• Advertisement
Kiehberg.in -  Outdoor gear and sports equipment

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right

Discussions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
pkaran
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:55 pm

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right

Postby pkaran » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:26 pm

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.



For Advertising mail webmaster
Anand
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:29 am
Location: Hyderabad

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right

Postby Anand » Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:12 pm

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
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:55 pm

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right

Postby pkaran » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:25 pm

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://www.facebook.com/mastermindsme. Do stay in touch. Regards,



Anand
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:29 am
Location: Hyderabad

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right

Postby Anand » Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:06 pm

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
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Fundamental Right

Postby goodboy_mentor » Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:00 pm

pkaran wrote: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.
Anand wrote: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.
pkaran wrote: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.
Anand wrote: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 styled secular as well as 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? 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 "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. If one searches for "Dr. Garga Chatterjee" on internet or YouTube, will find more about his ideas, which very incisively dissect many things happening in the country and why they are happening the way they are happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KR8d82TTOw


"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992


Return to “RKBA”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests