Government can restrict import of arms by individuals: Supre

[renjith747]

Hi please go through this link

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_go ... rt_1394106
Do we have to get prior permission from Directorate General of Foreign Trade before coming from abroad??.
Brothers in arms please express your valuable opinions regarding this article.....

[nagarifle]

hogwash,very old news,

[renjith747]

sir, i know this is an old news before you say its a nonsense i want to know about the rule.In the case of TR do we need to get a sanction from the concerned department??

[goodboy_mentor]

i know this is an old news before you say its a nonsense

Before you say it is not a nonsense judgment, have you analyzed it to find the loopholes and mistakes by reading the judgment? The link for the judgement is available in this post http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 45#p159478

Is it a sound judgment? For a sound judgment and precedent to be binding, there has to be a reference to the facts, controversy in issue, discussion on statutory provisions, reasoning for coming to a conclusion and clear statement of law and principles settled or answered by the judgment. Did the judgment do all these? Did the court read the preambles of Act XXVIII of 1857, Act XXXI of 1860, the preamble, objects and reasons of Arms Act 1878, Article 367(1)of Constitution of India, Section 24 of The General Clauses Act, 1897, the Preamble of Constitution of India, Article 14, Article 19(1)(b), Article 21, Article 25, Article 51A(b),(c),(d),(i) and Article 246(5) and Arms Act 1959 and its objectives together with its Section 10(1)(a)? EXIM Policy is issued under Section 5 of Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act 1992. Did the court read the objects and reasons of Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act 1992? After reading all these did the court apply the principle of overriding effect and principles of natural justice?

Basically the principle of garbage in garbage out also applies to courts. If the advocate does not make a water tight case, these kind of judgments are bound to happen.

i want to know about the rule

Please read the customs website for TR rules.

[nagarifle]

yes but here the court ruled as per the TR rules, one arm (not more) per person is allowed. thats the policy and that may or may not be proper but thats the policy on TR and the court ruled.

[cottage cheese]

...also bear in mind ...in babu language the crafty use of the word "Restriction"... restriction is not a ban or prohibition. It merely means something is more regulated. Most persons babu and common-man alike fail to notice the subtle difference.

To add to the mess take the example of "prohibited-bores"..... well, it would be more appropriate to class them as restricted bores/categories to avoid misinterpretation since licenses for PBs can be issued (at least in theory)...Many think PBs are illegal.

anyway I'm digressing...

[renjith747]

@ goodboy "Before you say it is not a nonsense judgment", Sir i didnt mean that judgement is wise, i thought that naga sir mean by it the term "nonsense" is that i have to shutup .

"have you analyzed it to find the loopholes and mistakes by reading the judgment?"-
Sir, i got a doubt as the article highlights like "The Supreme Court has held that a person cannot claim any right to import fire arms from abroad without a proper license issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, as prescribed under the Centre's EXIM (export import) policy."

This is the only reason which made me to post this eventhough its an old news because Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate judgement for an ordinary citizen like me.I dont know am cent percent correct.

Thanks goodboy, nagarifle and cottage cheese for there advises and opinions.

[ckkalyan]

Hi renjith747,

Kozhappam Illa! Or rather...Not to worry - all these things are confusing as hell and can be interpreted in many different ways...however whichever way you choose, all that matters is whether you can fight it in court, prove your point and get it - your way!

All the three responses from prominent IFG'ians - only go to illuminate the situation...regulated, prohibited, permitted, banned, restricted, allowed - blah, blah...Sigh! The Laws / Rules are just simply playing with words - and they always WIN.

Hey you know what? We should get a smart bunch of Lawyers - who are also good at script writing and start up a TV Serial - called maybe Guns & Gundas. Honestly, it may turn out to be as good a hit as NCIS...etc

Good Luck!

[renjith747]

We should get a smart bunch of Lawyers - who are also good at script writing and start up a TV Serial - called maybe Guns & Gundas.

........

@ ckkalyan "Kozhappam Illa!"are you a Keralite??.
Thanks for your good words......

[goodboy_mentor]

yes but here the court ruled as per the TR rules, one arm (not more) per person is allowed.

Sir the point I am trying to convey is that if the courts put on blinders on their own eyes like those put on the eyes of horses, and do not take in all the connected facts to get a complete picture of things and rule only on basis of some arbitrary TR rules, then it is nothing but travesty of justice.

Most persons babu and common-man alike fail to notice the subtle difference.

Sir you are correct and this is the game that is going on.

Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate judgement for an ordinary citizen like me.

Sir what you are saying is correct but the Supreme Court is not infalliable. There are many judgments where Supreme Court "erred". A famous one being the Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur Vs. Shivakant Shukla case (1976) during Emergency. The bench had given judgment in the 4:1 ruling. The only dissenting opinion was from Justice H. R. Khanna, who stated "detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty... A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have been betrayed."

It is believed that before delivering his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna had mentioned to his sister "I have prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justice-ship of India." Result for giving a dissenting judgment in support of truth and justice cost him his promotion as predicted. Justice Khanna was superseded despite being the most senior judge at the time. How many judges have this courage to stand by truth and justice? Probably now you can get an idea about the forces of vested interests working behind the scene that may sometimes influence judgments. After many decades when those forces were absent, this same judgment was "corrected" by Supreme Court, you may read about it at http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2011/ ... emergency/

The Laws / Rules are just simply playing with words - and they always WIN.

Sir exactly, the establishment usually wins. It was best illustrated by the judgment of Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur Vs. Shivakant Shukla case (1976) mentioned above.