Re: WANT A RALLY FOR GUN RIGHTS!
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:23 pm
![I agree :agree:](./images/smilies/icon_i_agree.gif)
India's largest guns, shooting & outdoors community!
https://indiansforguns.com/
Ok I can't disagree on that as wellgoodboy_mentor wrote:Did you have a word with office bearers of NAGRI to discuss what is their action plan to go ahead for RKBA?
It is my personal opinion that instead of doing rallies and making noise, we need to first have a solid ground to justify RKBA. Therefore it is better to approach Supreme Court first. Once Supreme Court utters that RKBA is guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21, the movement will have a solid reason and force to move ahead. In my opinion(subject to correction) the entire Arms Act 1959, Arms Rules 1962, notifications etc. needs to be put under the test of doctrine of strict scrutiny by court. I have tried to explain concept of strict scrutiny at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 1&start=15
So long the things are done wisely that is fine. But for some reason, I do not know why I feel that we need to approach the Supreme Court with a watertight case first.I agree with you about going to the Supreme Court, but not as the first step.
As I said earlier there is a pathetic lack of awareness among the legal fraternity about the fact that RKBA is guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution. Till now I have found only one lawyer who was aware that RKBA is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21. When told that RKBA is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21, it was a matter of surprise or rather shock to most of the lawyers. I do not think experience will be much different when interviewing judges of High Courts or Supreme Court. Unless we apprise them of the facts, most probably it will be like asking five blind men to describe the appearance of an elephant.if possible interview a couple of high court judges and supreme court judges to see what their point of view is
Do we need to approach on basis of response of judges in interview or we need to approach Supreme Court on basis of the fact that RKBA is guaranteed under Article 19 and 21? I would rather prefer to approach Supreme Court on basis of the fact that RKBA is guaranteed under Article 19 and 21.and then accordingly approach the supreme court..
Nothing do be disheartened, I feel NAGRI has got a good response out of around 5000 people. Does anyone have idea how much response India Against Corruption got in the beginning out of 50,000 people? Only thirteen people. I quote the relevant part of interview published at http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2412658.ece below:The point is how many people in India know about us.. I am guessing not many, we need to also figure out how much support we can get…
How did you communicate your message to such a large number of people?
Technology played a key role in this. When in January this year, India Against Corruption (IAC) member Shivendra suggested to us that we use Facebook to publicise our rallies, I dismissed it saying Facebook has a limited, urban following. But Shivendra went ahead. We had planned a single rally on January 30 at the Ramlila Maidan. But because we connected on Facebook, we were able to conduct simultaneous rallies in 64 cities. SMS texting also played a critical role. Our SMS communication was designed very intelligently. A company in Mumbai suggested we ask for missed calls as a mark of solidarity. Missed calls cost nothing. In March, we sent out two crore SMS messages and got 50,000 missed calls. Then we targeted the 50,000 callers, asking if they would like to enrol as volunteers for IAC. Initially 13 people responded. We sent two more rounds of messages to the 50,000 callers. And in just one week, the number of volunteers swelled to 800.
So how is the experience with Supreme court going to be different than the elephant description of seemingly blind high court and colleagues in legal fraternity?goodboy_mentor wrote:As I said earlier there is a pathetic lack of awareness among the legal fraternity about the fact that RKBA is guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution. Till now I have found only one lawyer who was aware that RKBA is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21. When told that RKBA is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21, it was a matter of surprise or rather shock to most of the lawyers. I do not think experience will be much different when interviewing judges of High Courts or Supreme Court. Unless we apprise them of the facts, most probably it will be like asking five blind men to describe the appearance of an elephant.
You misunderstood me and sorry for not being clear, what I meant by that was to get a physiological profile i.e. find out what their belief system is and their thought process is and accordingly build your arguments in conjunction with the finer points of the relevant law.. as in my opinion that will be much more affectivegoodboy_mentor wrote:Do we need to approach on basis of response of judges in interview or we need to approach Supreme Court on basis of the fact that RKBA is guaranteed under Article 19 and 21? I would rather prefer to approach Supreme Court on basis of the fact that RKBA is guaranteed under Article 19 and 21.and then accordingly approach the supreme court..
Very good question, make the lawyers read something like in the following link and ask them, where is the mistake in the interpretation? http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/R ... -36011.asp Once we know what the mistakes are or the mistakes as per their perception are, the matter can be further improved and refined. The aim should be to:So how is the experience with Supreme court going to be different than the elephant description of seemingly blind high court and colleagues in legal fraternity?
First of all it needs to be understood that there is no "ban" on import of firearms. The Section 5 of the The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to announce the Foreign Trade Policy. The firearms have been put in restricted list of EXIM Policy.i am beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel. now, is there any hope to argue legally to revoke the the ban on imports ( strictly within the provision of the arms act, minus the the ban on imports).
You are very much correct, I agree. Sorry for not been able to understand your point.You misunderstood me and sorry for not being clear, what I meant by that was to get a physiological profile i.e. find out what their belief system is and their thought process is and accordingly build your arguments in conjunction with the finer points of the relevant law.. as in my opinion that will be much more affective