guarantees the right to life, it cannot say that right to self defense is not guaranteed. When the Constitution agrees to guarantee the right to self defense, it cannot say that RKBA is not guaranteed and self defense has to be done with bare hands. Hence RKBA also gets guaranteed by the Constitution.

Moreover I would like to draw the attention to the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law, all the rights and laws flow from the Constitution. The Fundamental rights of the citizens and the State are both equal before the Constitution. All the fundamental rights of the citizens and the State flow from the Part III of the Constitution. If Article 21 under Part III of the Constitution is not guaranteeing RKBA for the citizens, then it is also not guaranteeing RKBA for the State. You cannot give a license to anyone if you do not hold any rights yourself. Example if you have ownership rights on a property, you give your property on a license to a tenant. But if you do not hold any rights on a property, then how can you give that property on license to a tenant?

Also as per Article 25 says: "The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion." There is no doubt or confusion that kirpans are arms. If RKBA is not guaranteed by the Constitution and it is also treating all the citizens equally for the purpose of fundamental rights, then how can people professing Sikh religion enjoy RKBA by keeping and wearing kirpans, unless RKBA has also been equally guaranteed to all citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Also I would like to draw attention to one of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 which says:

(c) to co-ordinate the rights of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country;

If "the rights of the citizens" as mentioned above do not exist under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the question of co-ordinating these rights for all the citizens does not arise. What does "to co-ordinate the rights of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order" mean? Surely it does not mean co-ordinating the rights like the right to privacy, the rights to information or similar rights. It means nothing but co-ordinating the rights of self defense and RKBA necessary for maintaining law and order. In other words it can be said that Arms Act 1959 was passed not to curb or restrict gun ownership from citizens, but was passed to co-ordinate their fundamental rights and encourage gun ownership. There are two types of law enforcement machinery, one is the law enforcement machinery of the State(Police etc.) and the other is the law enforcement machinery of the citizens in individual capacity. When the citizens use their right of self defense as explained under Sections 96 to 106 IPC with help of RKBA, they are doing nothing but acting as the law enforcement machinery in individual capacity.

I have also tried to explain in detail that RKBA is guaranteed by Constitution at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785

Yes that is the problem .I do agree that the interpretation of law and religion by those who practice and uphold it has always been a subject of debate. So how you and me interpret it may not be how the enforcers and authority interpret it.Where US gunowners win is the clear mention in the second amendment. However this like most things in india is hazy and unclear and left to interpretation .

I guess the solution is a considerable amount of membership of NAGRI or NRAI come out of its shortsighted self centered closed society mindset and get their act straight.