Guns for Goons not for citizens

[winnie_the_pooh]

how many people understand this fact in our country? How many people know arms is a "freedom" guaranteed under Article 19 of our Constitution

Only one and that is you.If you stop smoking what you do,even you would realize that it is not so.

[goodboy_mentor]

Dear WTP there is no point in getting upset. If you have a point, rather than getting upset please put it across, there is no reason why it can't be discussed. But I would also like you to understand a fact that our Constitution is a mutually consistent and logical document without internal contradictions. Keeping this fact in view, can you please understand the meaning of Article 19(1)(b) and the need for using of "and" in it?
It says:

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

Would it not be more sensible to have been written as

(b) to assemble peaceably without arms;

Let us have a look at some more similar Articles in Article 19. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(e). They say:

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;

Do you now see the consistency and logic in our Constitution behind the use of "and" in Article 19? It is being used to join two fundamental rights. Article 19(1)(b) is merely saying that Constitution is taking the burden on itself on behalf of the citizens to guarantee them freedom to assemble peaceably if they exercise this freedom without another freedom for arms. In other words the Constitution is clearly acknowledging presence of both the freedoms.

[Biren]

Hi Rakshit,

Lets do it. Also lets explore the posibility of other groups having similiar objectives joining us.

Cheers
Biren

[Risala]

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

Do you now see the consistency and logic in our Constitution behind the use of "and" in Article 19? It is being used to join two fundamental rights. Article 19(1)(b) is merely saying that Constitution is taking the burden on itself on behalf of the citizens to guarantee them freedom to assemble peaceably if they exercise this freedom without another freedom for arms. In other words the Constitution is clearly acknowledging presence of both the freedoms.

GBM
It is not a fundamental right.
Afraid that your interpretation is way off the mark.
What the above means is that ......you can assemble,meet,congregate...but without arms

[goodboy_mentor]

Sanjay in order to understand it is important to understand the legal points of the matter. If I take your opinion that it is not a fundamental right then following questions arise:

1) What is the purpose of use of "and" in Article 19? One cannot say that use of "and" is for one purpose in Articles 19(1)(a) and (e) but for another purpose in 19(1)(b) because of the fact that Constitution is a mutually consistent and logical document without internal contradictions.

2) Article 19(1)(b) is not defining what is not a fundamental right within itself. What is not a fundamental right in Article 19(1)(b) is being defined by Article 19(3).

If arms is not a fundamental right then it is sufficient to say "(b) to assemble peaceably;" in Article 19(1)(b). Where comes the need to mention "and" and "without arms"? The State would have been well within its rights to change the terms and conditions of arms licenses by a notification from the strength derived from Article 19(3), thus completely prohibiting the taking of licensed arms to any assemblage without offending the Constitution.

3) Because of Article 14, in a court of law the fundamental rights of State and citizen are equal. If someone creates a successful legal grievance against Police etc. for keeping and bearing arms then how will you defend Police for keeping arms unless it is a fundamental right of Police to keep arms? From where does Police derive its fundamental right to keep and bear arms? Nothing but from Articles 19 and 21. It is not only me who is saying this, even advocates are saying this. You may read the opinion of an advocate about this matter at http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts ... 121096.asp

If even after knowing these points, if someone still does not feel convinced, I would request him rather than hijacking this thread, should come forward with his points and discuss it at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785

[winnie_the_pooh]

Sanjay join me

From where does Police derive its ..... right to keep and bear arms

From an exemption under the Arms Act.

[goodboy_mentor]

What is the legal meaning of "exemption" under Arms Act 1959? It means exemption from the regulation of the fundamental right as desired by Arms Act 1959.

From where does Arms Act 1959 flow from? It flows from the Constitution because Constitution is the Supreme law of India. Which fundamental rights does Arms Act 1959 regulate? The fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This can be ascertained by reading one of the Objectives of Arms Act 1959. It 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;"

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 the Right to Keep and Bear Arms necessary for maintaining law and order.

If "the rights of the citizen" as mentioned above do not exist under Constitution(Articles 19 and 21), then the question of co-ordinating these rights for all the citizens with help of an Act of Parliament does not arise.

[winnie_the_pooh]

I admire you enthusiasm.

[goodboy_mentor]

Thank you for your compliments even if they are sarcastic! I am only showing you the facts. I am providing my answers with proper reason and logic. Please come up with some reasonable answers to support your contentions to prove me wrong. If "the rights of the citizen" as mentioned in objective of Arms Act 1959 do not exist under Constitution(Articles 19 and 21) then where do they exist?

[Priyan]

I'm confused! Was the one who shot that girl a licensed firearm owner? I bet he wasn't. Now let's think it in a different way, The guy pointed that makeshift gun at her face and the girl pulled out her licensed handgun out and send pieces of his brain flying in the air. Trust me this could have happened if she had a gun to protect her.

[amit888_2000]

Guys, This needs attention,

Posted, Article, was Published in TOI Today, i.e. 9-04-2011, page no 16 of Delhi Times.

Now who are they talking abt Citizen or goons ?

Will someone send this Editor, Correct Data ?

Mods: If U Think This Is Not The Apt Place For This Article, Then Pls Move It.