Unarmed INDIA

[goodboy_mentor]

I mean look at the other rights. Clearly spelled out in black and white.

All fundamental rights are not spelled out in black and white(explicitly enumerated) in the Constitution. Example: right to information, right to Privacy, right to self defense, right to foreign travel etc. are nowhere explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Then how come they are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution? In order to understand that arms are guaranteed as fundamental right one needs to read the Preamble, Article 14, 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.

Few hints to understand, if one has the desire and inclination to understand:

(1) Preamble of the Constitution says:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

If the justice, liberty, equality and fraternity are to be "secured" by getting disarmed, then why are we maintaining the armed forces and police? "We the people of India" are not separate from the State we have created. If the Preamble is getting offended by arms then "We the people of India" should have disbanded the armed forces and police long time back to honor the wishes of the Preamble of our Constitution. Otherwise the Preamble is surely not offended by arms.

(2) Article 14 says:

"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth"

State is a juristic person in court of law and treated equally with citizen. Are we saying arms are not a fundamental right of the State? If yes then it logically follows that State be disarmed. Or are we saying arms are a fundamental right of only State?

The factual position is that arms are not an offense under Part III of the Constitution. If arms are not an offense under Part III, they are right under Part III, since Freedom and Liberty are guaranteed under Part III.

Because of Article 14 of the Constitution, anything that is an offense under Part III of the Constitution, the State cannot claim exception under the law from that offense. For example: murder, extortion, kidnapping, robbery etc. are offenses under Part III of the Constitution. There is no exception for the State to commit these acts under the law. Read 302 IPC, the State has no exception to commit murder since it is an offense under Part III.

But for the matters that are right under the Part III of the Constitution, the State can regulate these fundamental rights for its own interest and thus claim exception under the law. Example is Arms Act 1959, RTI Act 2005 etc. These laws have provisions for exception for the State.

(3) Article 19(1)(b) says:

to assemble peaceably and without arms;

In order to understand what Article 19(1)(b) means, we need to understand that fundamental rights are negative rights. By negative rights, it means you may or may not choose to exercise the fundamental rights.

I will illustrate further with example of Article 19(1)(a), it guarantees freedom of speech and expression. "freedom of speech and expression" also includes "freedom of speech and without expression" since these two are negative rights and citizen may choose to use only freedom of speech without expression. Similarly when Article 19(1)(b) says "to assemble peaceably and without arms", it is not taking away or extinguishing any right by saying "without", it is merely stating one combination of the rights acknowledged by the Constitution. Please note that because of this fact, there is similar use of the word "and" in Article 19(1)(b) exactly as used in Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(e).

(4) Article 21 says:

Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 21 cannot say that citizen's self defense has to be done with bare hands only, but the State can do self defense with arms. Also Article 21 cannot say that citizen's do not have liberty to defend themselves with the best tools of self defense, but the State can do the same. That would be violation of Article 21 itself and Article 14.

(5) Article 25 says:

The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

Kirpans are arms. If the arms are not guaranteed by the Constitution and it is also treating all the citizens equally as guaranteed under Article 14, then how can people professing Sikh religion enjoy the arms as fundamental right under Article 25 unless arms have also been equally guaranteed to all citizens under Part III of the Constitution?

(6) Article 51A mentions fundamental duties. All the Articles of the Constitution are at equal footing and in harmony with each other. Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties are two sides of the same coin i.e. one cannot exist without the other. If there is a Fundamental Duty under Aticle 51A, there is bound to exist a corresponding Fundamental Right under Part III. If any Fundamental Duty requires arms, there is bound to exist a corresponding Fundamental Right under Part III.

(i) Article 51A(b) says:

to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;

Noble ideals and national struggle for freedom were not without arms. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right of arms under Part III of the Constitution.

(ii) Article 51A(c) says:

to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;

The duty of sovereign to uphold and protect the sovereignty cannot be expected be done without corresponding right to arms. It needs to be noted that in a free and democratic republic, the citizens themselves constitute the sovereign. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right of arms under Part III of the Constitution.

(iii) Article 51A(d) says:

to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;

The duty to defend cannot be expected be done without corresponding right to arms. It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right of arms under Part III of the Constitution.

(iv) Article 51A(i) says:

to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;

"abjure violence" does not mean that one has to suffer violence from criminals by staying without arms. It does not mean that there is no right to the means or the tools to suppress the violence, to create an atmosphere that is concomitant with principle of "abjure violence". It follows that there exists a corresponding fundamental right of arms under Part III of the Constitution.

(7) Article 246(5) delegates the legislative powers to the Parliament to regulate arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives. If arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives are not fundamental rights or are offense under Part III, question of providing legislative powers to regulate them does not arise. It needs to be noted that Parliament does not have the legislative powers to pass regulatory laws to "regulate" acts that are offenses or crime under Part III of the Constitution. Example: Parliament cannot pass laws to "regulate" the offenses under Part III, by passing regulatory laws to issue licenses for murder, extortion, kidnapping, robbery etc. Since arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives are surely not an offense under Part III, therefore we have Article 246(5) and exceptions for the State under the respective laws for arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives.

(8) Arms Act 1959 and its objectives. Keeping in view the above mentioned points, if one scrutinizes the objectives and provisions of Arms Act 1959, they point towards the direction that arms are fundamental right.

I had tried to explain this matter earlier at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785 I will be updating that post with more points including these, so that things are even more clear to the casual reader and are available at one location.

[winnie_the_pooh]

Goodboy,

This is just your interpretation.Unfortunately you can not be cited in a court of law.As far as what a single judge of the Allahabad HC has said goes,until you get an order from the SC saying so,it is unlikely to change anything.The discussion is going way OT.

[lonetrigger]

If the “arms were explicitly guaranteed in the draft Constitution” and this explicit guarantee was denied in the final Constitution “to create confusion” by those with vested interests, what does it say about the Indian law making with respect to Arms? It simply means that they did NOT want us Indians to have easy access to our own self-protection. However, at the same time, they had to accommodate the true Nationalist minority that was present then in the corridors of the law making. Hence the Arms Act of 1959 and Arms Rules of 1962 were used as a smoke-screen to hide the real intent, which was to keep our country vastly UNARMED.

As insisted, “the arms are acknowledged as fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21” and that the 1959 Arms Act regulates that right. Now, this point is open to interpretation and I am afraid it can interpreted either ways. “All that is needed is a knowledgeable Judge in the Supreme Court who can acknowledge this truth”, agreed. But it is also true that another Supreme Court Judge could acknowledge that it is NOT. (Please correct me if my fears are unfounded). This is the kind of ambiguity that has been created and is being maintained and will be maintained. My another fear is that if and when the push comes to shove some Constitutional Amendment will be forced upon us which may thoroughly deny us the Right to Bear and Keep Arms (RKBA).

The question we need to ask ourselves is, Why the Governments are averse (or afraid) to allow their citizens the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? No Sirs, we don't want the rationale given by the Anti-Gun activism, because we all know what a candy floss it is, most of it is baseless and unsubstantiated.

Let me point out that the Governments (or the powers behind the Governments) are not really afraid of an armed citizen protecting himself from dacoits, robbers, rapists or rioters, what scares the s**t out of them are thousands of poorest villagers protesting, for instance, in Orrisa against the assault on their land and livelihood that is being robbed from them in the name of promoting MNC. They are afraid of kind of farmers protest we saw in Bhatta-Parsaul and the several other similar protests all over the country. In the context of Constitution, these are the protests resisting the denial of rights and/or realistic compensation, which is their right. Already there is an armed resistance in most of the mineral rich and among the poorest tribal areas of our country. Can the powers that be afford to arm such protestors by guaranteed RKBA?

Alvin Toffler in his famous book POWER SHIFT has explained how the power has shifted. The Power no longer resides in its traditional centers where it used to be. It has shifted, but where to? The “Occupy Wall Street” protests, the reporting of which in the mainstream NEWS media was deliberately stifled, gives us the indicator as to where the power has shifted. Like I pointed out earlier, “follow the money”. The expose of the Nira Radia Tapes reveals this ugly reality. “The India Cables” (Wiki-Leaks) told us how madame Clinton was upset when she found out the that the Finance Ministry was not given to her recommended candidate and asked:

“To which industrial or business groups is [Pranab] Mukherjee beholden? Whom will he seek to help through his policies? What are Mukherjee's priorities in the upcoming budget... ?”
“Why was Mukherjee chosen for the finance portfolio over Montek Singh Ahluwalia? How do Mukherjee and Ahluwalia get along?......... as reported in The Hindu.

What is this “NEW WORLD ORDER” with which all G-5 or G-8 leaders are obsessed with? What is the real Economics behind economic booms and recessions? Who controls them? Who manipulates them? And most importantly, Who benefits? The answer to these questions is very important to understand where exactly the the Power has shifted or is shifting.

Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is considered by the “powerful vested interests” to be one of the major obstacles in the pursuit of exploitative, unrighteous and undemocratic policies and agendas. (Did you know that the worlds richest and influential have palatial private holdings in Beijing too?)

You may ask why and how do people accept these unsavory policies? How these policies are implemented when they are so distasteful to the common man? Or why after a Terrorist attack or something similar Gun laws are tightened? Why don't the people protest when their rights are being stifled?

Naomi Klien discovered The Shock Doctrine in her book by same title. She says that undemocratic (or beneficial to the select few) agendas, policies and amendments are introduced and passed when the population is going through a crisis, actual or perceived, and is in a state of SHOCK. When in shock people loose their ability to think clearly or as she calls it, “loose their narrative”, and will accept anything when it is told to them that so and so is in their benefit. This shock method is actually used by all the major Intelligence Agencies as a method of Interrogation. This method is actually borrowed by the economists and Law Makers to push down our throats all that we would have rejected otherwise. And once introduced and accepted these policies and amendments it is nearly impossible to repeal them. (The Shock Doctrine is made into a Documentary film and is available on YouTube, and so are Naomi Klien's lectures).

This should also answer the question, “why the section of society that had access to firearms at the time of independence remained silent when their guns were taken away by the 3 gun restriction”? They were reeling under the shock of Independence, partitions, unions and other social changes. They must have actually felt thankful that they got to keep 3 guns as opposed to the total ban.

It is very important that we locate and spot the real target to ensure that our fight for RKBA is fought in the real and relevant battleground. There is no value in targeting the politicians and the bureaucracy, they only have the appearance of having power. In actuality they don't.

For instance, take any MHO order and when you read it you will find that there are no reasons given to justify that order. And this is how the bureaucracy gets its orders, without any justification. They are only supposed to follow the orders and not question them. That is what they do. As for the politicians, well, the vested interests don't just give away hundreds of crores of rupees worth of donations to the political parties and electoral candidates for the sake of charity.

I hope we all understand and realize where our fight is and with whom. Sooner the better, because a lot is at stake than just our RKBA.

Regards....

[goodboy_mentor]

This is just your interpretation.

Yes but based on the facts mentioned in the Constitution, and by applying the principles of statutory and constitutional interpretation, and General Clauses Act, 1897. How the Constitution is to be interpreted? This itself is mentioned in the Constitution under Article 367(1). I quote Article 367(1) below:

(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897 , shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of this Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India

Unfortunately you can not be cited in a competent court of law and court of law will be within its rights to adjudicate on the matter.

The reasoning supported by facts in the Constitution(an enactment) can be cited in competent court of law for adjudication. Please refer Section 28 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. I quote it below:

28. Citation of enactments -
(1) any (Central Act) or Regulation, and in any rule, bye-law, instrument or document, made
under, or with reference to any such Act or Regulation, any enactment may be cited by reference to the title or short title (if any) conferred thereon or by reference to the number and year thereof, and any provision in an enactment may be cited by reference to the section or sub-section of the enactment in which the provision is contained.

until you get an order from the SC saying so,it is unlikely to change anything.

Nobody is disputing this but until the matter is presented in a convincing manner before Supreme Court, how will it happen?

what does it say about the Indian law making with respect to Arms?

Constitution says that it is the Supreme Law of the land and all laws of the land are flowing from it. Therefore it is immaterial whether the law is about arms or something else. Please read the objectives of the Arms Act 1959, to understand from which Articles of the Constitution the Arms Act 1959 is flowing from. It is flowing from Articles 19 and 21 and legislative powers flowing from Article 246(5).

It simply means that they did NOT want us Indians to have easy access to our own self-protection.

No Constitution does not mean that. Wherever Constitution wants to prohibit anything, it is explicitly mentioning that. Example untouchability etc.

Hence the Arms Act of 1959 and Arms Rules of 1962 were used as a smoke-screen to hide the real intent, which was to keep our country vastly UNARMED.

No it is not true. If one reads the objectives of the Bill in Parliament that created the Arms Act 1959, the intent of Parliament becomes clear.

As insisted, “the arms are acknowledged as fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21” and that the 1959 Arms Act regulates that right. Now, this point is open to interpretation and I am afraid it can interpreted either ways.

It is a well established fact that Arms Act 1959 is a regulatory law, this fact does not need "interpretation" in any real sense. After reading the objectives of the Bill in Parliament that became the Arms Act 1959, it cannot be interpreted "either ways". The objectives of the Bill that became Arms Act 1959 are very clear and unambiguous.

Why the Governments are averse (or afraid) to allow their citizens the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

All through the ages Governments have done all they could do in their power, to have monopoly of power and violence. The spirit behind the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is exactly to counter and check this tendency of Governments, so that monopoly of power and violence does not lie with the Government but with the sovereign i.e. the people of the country.

Can the powers that be afford to arm such protestors by guaranteed RKBA?

As I mentioned earlier the vested interests had already created a confusion about it when Constitution was being written and as a result it has been a gradual downward slide only.

Naomi Klien discovered The Shock Doctrine in her book by same title. She says that undemocratic (or beneficial to the select few) agendas, policies and amendments are introduced and passed when the population is going through a crisis, actual or perceived, and is in a state of SHOCK. When in shock people loose their ability to think clearly or as she calls it, “loose their narrative”, and will accept anything when it is told to them that so and so is in their benefit.

This was already mentioned by Boetie long time ago. Tyrants increase their power under these kind of circumstances and excuses like war, national security etc. May read this http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf

[lonetrigger]

what does it say about the Indian law making with respect to Arms?

Constitution says that it is the Supreme Law of the land and all laws of the land are flowing from it. Therefore it is immaterial whether the law is about arms or something else. Please read the objectives of the Arms Act 1959, to understand from which Articles of the Constitution the Arms Act 1959 is flowing from. It is flowing from Articles 19 and 21 and legislative powers flowing from Article 246(5).

It simply means that they did NOT want us Indians to have easy access to our own self-protection.

No Constitution does not mean that. Wherever Constitution wants to prohibit anything, it is explicitly mentioning that. Example untouchability etc.

Hence the Arms Act of 1959 and Arms Rules of 1962 were used as a smoke-screen to hide the real intent, which was to keep our country vastly UNARMED.

No it is not true. If one reads the objectives of the Bill in Parliament that created the Arms Act 1959, the intent of Parliament becomes clear.

As insisted, “the arms are acknowledged as fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21” and that the 1959 Arms Act regulates that right. Now, this point is open to interpretation and I am afraid it can interpreted either ways.

It is a well established fact that Arms Act 1959 is a regulatory law, this fact does not need "interpretation" in any real sense. After reading the objectives of the Bill in Parliament that became the Arms Act 1959, it cannot be interpreted "either ways". The objectives of the Bill that became Arms Act 1959 are very clear and unambiguous.

Sir, in quote1, I am not talking about the Constitution but the "powerful vested interests" in guise of lawmakers who wanted to and created confusion because they didn't want to arm India.

Quote2: Your point is correct that whenever Constitution wanted to Prohibit something it explicitly said so. However, my point is the vested interests within could not afford or had guts to prohibit arms explicitly, hence they created confusion in their favor. Their intention in creating confusion was to deny or stifle as much as they can the RKBA.

Quote3: Sir, because of 1959 Arms Act, nobody can prove that the intent of the vested interests was to deny arms. By creating licenseing authorities that is exactly what they have been doing, denying RKBA. Sir only a handful of the rejected applicants of Arms License have gone to the courts until now to fight for their RBKA. All those rejected applications mean RKBA denied. Doesn't it? Constitution does not explicitly deny Arms neither does it guarantee Arms explicitly.

Quote4: When I say "this point is open to interpretation" I mean "“the arms are acknowledged as fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21” and not Arms Act of 1959 being a regulatory act. Sir, if I am not mistaken, I think it was Justice Katju's judgement which had interpreted arms as being guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 and that the Supreme court rejected it. I don't remember clearly, Please clarify.

Regards...

[goodboy_mentor]

in guise of lawmakers who wanted to and created confusion because they didn't want to arm India.

Openly declaring such an intent in the Constitution would have created political hue and cry as well as that would have created legal problems because of Article 14, the State would also have no fundamental right for arms. But this is not the case today both citizens and State have fundamental right for arms. But the irony of the matter is that it has been cleverly kept hidden resulting in gradual impression that arms are not a right but a crime.

However, my point is the vested interests within could not afford or had guts to prohibit arms explicitly, hence they created confusion in their favor. Their intention in creating confusion was to deny or stifle as much as they can the RKBA.

I agree, first create confusion, then slowly deny it step by step over the years. This is exactly what has happened.

By creating licenseing authorities that is exactly what they have been doing, denying RKBA. Sir only a handful of the rejected applicants of Arms License have gone to the courts until now to fight for their RBKA. All those rejected applications mean RKBA denied. Doesn't it?

I agree with this opinion. But the game needs to understood by scrutinizing Arms Act 1959 in a deeper manner. Have you noticed the difference between Section 3 and 4 of Arms Act 1959? Have you asked yourself, from a legal point, why is it that you need a license before possessing a firearm under Section 3, but you do not need a license before possessing arms other than firearms unless there is notification? Is Section 3 unconstitutional or Section 4 unconstitutional? Why? Or both are constitutional or both are unconstitutional? Why?

Constitution does not explicitly deny Arms neither does it guarantee Arms explicitly.

When we compare both the possibilities, the first possibility has been completely ruled out, is the second possibility completely ruled out? No. How? Read Article 19(1)(b). Question of mentioning about arms does not arise unless the Article 19 is recognizing arms as a fundamental right under itself. Rights under Article 19 are also present under Article 21. Article 19 has been written to provide greater level of protection to the rights that are present under Article 21. Because Article 19 is recognizing arms as a fundamental right and providing greater protection, Section 13 of Arms Act 1959 is making it obligatory on licensing authority to issue a license for smooth bore gun for protection or sport or crop protection(all these three are fundamental rights), provided the applicant is not disqualified under Section 14.

When I say "this point is open to interpretation" I mean "“the arms are acknowledged as fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21”

Not only arms but every fundamental right is open to interpretation by a competent court. Every fundamental right has to be fought for, even in USA were RKBA is explicitly mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, people have to constantly fight for it. Why? No matter if rights are explicitly enumerated or implicit, the day it is found that people are not vigilant about their rights, the vested interests are bound to pounce on the rights of people. Arms are the last resort to protect your rights when all other means have failed. This is why arms have been the main target of tyrants under various excuses everywhere and all through the ages.

Justice Katju's judgement which had interpreted arms as being guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 and that the Supreme court rejected it.

When he was in Allahabad High Court, he had interpreted RKBA as guaranteed under Article 21. It was overruled by a bigger bench of the same court using some unconvincing and casuistic reasoning. Again there is another recent Allahabad High Court judgement saying essentially what Justice Katju had said.

[winnie_the_pooh]

Goodboy,

The fact is that,the way you read the constitution need not be the way that some one else does.The day the constitution states explicitly that" The citizens of the country shall have the right to keep and bear arms",will be the day everyone would agree that it grants RKBA.You can keep on banging away on your keyboard and it will not change a thing.

[goodboy_mentor]

The fact is that,the way you read the constitution need not be the way that some one else does.

Very true, but the interpretation by some one else has to be done by due process and cannot be done as per his whims and fancies. I have clearly elaborated my way of reading the Constitution by following the principles of statutory and constitutional interpretation, and General Clauses Act, 1897. Also it needs to be noted that despite the Constitution framer's contrary intentions, after various Supreme Court judgments the "due process" has firmly become a part of Indian constitutional law. RKBA can be derived at by following the due process. The same has also been done in USA to interpret RKBA i.e. by following the due process and without taking the help of the 2nd Amendment.

I welcome your opinion as well as all opposite opinions from everyone and would request you and all to please point out the flaws in my interpretation so that it can be corrected or countered accordingly. Also can you please elaborate the way of reading by "someone else"? It is always good to know the other side of the argument or perspective.

The day the constitution states explicitly that" The citizens of the country shall have the right to keep and bear arms",will be the day everyone would agree that it grants RKBA.

Still there will be plenty who will not believe what is written. If you don't believe me then take the example of 2nd Amendment and how the antis read it, including the judges who support them and interpret 2nd Amendment accordingly. There are many States in the USA were it is as difficult or probably even more difficult to possess fire arms than in India. How such a situation is possible when there is the 2nd Amendment?

You can keep on banging away on your keyboard and it will not change a thing.

Nobody is saying that discussing on a web forums will bring about instant changes. As far as the question of "banging" away on the keyboard is concerned, it is nobodies business to see whether I am "banging" the keyboard or not. Please note that my posts are not meant only for those who have already read my previous posts, there are plenty of people who are daily joining this website and going to be reading these posts. Now please don't tell me it has no effect.

[xl_target]

The day the constitution states explicitly that" The citizens of the country shall have the right to keep and bear arms",will be the day everyone would agree that it grants RKBA

Don't be too sure of that, Winnie.

For example: The Second Amendment to the US constitution states

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

To most people, it seems to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet there are a lot of people who argue that among other things, it means that only a regular militia (National Guard, etc.) should bear arms. This even after the SCOTUS has affirmed it to be an individual right.

[Virendra S Rathore]

To most people, it seems to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet there are a lot of people who argue that among other things, it means that only a regular militia (National Guard, etc.) should bear arms. This even after the SCOTUS has affirmed it to be an individual right.

Do you mean that Americans don't know what their Constitution means exactly? That there's not a good link between the original drafters and present residents so everyone is just guessing?

If we live by a rule today, except trying to know what the forefathers wanted to convey in it we should also qualify it to what we want the rule to be. Because we are the ones walking on the roads today. We should decide.
In my opinion what they meant or wanted it to be isn't as material/important as what the present generation does.

[goodboy_mentor]

He does not mean that Americans don't know what their Constitution means exactly. He is trying to explain that regardless of the meaning being crystal clear, there will always be some corrupted and vested interests, who will knowingly try their best to misconstrue the meaning and mislead the people.

The meaning of Second Amendment to the US Constitution is very clear, very relevant even today and will always be relevant in the future. It basically means: Because the security of a Free State requires a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If we read Articles 51A(c) and (d) of the Constitution of India, the very same meaning of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is conveyed in the form of Fundamental Duty of citizens. It needs to be understood that Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties are two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other.

[Bhargav]

wow .. I had been reading this entire thread post by post and there is some very great knowledge/info here. Not to mention, the writing is just great.

I was thinking can NAGRI get a column in a newspaper where people can write articles about RKBA ? or may be our own magazine ? or newsletters from NAGRI to which people can subscribe ?

[Hammerhead]

Shameless politicians will burn people's money like and will not learn ......

Here is a cheque for 2nd Amendment Organization after they beat the city of Chicago's Stupid Mayor ...



Yeah , that's right , that's $400,000.00 of US Dollars and the mayor and city fight to unarm the law abiding to fight the crime in world's deadliest city - Haji


Edit : Recent Oppression by our Canadian Gov't under the name of public safety

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/24/c ... at-school/

[Safarigent]

Good boy mentor,
You have been a great help and a 'mentor' to a lot many members here.
I see your arguments and you seem very convinced about them. I think you are too.
Why havent you ever filed a p.i.l. And sort this matter out?
I mean you are a lawyer, you have the facts and you seem motivated enough.
So what stops you?
I ask so that perhaps something can be done about it and not to antagonize.
Regards

[xl_target]

In most judicial systems you have to have cause to file a case. If you have applied for a gun licence and have been refused, you have cause. You also generally have to show that you have been hurt or damaged in some way.
"I don't like the way the current government is interpreting the constitution" or "I don't like the way the current laws are being enforced" is usually not enough.