Indians For Guns

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/resist-dc.html
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the State and people of New Hampshire certain powers as they were understood at the time that New Hampshire ratified the Bill of Rights, particularly the Tenth Amendment in 1790. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the State and people of New Hampshire and the several States comprising the United States as of the time that the compact was agreed upon and adopted by New Hampshire and the several States comprising the United States.

more from virginia
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nul ... eedom-act/
Delegate Charles W. Carrico, Sr. has introduced House Bill 69 (HB69) in the Virginia Legislature. The bill, known as the Firearms Freedom Act, “Declares that firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Virginia and retained within the borders of Virginia are not subject to federal law or regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

Virginia joins New Hampshire, Missouri, Utah and a number of other states considering such legislation. Montana and Tennessee have already passed similar bills into law.

here the govt is doing the opposite.dammit why didnt we won our independence in 1857.RKBA would have been our fundamental right instead we are supposed to say plz slap us again.cough gandhigiri cough

Gandhi actually advocated RKBA as did all parties during the freedom struggle... our problem is we (gun owners/ enthusiasts) have never voiced our concerns as a group. As in most other aspects of life, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.... who do we blame for our own inertia and inaction?

You have to realize what is happening here. One of the reasons that some states are starting to pass these types of laws is that many people feel that the Federal Government is exceeding its authority (many interpret the constitution as limiting the authority of the Federal Govt.). The State Governments want to have the say in who and how their states residents get to keep and bear arms. The unique nature of the relationship between States and the Federal Government in the United States allows this. Keep in mind that just because these laws have passed doesn't mean that they will not be challenged at some time. It will be up to the Supreme Court to finally decide the outcome. There are, of course, other factors that have made some states propose these laws but I believe that almost all of them are due to be belief that the Federal Government (and some of its agencies) is usurping the authority of the states bit by bit.

The relationship between the states (in India) and the Government in Delhi is totally different and there is probably no way that a state will pass laws that will abrogate national gun laws. I’m not sure that they legally can. Any (Indian) constitutional scholars have any opinions?

India is not a Federal State in the classical sense.The Centre has overriding powers in quite a few areas and in case of conflict,central laws prevail.There is a division of powers between the Centre and states,but as I said central powers override state laws in case of conflict and certain situations. Also, there is only one constitution that applies to the entire country unlike in US where they have separate constitutions for States.India was envisaged to have a strong centre and reasonably free federating units that reflect unity and diversity of India.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a constitutional right in USA.Not in India.It was meant to be and ,as Abhijeet said, it was the Mahatma who proposed it. What we need is Gandhigiri which was essentially co-operative libertarianism than weak-kneed pacifism. How many people know that Gandhi ji viewed state powers with great suspicion and wanted a very limited governmental control on civil life? It really would help all of us if we were to go through his writings.

Best-
Vikram

There were a lot of things that the Mahatma wanted for the people. If anything, he was the conscience of the people, restraining the politicians.
Unfortunately, when his life was cut short, many of his goals were not met. At the time he was a thorn in the side of the politicians and my feeling is that they breathed a sigh of relief at his demise.
His death allowed them to get away with things that he would not have allowed. While he held no political office, he was the most powerful man in India at the time. He could quell riots with a few words or incite them with a few more.

When I was in high school, one of my teachers was a man who was active in politics in the post independence days. He said that contrary to popular belief, there were many people, especially politicians, who hated the Mahatma because of his rigid stance on certain issues and his refusal to let them do what they wanted to do. The British, especially after the removal of the East India Company from the Government of India, were relatively benevolent to India and Indians when they toed the line. However, MK Gandhi, from his days in South Africa knew what inequities a bad government could inflict on the people and he was determined to prevent that. It is because of this that many people (British and Indian alike) saw him as meddlesome, obstructionist and argumentative. Its too bad for us, that he never got to see his dreams come true.

Amongst other things he NEVER trusted the State, and very especially critical of any overly intrusive role for the State in the lives of people. Someone should tell that to those who these days lay claim to his name...

mundaire wrote:Someone should tell that to those who these days lay claim to his name...

As if they are going to listen!!!

Regards

As if they are going to listen!!!

Yes politicians listen, not to an individual, but to a collection of votes(vote banks for example). Unless a vote bank is created or existing vote banks are made aware, by creating big noise continuously in every way and form, politicians are not going to listen.

goodboy_mentor wrote:

As if they are going to listen!!!

Yes politicians listen, not to an individual, but to a collection of votes(vote banks for example). Unless a vote bank is created or existing vote banks are made aware, by creating big noise continuously in every way and form, politicians are not going to listen.

+1