Laws for crime without any victim, what are they legally called?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 October 2010
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts,
There are laws for crime without any victim. Example of one such law Arms Act 1959, if a person is found with a firearm without a license, he is send to jail even though he has kept firearm only for his self defense.
1)What are such laws legally called?
2)What is the justification or logic behind such laws?
3)What does our Constitution say about such laws or is it silent on this matter?
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 08 October 2010
At best such laws can be termed as "Regulatory Laws" as they regulate the subject, in the instant case the Arms.
The logic is, in the wisdom of the legislature, the subject has to be regulated in the interest of the public and the state.
Once the legislature has the competence to legislate, that is the power derived from the constitution. As such, it cannot be said that the Constitution is silent on such matters.
pawan sharma
(Expert) 08 October 2010
it is in the public policy .
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 October 2010
Thank you Mr. R. Ramachandran for giving specific reply to my specific query.
Mr. Pawan Sharma, I was expecting a specific answer to my specific questions not a generic response. Anyways thanks for answering my query.
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 08 October 2010
THESE TYPE OF LAWS ARE FORMED FOR TAKING REVENGE BY POLITICIANS/POLICE/JUDGES FROM THEIR RIVALS.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 October 2010
Ha Ha Ha Mr. Ajay Bansal you have said the truth, you are absolutely right! One of my friends was taking with a policeman, he was telling him that police was the biggest purchaser of illegal country-made arms, to be used for "law & order" purposes. I think you can understand, why police "recovers" so many country made arms, false cases by planting these arms. Arms Act 1878 was created as a political tool by British to subjugate Indians after 1857. Though the one of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 states "that weapons for self-defence are available for ALL CITIZENS under license UNLESS their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege;" still there is a jail term for the law abiding citizen if keeps arms for self defense. While browsing this site I also came across interesting opinion at http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/profile.asp?member_id=85234
s.subramanian
(Expert) 09 October 2010
Yes. I agree with you Mr.Anonymous fully.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2010
Thank you Experts for your opinion, my query is resolved.
aman kumar
(Expert) 12 October 2010
i want to say something mr anonymous . dont. thing negative for police if everyone hold gun like AK- 47 ,what is the results ? some think that may be harmful for society come under licence policy , its delegated legislation for safeguard of civil society.can you claim to atomic reactor or RDX for self defense or battle tank .
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2010
Mr. Aman Kumar my query is not based on emotions or personal perceptions or biases. I wanted a reply based on logic and reasoning without personal perceptions, prejudices and biases, which has been adequately answered by Ld. Experts. Your opinion "don't. think negative for police if everyone hold gun like AK- 47 ,what is the results ?" is not based on logic or facts. It is a fact, even today Coorgs in Karnataka are exempt from provisions of licensing of Arms Act 1959, almost every house in Coorg district of Karnataka has firearms. Blood is not flowing on the streets of Coorg as imagined by you. On the contrary, criminals fear from committing crimes. Crimes are committed when there is imbalance of power. I am attaching the notification of MHA for you. Before independence Rajputana states were fully exempt from arms act, people were able to keep arms, that was not causing any extraodinary crime or bloodshed. Arms Act 1878 was started by British not with a purpose of controlling crime, but with purpose to prevent another 1857. Arms Act 1959 is almost a repainted version of Arms Act 1878.
Arms Act or no Arms Act, criminals by their very nature of business will always keep arms. On the other hand it is of no consolation to victims of crime that they have been assaulted with illegal arms. Is it of any consolation to victims of 26/11 that they were not able to defend themselves due to Arms Act and/or were assaulted by illegal arms by terrorists? Or the terrorists by any way were hindered by Arms Act? On the contrary Arms Act helped the terrorists making their work easier to a great extent, by providing supply of defenseless victims.
A qualified U.S. citizen may purchase nearly any type of firearm, including fully automatic, artillery to any size, armored vehicles, suppressors etc. Federal law allows for this, although some individual States may have additional regulations. Full auto, and artillery require additional paperwork, but no license or permit. THIS IS NOT RESULTING IN ANY WIDESPREAD MAYHEM AS FEARED BY YOUR IMAGINATION. Your assertion about nuclear reactors is first of all baseless, and not at all related to this query. Moreover private companies are allowed to manufacture, own and run nuclear reactors in USA. It is not causing any imaginary scene of death and destruction that you might have conjured up in your mind. On the contrary the State owned Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Russia did cause real death and destruction as feared by you.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 October 2010
Thank you Experts, my query has been answered to my satisfaction, hence setting this query to resolved.
