The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right

[pkaran]

A five member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India has recently held that the “Right to die with dignity” is an inalienable part of the “Right to Life with dignity” guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Essentially and inevitably, the “Right to live with dignity” should take priority over and preference to the “Right to die with dignity”, both of which are inalienable rights that can be exercised by an individual and enforceable against the State.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the right of the individual to “die with dignity” takes precedence over the interest of the State in preserving the sanctity of life. The “sanctity of life” has two basic connects, namely (1) to live life with dignity and (2) to die with dignity. The Supreme Court has further observed that the exercise of these rights has to do with the autonomy of the individual and the right to self-determination.

Now, that being my right – that I can choose to die a dignified life without sufferings under my inalienable right- conversely I can “self-determine” to “Live a Dignified Life” under the “Right to Life with Dignity” both of which can be enforced against the State by an individual. (SEE AT THE POWER OF LAW CONFERRED UPON CITIZENS BY THE CONSTITUTION!) In plain terms, the State has no right to restraint me as I exercise and enjoy these rights, except that the Parliament has the competence to regulate these rights for compelling State interest. Living in fear is not a dignified life, as observed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, and in exercise of my inalienable right to a dignified life, I can choose to bear arms in my person so that I may live without fear, exactly as I choose to die with dignity without undergoing pain or sufferings.

Thus, it is conclusively established that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental and inalienable Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and enforceable against the State. The State acts as a Regulatory or Controlling Authority which has no authority to deny my rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India without a constitutional amendment. The regulatory framework as I understand extends to denial of a licence or even cancellation of an existing one in certain cases in the larger interest of the State or in compelling circumstances.

[Anand]

pkaran,
I agree with you! Unfortunately, the regulatory frame work is fraught with overwhelming "angles" and "lacunas", and so much discretionary powers with the Licensing Authority that it is very difficult to extract this "Right" from the Government so that it does what it is supposed to.

In a some what unconnected issue but to serve as an example, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that in order to open a Bank account Aadhar is not necessary, but if you go to any bank and try it (as my father did recently), citing the Reserve Bank Rules/Instructions/Orders/Circular or some such, they will deny you opening an account without Aadhar. So how has the verdict helped the common man?(Unless you go to Court to show the RBI is in contempt of Court)

So on paper, whether its a Supreme Court Ruling or in the Indian Constitution itself, so long as it is being enforced/executed by people who are themselves unaware or prejudiced or don't care, what can you do.

[pkaran]

Hi Anand,
Greetings!

Recently, I won a court order after scouting for about 8 months and spending more than the money involved in the case. It was an issue of prestige for me to have won it. But, even after the court order, the guy in question has not respected the rule of law and paid me up. These are scoundrels to whose level we cannot scoop. The problem is only with those law-abiding citizens such as ourselves. A close relation of mine is a politician and very close to Chennithala (the oppo leader) and a few calls by some rouge elements with party cadres would have extracted the money from him but still I have not resorted to it for the fact that I hate two things namely, politics and religion. People holding power and responsible for licensing do not understand that the very reason why illegal market thrives in India is due to the stringent licensing regime. I have done a detailed analysis of the crime statistics which clearly shows that licensed guns are actually controlling crimes in states where they are issued in sufficient number. You will find this analysis and findings in one of my posts on this forum. Alternatively, please visit my FB page where I have posted a copy. Here is the link: https://deleted... Do stay in touch. Regards,

[Anand]

Hi again pkaran,
I appreciate your faith in our Judiciary. I also think all legal options must be exhausted before any "alternatives" are engaged, and I believe you are doing the right thing. As for the "regime" I believe that they are fully aware that the statistics are in favour of licensed guns, but they will not do anything that will change the balance of power in favor of the people.

This is because of a mentality that they have, "Govt.vs the people", or "us vs. them". They behave as if we are different entities. How do you convince the Govt. that the vast majority of Indians are very patriotic, and the licensees are by and large more law abiding than the average person, that we are with them and will support them, if and when the time comes.

Regards,
Anand

[goodboy_mentor]

A five member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India has recently held that the “Right to die with dignity” is an inalienable part of the “Right to Life with dignity” guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Yes it makes sense, dying at the hands of criminal like a sheep is not a death with dignity. On the other hand dying like a soldier, fighting the criminal is a death with dignity. Can you please mention the name of the judgment, it's writ number, year etc. so that I may pull the judgment directly from Supreme Court's website.

In civil case, you do not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt like in criminal cases. You have to prove by preponderance of evidence in your favor. It means you have to gather maximum points/ evidence that proves your case. Have mentioned a few more points in another thread, you may click here to read more.

Unfortunately, the regulatory frame work is fraught with overwhelming "angles" and "lacunas", and so much discretionary powers with the Licensing Authority that it is very difficult to extract this "Right" from the Government so that it does what it is supposed to.
[..................]
So on paper, whether its a Supreme Court Ruling or in the Indian Constitution itself, so long as it is being enforced/executed by people who are themselves unaware or prejudiced or don't care, what can you do.

If you read click here I am unable to find any Parliamentary jurisdiction to reduce private/ non commercial aspect of a right to licensing. If someone can mention the specific Article of the Constitution, that delegates to the Parliament, legislative power to reduce a private/ non commercial aspect of a right to taxation by licensing, it will be great thing to know.

Please note, the reasonable restrictions are different from licensing in Arms Act 1959. Reasonable restrictions on right to keep and bear arms are already there in the form of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959. Parliament is competent to enact reasonable restrictions for compelling State interest. Nobody is disputing or raising controversy about reasonable restrictions.

The controversy or objection is against licensing. Just like, Sections 5(2), 10(1)(a) of Arms Act 1959 clearly say that (due to the Constitutional barriers in Part III)State is incompetent to bring under licensing of non commercial aspects related to right to keep and bear arms, similarly there exists similar clause in Section 3 of Arms Act 1959, but since the parliament did not apply it's mind properly while enacting Section 3 of Arms Act 1959, it is not explicitly mentioned. It is embedded in Section 3 of Arms Act 1959. It is the duty of Constitutional Courts to read into Section 3 of Arms Act 1959 and read out that just like, Sections 5(2), 10(1)(a) of Arms Act 1959 say that State is incompetent to bring under licensing of non commercial aspects related to right to keep and bear arms, similarly the Section 3 of Arms Act 1959 also says the same thing.

I hate two things namely, politics and religion.

While I won't comment on religion but politics is such a thing or rather a disease, if you don't control it, it will finally control you. So merely hating it is not an option, at least as a responsible citizen. Present condition of Arms Act 1959, it's implementation, it's interpretation and lack of respect for RKBA, is also due to the fact that citizens did not care to know or participate in politics, and what is going on in politics related to this matter. Now we all know what is going on, and precisely for this very reason you are also posting in this forum.

This is because of a mentality that they have, "Govt.vs the people", or "us vs. them". They behave as if we are different entities.

For understanding this, one needs to read authentic(the word authentic is very important), history of the Indian sub continent. While reading history, one also needs to read between the lines as well as behind the lines. If you can provide the correct answer to one question, it would mean you have understood the authentic history of the Indian sub continent. What is the question? The question is, the Government of India Act 1935 enacted by the British, was opposed by the self declared "secular" as well as self declared "nationalistic" politicians before 1947, but became so favorite after 1947, most of the Indian Constitution is just a copy paste job lifted from Government of India Act 1935. Why? Was the opposition to the Government of India Act 1935, the apparent "freedom struggle", a mock fight to bluff the people? BTW, the the political parties a, b, or c claiming to be secular, nationalist or honestly against corruption etc. are irrelevant. They are all doing mock fighting to bluff the common people, "the Great Game" played by them continues in the same direction.

If you carefully listen to the following video of Dr. Garga Chatterjee completely till the end, probably you will get the answer to the question, who is the ruling elite and why the ruling elite is against RKBA. After a few seconds in Tamil in the beginning of the video, this video is in English, therefore everyone will be able to understand. Also if one searches for "Dr. Garga Chatterjee" on internet or YouTube, will find more about his ideas, which very accurately and incisively dissect many things happening in the country and why they are happening the way they are happening.

[ankur_ank]

A five member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India has recently held that the “Right to die with dignity” is an inalienable part of the “Right to Life with dignity” guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Yes it makes sense, dying at the hands of criminal like a sheep is not a death with dignity. On the other hand dying like a soldier, fighting the criminal is a death with dignity. Can you please mention the name of the judgment, it's writ number, year etc. so that I may pull the judgment directly from Supreme Court's website.

]

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India – (2014) 5 SCC 338 [Euthanasia reference to Constitution Bench

[Jr.]

Got an interesting write-up,
I am just forwarding this, can't assure authenticity.
Written by an American - I presume.
I have not edited, any part of it.
The font is in bold, at places.
I have not touched/rectified it.

Regards,
Jr.

After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River. Remember, we had a 2 million man army and war ships in other localities, so why did they not invade?
After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer - they know that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them.
1. The world's largest army - America 's Hunters! I had never thought about this.
2. A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
3. There were over 6,00,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .
4. Allow me to restate that number.
5. Over the last several months, Wisconsin ’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
6. More men under arms than in Iran .
7. More than in France and Germany combined.
8. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
9. That number pales in comparison to the 7,50,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 7,00,000 hunters.
10. All of whom have now returned home.
11. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that
12. The hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. The number of Hunters in the state of Texas would be the largest standing army in the world by it's self.
13. The point?
14. America will forever be safe from foreign & ( domestic ) invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
15. Hunting - it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.
16. That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
17. Food for thought when next we consider gun control.

Why Carry a Gun?

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

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.

My old Grandpa said to me, 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take a whoopin'.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people; I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil; I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the World.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government; I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry; I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone; I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man; I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate; I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it; I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron: Free citizens must protect themselves because police do not protect you from crime; they just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take a whoopin'!
-----------------------

A Little Gun History

In 1911, Turkey established gun control:

· From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control:

· From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------

In 1938 Germany established gun control:

. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------

China established gun control in 1935:

. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956:

. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964:

From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970:

From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------

56 million defenceless people were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.
-----------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

*Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect ONLY the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'; without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Gun owners in the USA are the largest armed forces in the World!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense.

The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.

· SWITZERLAND ISSUES A GUN TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND TRAINS EVERY ADULT IN THE USE OF A RIFLE.

· SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

· IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward this. If you're not a believer, please reconsider the true facts. This is history; and if we do not want history to repeat itself, we must wake up.

[sourabhsangale]

All is this ok . But weapons are not allowed under fundamental rights ,And should not be also in india as they can be miss used in many ways .
It should be only available to people who have pure knowledge of weapon and people you really need it.

Sorry to say this but in india it is only for niche and elite people and those who can afford it .

[timmy]

I note that the law is legal, but it is not necessarily moral. A fundamental right is something that all have, even if some law does not spell out the right clearly. Don't forget that, in human history, it has only been relatively recently that people deciding what sort of government they should have was recognized as a right. Is this a new invention? No, I think that this has always been a fundamental right.

There is no doubt that weapons can be misused -- weapons of any kind. But it's also true that automobiles can be misused, and that they kill many people. Factories and all sorts of other kinds of machinery can be misused, too, which result in many deaths that people seldom think about. Have you seen the pictures of Delhi air lately?



So, who has pure knowledge of an automobile? Many people who could not tell you the first thing about how an automobile operates drive them quite successfully, every day.

Who decides who really needs to carry a firearm? I am not willing to have some government functionary do that for society. I submit that the niche and elite people have it because they are able to pull strings to get firearms, not because they need them or know anything about them. The person who decides to own a firearm and who decides to carry it is the best person to make such a decision, unless it can be proven otherwise in each individual case.

[sourabhsangale]

You are completely right brother. But as of in india government is decided who can have a weapon and who cannot.
They see it as a medium of killing innocent people rather than protecting them .even though the medium mentioned above kill more people daily in thousands ,but if done with a weapon will become the topic of national debate.
The rich have money and are able to pull strings is a harsh reality in our country, a common man even if he needs a gun is so afraid of the process plus curroption on top of that due to which he looses hope of owning a firearm

[timmy]

Yes, brother, I hear you. I think that, over the next 20 years or so, things may be more like that here, as well.

Anyway, my point was, having weapons is, I believe, a fundamental right -- the ability to protect one's self and family is a fundamental right, just like the rest of religion, speech, equality, etc.

Whether it is written down is not the point, because the law doesn't determine what's right and wrong -- the law should reflect what is known as right and wrong already.

[sourabhsangale]

Yes sir , hope things change in india and we get good freedom in weapons like US .

We can surely protect our selfs ,but in governments view do it with hands , sticks, and other means.
No way gun is allowed this very wrong as they are trying to force things on us .

Still there is a big milestone achievement in current year as private players have got permission to manufacture weapons in india .

Lets see better future for our country.

[pistolero]

RKBA is a sore topic, the colonial powers, left future governments with a very effective tool, which will not be given up. Its only been made worse.

Your down to 2, from 3 Arms, Im ok with that even, but increase the number of licenses, make licensing easier for women. Grassroot training to handle arms.

But all this is sadly a academic discussion. Licensing will continue to be a privilege and not a right.

[sourabhsangale]

That is very sad ,decrease in the no of arms from 3 to 2 which was useless move by current government.
As of now only privileged and elite can own arms in india .
And I don’t see any hope of changing it in future.

On the contrary i think license will be made more strict as compared to today situation in 2020.

One if really want to own a firearm must have only thing in mind to fight till end in high court or pay huge amount of money to police or the minister in appeal .

[kartikharit]

Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee proposed Right to bear Arms as fundamental right to the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India and was supported by many, but due to the influence of "Ahimsavadi" Socialists, our sacred right to bear arms never became our fundamental right. We gotta fight for it!