Indians For Guns

While doing some research for the RKBA case that i am working on with GBM. I came across this.

http://coorgnews.in/general-news/pil-qu ... s-kodavas/

Where is says the following:

While granting exemption to the Kodavas in February 1861, the then Chief Commissioner of Coorg, Mark Cubbon, said in the notification : “In consideration of the exalted honour and loyalty characteristic of this little nation of warriors and in recollection of its conspicuous services in aid of the British government, it is my pleasing duty to notify hereby for general information, in virtue of the power vested in me by the government of India that provisions of the Arms Act, commonly called Disarming Act, are not applicable to the gallant people of Coorg.”

apart from the color of the skin noting else has changed. one tyranny to another eh

Even old fat white guy agrees with that.

So, it was all based on an idea of anticipated loyalty vs. perceived danger; how edifying! A very disarming statement indeed, Mr. Cubbon, thank you!

Good find spin_drift!

Cheers!
Abhijeet

@spin_drift An "act of State" done by sovereign within the limits of powers cannot be questioned in court of law. Similarly what some British official said or wrote won't help much, it was made to look like it had been done within the limits of power of disarming all. That Arms Act 1878 was disarming act has even been acknowledged by the Indian Parliament in the objects and reasons of the Bill that became Arms Act 1959. The British Crown, the Parliament and Judiciary worked under British Common Law that evolved over centuries. The main or substantial question of law is did the British Parliament or its representatives that were enacting the laws in India or its British colonies anywhere in the world have legislative powers to make possession of personal arms or firearms a subject of licensing? License means permission and not a right. To find the answer let us read the relevant portions of English Bill of Rights 1688 and Article IV of Union with England Act 1707.

The English Bill of Rights 1688 can be read at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2

The Article IV of Union with England Act 1707 can be read at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7 It says the following -

"That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwayes expressly agreed in these Articles"

Above clearly confirms that subjects of Dominions have Rights. The British India was a Dominion before 1947. As per Independence of India Act 1947 enacted by the British Parliament, two Dominions of India and Pakistan were created in 1947. The Subjects of both the Dominions got the Rights that are part of English Bill of Rights 1688 and the British Common Law. The same has been acknowledged by the Indian Constitution. It means we have those rights even today.

Now let us read the relevant portions of The English Bill of Rights 1688. The English Bill of Rights 1688 under the headings The Heads of Declaration of Lords and Commons, recited and under heading Subject’s Rights various Rights are listed. The "Standing Army" and "Subjects Arms" are important for RKBA.

The use of expression "Standing Army" and not just "Army" clearly implies that there exists a "Non Standing Army" or army of common people keeping and bearing arms that are their personal or individual rights and supplied by themselves, over which the king or his legislature has no right to disarm. They are commonly known as militia or irregulars. This can be confirmed from Text of the Assize of Arms of 1181 and Assize of Arms of 1252. Under Subject’s Rights for standing army it establishes that for raising or keeping regular or standing army at times of peace, the king needs Parliamentary approval( so that army may not be misused against army of common people or tax them needlessly).

Under Subjects Arms it clearly mentions that by causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and employed contrary to Law. It establishes that for purely political reasons the king had disarmed one class of people and kept other class of people armed and employed. Under Subject’s Rights for Subject's Arms it removes politically motivated class based restrictions, restores the pre existing rights of subjects which are Protestants to have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. The expression "suitable to their Conditions" means suitable to their economic or financial conditions, that is which they can afford and "as allowed by Law" is affirmative and enabling and not some restrictive clause. This view can be further confirmed by reading the text of the Assize of Arms of 1181. The word Law in those times was used for Common Law as affirmative or enabling law and not restrictive law as in present times.

As one may refer pages 19, 20, 21, 25, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 44, 47 under pages titled Opinion of the Court in District Of Columbia v. Heller at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf In this judgment the US Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment and RKBA is descending from English Bill of Rights 1688-89.

Since it is well settled by the above that RKBA is part and parcel of British Common Law and acknowledged by English Bill of Rights 1688-89, that is why the Firearms Act 1968 talks of "certificate" and not "license" to possess shotgun. The Act can be read at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents

Certificate is a document in which a fact is formally attested. Example - Birth Certificate, Death Certificate.

Certify is to attest as being true or as meeting certain criteria. To testify in writing; to make known or establish as a fact.

License is a permission, usually revocable, to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful.

@goodboy_mentor:I am not questioning the act, but rather was hoping to establish the true reason and motive of our former colonial masters by quoting their own words and then question why our present government is continuing the colonial policies which are not in the interests of the citizens and the nation itself and infringes the very Constitution to which they have taken an oath of allegiance.

spin_drift wrote:@goodboy_mentor:I am not questioning the act, but rather was hoping to establish the true reason and motive of our former colonial masters by quoting their own words and then question why our present government is continuing the colonial policies which are not in the interests of the citizens and the nation itself and infringes the very Constitution to which they have taken an oath of allegiance.

Yes all that disarming was done due to conflict of interest between the Crown and its subjects of British Indian Dominion. The Crown was interested in something whereas its subjects were interested in something else. Where is the conflict of interest between Indian State and all its citizens? After all it is a democratically elected government. It is a very good question provided the court asks and the government gives an honest reply.

We all know the real reason for disarming or selective disarming was political. It remains so even today everywhere in the world. Whether disarming was/ is good or bad is question of morality. The courts of law rarely enter the domain of politics or morality. Courts of law normally keep themselves restricted to questions of law and justice. For dealing with questions of law you can try to find if what is being done by government is within the Law or Constitutional mandate. Foundations and principles of Indian Constitution are based on British Common Law. That is what was attempted in my previous post. And is disarming causing injustice? For example keeping victims of violence(including politically motivated violence) disarmed makes them unable to defend themselves or overcome the physical or numerical strength of their attackers. This is one of the greatest possible injustice.

Further to the above points, the points to be noted are that -

RKBA is an inherent human right.

All the Arms Acts enacted by the British and the present Indian State are flowing from the British Common Law principles.

Even the Indian Constitution is based on the British Common Law principles.

One can say that the present Arms Act 1959 is continuation of those same principles that were applicable in previous Arms Acts and the preamble of Act XXVIII of 1857 is accepting those principles when it says “An Act relating to the importation, manufacture, and sale of Arms and Ammunition, and for regulating the right to keep or use the same”. Therefore RKBA is part of Arms Act 1959.

It says "regulating the right to keep or use the same" Why it does not use the word "bear"? Because such possession of arms "bear" is matter of personal liberty under common law. It is only talking about commercial aspects of keep and use of arms. The State is a commercial entity can be confirmed by reading Article 25, 26, 27 of the Constitution of India.

Part III of the Indian Constitution is an inspiration from Universal Declaration of Human Rights. India has signed in favor of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its Preamble reflects what is embedded inside the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set forth from Article 1 to 30. The preamble says the following -

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"

Thus it clearly means that right to rebellion for self defense(individually as well as people) as a last resort is an inherent right and it includes the right to the tools of rebellion and self defense, that is RKBA. The same is implicit and present in the Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When it says security of person, it includes the RKBA. Rebellion(as well as tools of rebellion) as a last resort is also part of British Common Law.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 enacted by Indian Parliament acknowledges the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. These two covenants as well as various other Covenants are nothing but detailed legally binding agreements that are flowing from Universal Declaration of Human Rights that have been signed by UN member States.

Since these covenants are flowing from Universal Declaration of Human Rights, RKBA is also embedded in these two Covenants. Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6.1, 9.1, 46 and 47 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes RKBA. Depriving RKBA means violating Article 8 implicitly because slavery or servitude also means a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life or political status. If you are kept disarmed under any color or pretext, then your course of action to implement your inherent right of self defense(your course of action or way of preserving your life or political status) lacks liberty, both as an individual as well as people.

Preamble of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights says "Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,". RKBA is also a social and cultural right originating from inherent dignity of person. This can be ascertained by reading Explanation I of Article 25 of Indian Constitution. Kirpan is made of two words Kirpa meaning grace or kindness. Aan meaning dignity. Thus Kirpan means one that has grace or kindness to adore and protect the dignity of person. Thus RKBA can be read into Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 24, 25 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.