Re: 'No Threat' not enough to deny arms license.

[inplainsight]

GBM! You beat me to it!!! Either way, I had the following typed in my browser, but went out for dinner before posting it.

Dheeraj,

Those aren't my views, I was merely copy pasting from the judgment. GBM had posted an extremely interesting piece about the fundamental difference between Rights and Privileges. (It might have been this link http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm)

I believe it boils down to this, a Right is guaranteed by the constitution and can only be taken away after following the process laid down in it. A privileged, on the other hand, is granted by the state and can be revoked.

I read this judgment as follows

'You have the right to life/self defence, but doing so with a firearm would be considered a privileged and not a right'.

There are a few other judgments posted here that seem to say that the right to bear arms is enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution.

Also, SS, almost any right can be taken away after 'due process of law'.

Regards

[mrinalmadhav]

This Judgment was announced in front of me. After having gone through the Judgment, even though, i do not agree with the part where Justice Jain states acquiring a license cannot be a matter of right, and therefore the same is precluded from being a fundamental right, however, a careful perusal of para 7 of the said judgment clearly states that ....."Therefore, as a prudent citizen, he would be justified in taking adequate steps to protect himself and his property and such steps would include acquiring a licensed weapon so as to avoid any crime against his body and property".....
This particular line itself hinges on the fact that it is a citizen's right to safeguard his life and property(which in turn is guaranteed under fundamental rights)and it further states that adequate steps to protect it would include acquiring a licensed weapon..so interalia Justice Jain in this judgment has also stated that acquiring a licensed weapon is covered under right to life.

[AgentDoubleS]

Mrinal, Welcome to IFG.

It is always good to have people join IFG who understand and pursue the legal side of firearm ownership and RKBA in India. How about an introduction in the relevant section. Your presence in the court during this judgement has intrigued me

Cheers,
SS

[brihacharan]

While applauding the judgement of Justice Jain....consider this...
Law is always cleverly enunciated - but is open to interpretation...
Hence the subtle difference between "Right" & "Previlege" lends itself to be interpreted to the benefit & advantage of those who have assumed power & pelf, but denied to an ordinary & honest citizen!!!
Briha

[dheeraj1982]

Well said mrinal,

In furtherance to the points pointed out by mrinal,

I would like to add to this that in Para 8 of the jugment , justice jain has cleary held that need for grant of license is to be genuine.By this he has clarified it that genuiness is to be seen under the purview of provisions under Sec 14 (1) of the arms act and not otherwise. And also the need so mentioned here is the need of the applicant and not of the Licensing Authority. So the authority can now no more comment on the genuinity of the need of the applicant. It can only corelate or coroberate it with provisions under section 14(1) of Arms act. If there is anything in contravantion to the provisions of the Arms act than only the Authority can reject the application else it has to allow it. By saying this the judge has cleary curtailed the wings of Licensing Authority which was flying in high skies and the applicants were left to just gaze the authority. As they had nothing in there hands to bring the authority down to earth.
This jugment will surely put wieght in the hands of the applicants to raise their voice to get what they should have got.

LASTLY WE CAN SAY NOW "SAADA HAQ AITHE RAKH ".

Well those are emotions, friends.

[dheeraj1982]

ANOTHER MILESTONE JUDGMENT BY JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/VKJ/judgement/2 ... 592013.pdf

click the link to check the jugement.

It has been again held by the court... this time more elaboratively that arms license can only be rejected
under provisions of sec sec14 of arms and not otherwise.

[AgentDoubleS]

While the judgement is in favour it does bring to light the fact that even the LGs court is not upholding the law. Lack of accountability and just sheer apathy towards what the right thing to do is. I am quite disappointed.

[timmy]

GBM had posted an extremely interesting piece about the fundamental difference between Rights and Privileges. (It might have been this link http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm)

I would like to point out that this link, which is very interesting, points to the differences between a right and a privilege in the USA. What these words mean in the context we're using them has specific legal ramifications, whereas, in common language, they have definitions that can be found in a dictionary. There is a big difference between a legal meaning and a definition that applies to common use.

There is also a big difference between legal systems. In the USA, legal judgments form precedent, which can form the basis for future judgments dealing with similar legal issues, unless the earlier judgments are overturned by another court. This is opposed to, for instance, the Mexican legal system, where precedent is much less important. Because of this, Mexican legal contracts can be quite voluminous, because everything must be spelled out over and over again in each instance!

I say this, because the meaning of a right and a privilege, and the distinction between them, may not be the same in India as it is in the USA, rendering the quoted document of questionable value in the Indian context.

Indeed, the whole debate between a right and a privilege is quite murky, as the quoted paper (and others which can be easily found) points out.

Basically, the idea is that a right is something you are born with, and a privilege is something granted to a certain class of person. In the USA, the founding fathers wanted to do away with the privileges of the noble class, which others didn't enjoy.

So, for instance, it is a right to not be discriminated against in the USA on the basis of gender, but men, as a recent court case determined, do not have the right to be considered for a job at a Hooter's restaurant (which is one where certain types of women are featured as waitresses). Voting -- a right or a privilege? You can't vote unless you are of a certain class -- over 18 or 21, and even then, you may not be able to vote if you are a convicted felon.

The bedrock of the USA is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are called "inalienable rights," but when a person is executed, they are deprived of the first right by the state and, when a person is sent to prison, the state deprives them of the second and third "rights." Just about every "right" you can think of is not absolute at all, but subject to limitations and forfeitures by the government.

This is not to say that I disagree with views being presented in the thread. It is to point out that we should be aware of the legal meanings of the words we are using.

In this case, I think it would be best, rather than focus on an irrevocable "right," to focus on why politicians or other types are permitted the privilege of gun ownership, but yet the same is denied to others. It seems to me that the onus of spelling out this distinction is on the government and the authorities it appoints to carry out justice and enforce laws. I also think that the government should be called to account as to its stewardship of the public trust: if the government is entrusted with power and authority to carry out its responsibilities, then it is accountable to the public for the fairness, justice, and equitability of its performance.

As we can easily note, many governments around the world are guilty of failing to administer the gun rights of citizens with fairness, justice, and equitability. Our job, therefore, is to convince other citizen's of the need to hold government strictly accountable for these kinds of shortcomings, when they occur.