AWB vs. religious freedom

[kwguy]

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/sikh-man-cites-religion-lawsuit-against-gun-contro/

A Sikh man is suing the state of California over its gun laws, arguing they violate his First Amendment rights to practice his religion by barring him from carrying the kind of weapons he says he needs for self-defense.

Gursant Singh Khalsa, a practicing Sikh for 35 years, charges in the lawsuit filed this month that California’s laws banning military-style, semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines violate mainstream Sikh doctinre requiring Sikhs “be at all time fully prepared to defend themselves and others against injustice.”

“We’re required to wear what’s called a kirpan” or dagger, he said Thursday. “I feel, as far as my religion goes, it dictates that we should have all weapons of all kinds to defend ourselves. By not being able to carry an assault rifle or weapon that has a high-capacity magazine, I don’t feel that I can defend myself or my family.”

 

[tyeo098]

Best of luck to him.
Its more common to carry a ceremonial dagger... not sure if they can try to expand that to guns, much less AR's.

 

[Zoogster]

This is what I thought of when I saw a closed thread on firearm rights as religion awhile ago.

Sikhs carry a dagger. That dagger was intended to serve the role of a sidearm before firearm sidearms existed. It was not merely symbolic, it was as an effective weapon. A modern version of that dagger would certainly be a pistol.
I would venture Sikhs didn't advance beyond a dagger because most in the religion are based in nations that wouldn't have let them modernize to firearms, and it would have likely been cost prohibitive to adhere to especially in the third world.
As a result what was a real requirement to carry an effective sidearm for self defense became more of a ceramonial thing that lost its true purpose. So what would have become a firearm instead remained an outdated out of place dagger.



Clearly the purpose of the Kirpan was as a weapon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

In light of New York's restrictive gun laws, you must find this entertaining:

Courts in New York and Ohio have ruled that banning the wearing of a kirpan is unconstitutional.[15] In New York City, a compromise was reached with the Board of Education whereby the wearing of the knives was allowed so long as they were secured within the sheaths with adhesives and made impossible to draw.

Maybe you can carry a gun as long as it is unloaded and glued into its holster in a manner you could never remove it. Lol. The whole purpose of the Kirpan in the religion is clearly destroyed by such a restriction. Which is as a lethal defensive arm.

 

[loose noose]

Thank God for the Sikh that is filing a superfluous suit in California in protest of the oppressive firearms regulations, after all the anti-gun legislatures in California will have to spend some money in refuting the suit. Which in turn would lessen the amount of money they would have to fight a legitimate suit.

 

[joeschmoe]

The minimum they are required to have is a dagger. They also wear swords and carry spears to worship and keep rifles in a place of honor in their homes. It is not symbolic. They actively train in their use and consider themselves to be warriors for justice. The fact that they are also known to be very peaceful people is due to restraint, not for a lack of ability. That is the point. That is their religious belief.

The gunman who shot up the Sihk temple is proof that the subject in the OP does need a modern full capacity AR/AK. Not some neutered hunting toy.

 

[SabbathWolf]

I don't think it's a good idea to drag religion into gun rights debates.
If American supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood start screaming about how they need "assault rifles," it would turn into a media nightmare right quick I think.

 

[Hacker15E]

I don't think it's a good idea to drag religion into gun rights debates.
If American supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood start screaming about how they need "assault rifles," it would turn into a media nightmare right quick I think.

If they are US citizens living in the US, and not otherwise prohibited from owning firearms, then the Muslim Brotherhood can have all the "assault rifles" they please.

 

[SabbathWolf]

If they are US citizens living in the US, and not otherwise prohibited from owning firearms, then the Muslim Brotherhood can have all the "assault rifles" they please.

I agree, but that wasn't my point.

 

[zorro45]

idea

This will inspire me to reach out to some Sikhs at work and see if they want to go shooting! Also, not to mess with them in any way.

 

[Cosmoline]

He's going to have a tough time getting anyone in Sikh leadership to back him, I suspect. From what I've read that rule was originally for real self defense. But over time due to political pressure in India and the west, the Sikhs have been arguing the Kirpan is mere symbol. A tiny dull blade. And they've gone to great lengths to distance themselves from any notion of a right to armed self defense. It's foolish esp. considering how often they get attacked around the world. All hands are against them in the hot bed of sectarian tensions between Muslim and Hindu. And jokers stateside have been known to attack them for their turbans.

The matter came to a tragic head in the mass shooting at their temple, where the President of the temple tried to stop the attacker with a sadly ineffective ceremonial kirpan.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...dent-tried-to-stop-gunman/UPI-20141344324600/

 

[Zoogster]

SabbathWolf said:

I agree, but that wasn't my point.

I actually agree that it is not a good idea.
Especially with Sikhs.

Lets be real here, there is a lot of association in America with Muslims and terrorism and a total foreigner perception.
Sikhs dress in the way that is the most stereotypical foreign fashion which the average American associates with being Muslim. Turbans, beards, more middle eastern garb. That they are not Muslims, or that there is plenty of good American Muslims is besides the point.
They are about the epitome of a Muslim stereotype in appearance, and clearly foreign in looks and culture.

As a result a backlash is certainly going to be the perception of these foreigners or even 'terrorists' fighting for thier gun rights in America to the average ignorant individual.
That is not going to be a positive for firearm rights.
Court decisions are also less likely to go in thier favor. The courts most favorable to catering to foriegn beliefs or values are the more progressive parts of the country, which also tend to be the more anti-gun parts of the country.
They might decide positively for a little dagger, but modern firearms when they are actively working to curtail thier ownership among other citizens? Not likely.

 

[SabbathWolf]

SabbathWolf said:


I actually agree that it is not a good idea.
Especially with Sikhs.

Lets be real here, there is a lot of association in America with Muslims and terrorism and a total foreigner perception.
Sikhs dress in the way that is the most stereotypical foreign fashion which the average American associates with being Muslim. Turbans, beards, more middle eastern garb. That they are not Muslims, or that there is plenty of good American Muslims is besides the point.
They are about the epitome of a Muslim stereotype in appearance, and clearly foreign in looks and culture.

As a result a backlash is certainly going to be the perception of these foreigners or even 'terrorists' fighting for thier gun rights in America to the average ignorant individual.
That is not going to be a positive for firearm rights.
Court decisions are also less likely to go in thier favor. The courts most favorable to catering to foriegn beliefs or values are the more progressive parts of the country, which also tend to be the more anti-gun parts of the country.
They might decide positively for a little dagger, but modern firearms when they are actively working to curtail thier ownership among other citizens? Not likely.

Excellent post.
Yep. That's what I was trying to drive at.

Standing up for your gun rights as an individual is one thing.
But doing so while associating yourself with a group that both the Left and Right as well, in some cases, already perceive as a threat is just not a good plan.

I can just see the hysterical headlines now.....

"Religious fanatic suicide bombers demand gun rights in America"



Leave religion out of this.....lol

 

[Frank Ettin]

It looks like it will be impossible to keep religion out of it.