Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act empower officers to summon person, ask questions from persons summoned and record their statement. These statements are legally admissible as evidence in various judicial and quasi-judicial proceeding. Further the persons summoned are legally required to state the truth. These Sections imposes legal duties on the persons summoned, and have wide ranging legal implications, the authors are of the view that the persons summoned under these sections must have a right to consult a legal practitioners of choice at the time of recording of these statements. However the settled position of law is against the view of the authors.

The Supreme Court held that the person being interrogated under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act or under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not an accused nor can he plead that there is a possibility of being made an accused in future. Hence, he has no right to ask for his advocate presence during enquiry. This judgment of the 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court is holding the field since long and has been approved by the highest judiciary umpteen numbers of times. In Prakash Kumar v. Union of India, where it was pleaded before the Kerala High Court that persons summoned apprehending third degree methods from Excise Officers and prayed for presence of legal practitioner during his interrogation, the Court held that protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India not available to investigation under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as summoned person is neither an accused nor the officer taking the statement is a police officer.

When we read these judgments, we find that these judgments need to be reviewed. These judgments are logically inconsistent, based on incorrect application of law and legally untenable. This paper is an humble attempt to bring these infirmities in light so that these infirmities can be rectified at the earliest opportunity.

Section 14 of the Central Excise Act reads as,

SECTION 14. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in inquiries under this Act. –

(1) Any Central Excise Officer duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf, shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making for any of the purposes of this Act. A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned.

(2) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend, either in person or by an authorised agent, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and to produce such documents and other things as may be required:

Provided that the exemptions under sections 132 and 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall be applicable to requisitions for attendance under this section.

(3) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceeding” within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).

Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that,

SECTION 108. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. –

(1) Any gazetted officer of customs shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry, which such officer is making in connection with the smuggling of any goods.

(2) A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned.

(3) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by an authorised agent, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required:

Provided that the exemption under section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall be applicable to any requisition for attendance under this section.

(4) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).

A cursory view of these Sections brings these propositions of law into notice:

(i). They are applicable only when an enquiry is in progress. Thus it is clear that an investigation is going on.

(ii). These sections do not impose any restrictions on the persons summoned not to consult an advocate during recording of statements.

(iii). These are Judicial Proceeding for limited purposes of section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Even without these expressed provisions, these proceedings are quasi-judicial proceeding in toto, as held by higher judiciary.

In poolpandi (supra) the Courts have held that protection of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is available only to “persons who is arrested”. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India reads as,

“No person who is arrested…………………….nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”

The article is very clear- it refers to persons who are arrested. It gives a fundamental right to every arrested person to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

However, does it mean that a person who is not arrested has no right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice?

Right to consult a legal practitioner is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21:

The right for other classes of persons, not included in Article 22(1) is in any case included in Article 21 of the Constitution. The author is of the opinion that a right to consult an advocate doesn’t emanate from the fact that a person is arrested or an accused or likely to be made one in future. Right to consult an advocate is not limited only to persons covered under Article 22 of the Constitution. Every person, whether an accused or not, whether an suspect or not has a right to consult a legal practitioner at any point to time when he feels that his right is being violated or likely to be violated. The right is as fundamental as Right to life itself. Thus, if, for example, a person is being abused by the interrogating officer, during an enquiry under Customs or Central Excise Act, he has every right to consult an advocate, then and there. And we have a chequered history of investigation- hundreds of custodial deaths every year, forced confessions, third degree tortures- read a newspaper of any day and you will agree with us. It cannot be argued that the person being interrogated listen to the abuses till the time enquiry proceeds and only after that he can consult an advocate.

A right cannot exist, without a procedure to enforce that right. Right to consult a legal practitioner is a sine qua non for existence of any right, for without such consultation every right of the persons being interrogated is in danger. Even when such danger is not actual, and merely a perceived one, then also such a right is a necessity.

Article 22(1) cannot be interpreted to mean that a person not arrested has no right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice. In fact right to consult a legal practitioner of choice is implicit in liberty clause of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Liberty cannot be interpreted to mean only physical movement- it includes movement of thoughts, movement of ideas, exchange of ideas. Article 22(1) has been incorporated in the Constitution to protect this valuable right in a particular circumstance when there is a real danger of violation of such right. The wordings, thus is to protect a special class of people and not to exclude the other class.  It is obvious that all free persons can consult a lawyer just like they can consult a doctor, a therapist or physicist.  There need be no law granting them the privilege.  Such protection is needed to be put in words only in cases where the protection may otherwise not be assumed.

To reiterate, to state, that Article 22(1) are inclusive clauses and not exclusive.  They include the accused and a prisoner in the ambit of its immunity and does not mean to exclude a person not accused or not arrested. In fact, Article 22(1) is a declaratory law providing for the right to consult a lawyer even when a person is accused or arrested or denied his liberty. Thus even a person whose liberty has been legally curtailed (persons arrested) has a liberty to consult a legal practitioners of his choice, can it mean that a person whose liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution has no liberty to consult a legal practitioner? This declaration in the Constitution does not mean that person does not have the right to consult a lawyer unless he is accused but only provides that even an accused has a right to consult his lawyer.

It may be noted that free legal aid to the poor persons has been recognized as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Can it mean denial of right to consult a legal practitioner to those who can afford legal services!

It may be noted that the Supreme Court has held any number of times that Fundamental Rights of the Constitution cannot be interpreted in a restrictive manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Maneka Ghandhi,

“The attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the Fundamental rights rather than to attenuate their meaning and content by a process of judicial interpretation.”

Bhagawati, Justice observed,

“It must be remembered that Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantee given to the people of India and are not merely paper hopes or fleeting promises and so long as they find a place in the Constitution, they shouldn’t be allowed to be emasculated in their application by a narrow or constricted judicial interpretation.”

In view of these we are of the opinion that right to consult a legal practitioner is implicit in the right to life enshrined in the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Even when such right is not included in Article 21, then also it cannot be denied at the time of investigation:

Even if it is argued that right to consult a lawyer is not included in Article 21, then also such right cannot be denied to free persons. At the most it can be argued that it is not a “Fundamental Right”. It can never be argued that a person has no rights except for fundamental rights given in part-III of the Constitution. There are thousands of rights a person enjoys, which are not fundamental rights. A person has a right to do anything unless expressly prohibited by law to do so.

Libertas est naturalis facultas ejus quod cuique facere libet, nisi qudo de jure aut vi prohibeteur, i.e. “Liberty is that natural faculty which permits everyone to do anything he pleases except that which is restrained by law.” It is a fundamental principle of common law on which our jurisprudence is based on.

For something to be permissive, a law need not have a declaration regarding it.  Just like, for a person to be able to eat, it need not be written in any Constitution or any statute.  It is only when something is prohibited or something is expressly given out as a privilege does the law need to be worded so to remove any discrepancy.  However, when some act is ordinarily permitted then there need not be some law expressly granting it.  Thus is the case for right to consult a lawyer. No law in the country puts any prohibition on any person against his right to consult his lawyer. Nothing in any law says that a person does not have a right to consult a lawyer. There is nothing in Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, or in Section 108 of the Customs Act, which prohibits consultation with a lawyer. Hence, it follows that a person can consult a legal practitioner at any time.  This thus also implies that he has a right to consult a lawyer when he is brought in for investigative enquiries.

The laws of United States, Bill of Rights of which have set the trend for Fundamental Rights in Indian Constitution, go a step further.  While asserting that a person has a right to consult a lawyer, the American laws also provide that such consultation of a lawyer is confidential.  Even an accused or a person imprisoned can seek private consultation with his lawyer.  This thus shows that the American courts have been viewing the right to consult a lawyer with utmost sincerity.  The right to consult an attorney in private has deep roots in Anglo-American law.  Indeed, it was held, “the attorney-client privilege under federal law [is] the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.”  The right is not limited to those facing criminal prosecution; it applies to all sorts of legal counseling.  Here when it is provided that attorney-client privilege is the oldest privilege in common law it does not mean that the communication is privileged only when some common law provisions are violated.  A person has a right to a lawyer even when he seeks consultation under circumstances too without any legal battle looming ahead.

If such a rights is not there, it ought to be there:

Let us take, for argument sake that such a right to consult a legal practitioner is not there in the Indian law. Then also the authors are of the view that it ought to be there, legally recognized and piously protected.

When the law itself declares investigations to be a legal proceeding resulting into legal duties and liabilities, having wide ranging legal remifications, denial of a right to consult a legal practitioner smacks of totalitarianism. If it is there, it is denial of Rule of Law. You make a law, you imposes legal liabilities on persons and denies those persons a right to know the law by consulting a legal practitioner. Sickening.

Interrogation in our country has a chequered history of custodial violence, extraction of so called voluntary statement, denial of various rights to the accused, suspects and prisoners, recording of false Panchnama and stock witnesses, tempering with evidence by the public authorities, thoroughally corrupt investigative machinery and above all colonial laws to protect these things. In such a situation, denial of right to consult legal practitioners at the time of investigation appears to be an attempt to perpetuate these practices. Justice should not only be done, it should menifestedly seen to have been done. Giving such right to the persons at the time of investigation will be a right step in removing these evils of investigation and at the same time it will be a giant step towards development of some faith in the citizens towards investigative machinery.

Hon’ble Supreme Court said in Nandini Sathpaty v. P L Dani,

“The right against self incrimination is best promoted by conceding to the accused the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice. Reading Article 20(3) and 22(1) together, it would be prudent for the police to permit the advocate of the accused, if there be one, to be present at the time he is examined. If the accused person expressed the wish to have his lawyer by his side when his examination goes on, this facility should not be denied to him.”

Although, in Nandini the Court was involved in the right against self incrimination and hence the court referred to this right in the observation, it is true that all the rights of the accused, or for the matter any person not an accused or a prisoner, is best protected when he has a right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice at any time he wishes.

Although, the right against self-incrimination is beyond the scope of this paper, it is held that a person interrogated under these sections has no right against self-incrimination. Although, it is a settled position of law, the authors differ. The persons recording statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and Under Section 108 of the Customs Act are legally empowered to record evidence, the protection of Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act available to witnesses cannot be denied to the persons summoned.

Logical inconsistency:

When we see various judicial pronouncements concerning the issues as fundamental as definition of accused, or arrested persons or even police officers, we find plethora of judgments, which are diametrically opposite to each other. Right against self-incrimination is available to accused only, but nobody knows when a person becomes accused. When police starts investigation by recording of FIR, the person becomes an accused; but when other agency like Custom or Central Excise or Enforcement Directorate starts investigation he is not an accused. No body knows when a person is said to be under arrest. Nandini (supra) itself referred to “near custodial interrogation”. More than that, no body knows who is a police officer. Naturally we don’t know when protection of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act will be available.

Such inconsistency has come into law because we have tried to interpret the basic pillars of criminal jurisprudence in an artificial manner. A police officer is an officer exercising police power of the state. Law enforcement is a police power of the state. Hence Customs and Excise officers are police officers. A person is an accused when some allegation has been made against him. It is immaterial whether the allegation is in the form of a complaint before a law enforcing authority, or it has been reduced into writing in the form of an FIR or it has been placed before a magistrate. A person is under arrest if his liberty has been curtailed. It is immaterial if the arrest has been made as per the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Authors plead that while interpreting such basic rights of individual, substance of the matter must be considered and not the form of the transaction. These rights are too sacred to be tinkered on the basis of superficial words used.

In view of these, the authors are of the view that necessary changes must be brought in the law, as it is implemented. Presently, off Course, a person cannot claim that he should be interrogated only in presence of a lawyer, but the presence of a lawyer can be allowed by the inquiry officer, if a request is made. However, once a request for presence of a lawyer is made to the inquiry officer, it cannot be rejected arbitrarily or without valid reasons. If any request of presence of a lawyer is arbitrarily rejected, the Courts may draw an adverse inference against the statement recorded in such proceeding.

An enquiry into the obvious:

The right we are looking into this paper is too obvious to be inquired into. No jurisprudence can claim itself to be a civilized jurisprudence, if these rights are denied to individuals.

Some serious thinking is required.

We should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them or shall we endeavour to amend them?

Related items

• Does the Government Advocate Debt Settlement?
• The Most Reliable Injury Lawyers Toronto Can Provide
• Career in Law Part – 2
• Lip Gloss & Law Enforcement: Women In The Criminal Justice Field
• New Greek Law Team for Ince & Co Piraeus Joins on 2 January 2009

Once I have read the article which asked religious scholars of different Muslim sects, how would they define a Muslim? This report has been published and is available. Some of these scholars refused to answer the question saying that they would need a lot of time and pages to answer it. The report said the following about them: “Amongst these scholars even two did not have the same answer.”

You guys don’t have to accept this statement. But you can yourself ask the religious scholars of different Muslim sects the definition of “Muslim” and “Islam”. The replies will themselves convince you of the correctness of the above answer. It is imperative that when we say the Muslims have left Islam, we should establish a definitive concept of Islam. If we don’t, it is meaningless to say that Muslims have left Islam. This is the primary reason that the Muslims all over are unable to adopt Islam in-spite of their agreeing that they are no longer good Muslims. They do not fully comprehend what they have left and what they should do to remedy the situation. We would like to clarify here that every Muslim sect may be able to define “Islam” as their sect considers it to be, but the Islam which should be common to the Muslim Nation and by virtue of which they are known as the Muslim Nation, none will be able to define.

We are sure, at this stage you must be wondering that although this question is of fundamental importance, you have never thought about it. Further, that you are an ordinary person and your knowledge of “Al Deen” (Islam) is limited and therefore you are unable to answer such a question. At the same time you must be wondering what has happened to our religious scholars that even they could not give a unified reply and in spite of it they have been able to keep their position in Muslim Nation. How come they have been able to satisfy the Muslims about Islam? It needs a special efforts and that is creation and use of certain terminology about which the people are convinced, that it is “Holy”. These so called scholars keep these terms a little vague, a clear and concrete concepts attached to these terms are never defined. The reason being is that, mostly it will be their own decision which they have presented in the name of Islam or sometimes it will be the decision of their own sect. Of course the decision of any particular sect cannot be considered as the decision of Islam. They will always keep this aspect vague. Similarly there are terms like “Islam Shariat (Islamic Jurisprudence)” or “Shariat-e-Haqqa (True Jurisprudence)”. Every day one hears statements such as “This is the order of Shariat” or “This decision is as per Shariat” or “This is not allowed by Shariat” etc. etc. You must be assuming these to be decisions as per Islam but actually these are decisions of any one of the sects. Every one of our sects have their own Shariat. The one which you may want to call “Islamic Shariat”, that is, the one which all Muslims as one nation agree to be Islamic, does not exist today.

Another of these terms is the “Sunna of Rasool-Allah (p.b.u.h.)”, which means the way the Last Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) practiced Islam. You must be thinking that this has to be agreed upon by everyone to be the same since the Last Messenger of Allah, whose name was Mohammed (p.b.u.h.). was an individual, lived in this world only once and therefore practiced Islam only once. But it was not so, as a matter of fact each one of the sects have their own “Sunna of Rasool-Allah (p.b.u.h.)”; so much so that the definition of the term “Sunna” is also different among them. Similarly there are many terms in use since centuries which have got similar treatment from these sects. Since politics have become very important in recent times, therefore instead of old terms, which are mostly associated with “Religion”, new terms have been created. One of these terms is “Aqamat-e-Deen”, meaning establishment of Deen. This term has been publicized a lot but nobody, has yet explained what does it mean in definitive words. If the flag bearers of this term explain what do they mean by this term, the religious scholars of the other sects will protest disagreeing with the definition of Deen and cause chaos. Therefore, the promoters of this term consider it in their interest to keep this term vague. Now a days the word “Nizam”, (system) has become more popular in place of “Deen”. Based on it, a term “Islamic Nizam” has been floated. We have already seen that the term “Islam” itself does not carry a definite meaning, therefore the term “Islamic Nizam” has not been explained nor it can be.

The fact is that in modern day politics, creation and adoption of slogans has a purpose of its own. Our religious scholars use similar slogans for their purposes. The idea is to use words that do not carry a clear concept, but which could be made popular easily and thus could be used as a weapon against the opposition. If you ponder on it a little deeply you will realize that these slogans serve the same purpose as was served by the hocus pocus words such as “Abracadabra” in the ancient age of magic. The magical words did not mean anything by themselves but, they were supposed to carry hidden meanings. For example, if you repeat a word so many times, you were told that your enemy will be overpowered or things like that. Just as a slogan looses its charm and magical powers after repeated use, so do the religious terms. The weight and effect previously carried by terms like “Aqamat-e-Deen”, (Establishment of Deen), or “Hakoomat-e-Illahia”, (Government of Allah), or “Islamic Nizam” is not carried by them any more. Therefore there was need for a new term; and that is “Nizam-e-Mustafa (p.b.u.h.)” (System of Mustafa p.b.u.h.)

“A system of virtuous equality…. a political system of security and justice ….an economic system of justice and provision …. a spiritual system of meditation thinking, and remembering Allah …. and a social system of brotherhood”

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Islam: the Most Rapidly Expanding Religion in Europe

Related items

• Islam Is Not A Religion, Islam Is A Cult
• Religion Islam Short Biography
• Islam: the Most Rapidly Expanding Religion in Europe
• Why an Authoritarian Rule is Against Islam?
• The Pacifism of Islam

Renters rights?
what rights do I have if my lnld is selling the house and has not notified me of this situation and came into my apt with giving me false pertents? Should I keep paying the rent or put it in a escrow acct untilI move or it is sold? It depends on the laws of your local.

Rights to a property that has been abandoned by the current owners?
If a property has been left empty for more than 5 years are there any laws or loopholes that can force the owners to sell the property? None that I know of. As long as there aren’t any violations of law. Failure to pay taxes, probably. Just.

Roe Vs Wade / Unborn victims of violence Act?
One states that an unborn baby is not worth anything and can be disposed of without reguard. The other one says that killing an unborn child can be punishable by a (second) charge of murder. Both are laws, but the both clearly contridict eachother. So which is it? If a.

Runaway laws for pennsylvania?
My friend is 17 and she is turning 18 soon. And i want to know if there are any laws in pa about runaways. I know i should tell her not to do it but i have and her parents are horrible so i need to kno the laws. So any help her would be.

Sharia law in Britain?
Is it true that there is going to be a two tier law system in Britain, where muslims will get to have their own courts? And they will live by their own laws, separate from ours? I read it in a paper yesterday (well, saw the headline) but abit dubious since it was the daily.

Shooting On American Campus Kills 31! Should We Outlaw College Students?
Students whether High School or College seem to lead to tragedies. Should we outlaw students? Yes. We need stricter student laws. Many European countries outlaw education and they have lower murder rates. Stop the insanity! – It’s about as intelligent as outlawing guns. – F you. -.

Should America be subject to British laws?
Technically, the UK still owns America. Should we therefore revoke the Colonists independance, and ask for back taxes since 1776? Sure if you want another butt whipping. – Technically the Romans still own the UK. Why not ask them? – Actually they do not own it. any more than Rome owns most.

Should churches lose their tax free status?
for harboring illegal immigrants? No, because it will start a trend of giving the IRS more authority to tax churches, and control them like China does their churches. Secondly, it is against international laws, because in the case of Catholic churches, they are believe it or not enclaves of a foreign government.

Should freedom be conditional?
i understand that your freedom only extends as far as it doesn’t encroach on another’s freedom, but why the laws against drug use and euthenasia? either we do no trust our fellow citizens to be free, or maybe we’re not the freedom loving country we claim to be. is freedom not a birthright? Freedom is.

Should Gun laws be changed to protect our society?
Do you believe that access to guns need to be much more restricted and controlled? Should the permit should be issued by the police only after an interview occurs and the individual passes the following tests: A) The purpose of owning the gun is clearly established by interview by a.

Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
First of all, this guy purchased two 9mm handguns, so only the strictest gun control laws would have prevented him from purchasing them. However, even then he could have purchased them black-market style (marijuana, anyone?) So, if one student in the dorms, or in the classroom had a handgun on his side,.

Should guns be banned in the USA?
You only have to look at countries like Japan who have on average(from memory) 4 shootings and the tightest gun laws in the world. While there are 10,000 shootings a year in America. If u do not agree with the banning of guns then what do you suggest should happen? Yes, there.

Should Kids Be Excused From School For Sports & Other Recreational Activities?
Despite the current laws regarding this matter, do you believe kids should be excused from school for sports or other recreational activites? What are your thoughts and reasons on this matter? I live in Texas and high school sports are a big thing here. As long as.

Should marijuana be legal for medical and personal use (restricted like alcohol and cigarettes)?
In my opinion, in a free country, you can’t have laws designed to protect people from themselves. You can’t have big brother and freedom at the same time. – No. and this is why. I would be OK flying in a plane with a.

Should municipal laws such as street cleaning be changed?
Every now and then I get a traffic ticket for leaving my car parked on the street during those certain street cleaning hours. Well I am not complaining about paying a few bucks in a parking ticket but it seems odd. There’s nothing to clean. It’s as if a giant.

Should the courts have the power to create crimes?
I’m a little confused by your question. Courts don’t create crimes, criminals create crimes. If you mean should laws be passed criminializing acts that were once not considered illegal, then yes, there need to be specific laws to address areas that were overlooked or not foreseen when the original.

Should the Florida Clemency board make it ok for Convicts to vote at all?
Florida Governor Crist sits on the Clemency board and is trying to make it eligible for ex-convicts that served their time to vote in elections. Should they have any rights after breaking laws made by the people they are voting for? That is why they.

Should the government crack down on smoking laws?
Just answer yes or no. It’s for an opinion poll in my government class. Thanks all! your question cannot be answered correctly. you need to re word it. it is confusing should the government enforce anti smoking laws, and create new ones? No if these answers your counting are going to.

Should the laws be changed to require mental health facilities to report admissions?
This would permit a national data base to deny gun purchases from mentaly disabled people. Or would it violate the rights of the mentaly unstable? I think the first thing to consider is that not every person that is checked into a mental health facility is.

Should the U.S have tougher gun laws?
In light of the recent shootings in Virginia Tech, but not soley contained to that ONE incident, do you think tougher gun/anti-gun laws might bring down the number of shooting deaths in the USA? No. – Of course. Even al quaida, Iraq and iran have tougher gun laws then US. – no.

Should the Virginia Tech shooting rampage affect gun laws?
No. One psycho should not be able to force an entire nation to change its laws. We accept this kind of risk. Also, if guns were outlawed unfortunately we’d still see shootings like this. If one of the victims had been carrying a gun, they may have ended it.

Should there be a law to not allow importation of an ‘alien’ species?
need help for an essay!! asap .. need a response to this questions and if u can add detials then thats great and thanx in advnce i will appreciate it .. ‘should there be laws that restrict the importation of an ‘alien’ species into a community?.

SHould there be laws regarding recycled water in australia?
Help me!! I’m trying to do my assignment and have no ideas! Until the Aussies pick up on your question, below is a website that might get you started. Queensland, Australia is in the midst of a drought – and the water shortage is critical. No wasting of any water.

Should there be more gun control laws in the U.S.?
There are more than enough gun control laws in the U.S. What we need is better enforcement. People should undergo extensive background checks prior to recieving a weapon. Also, get rid of assault rifles, they are useless for home defense and for hunting (except for humans). – yes.

Should there be stricter gun laws and why?
No, because of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. – No. If the anti-gun folks want to be sheep fine, but leave those of us that want to have the right of self defense alone. – No They are already very restrictive in most states. They need to.

Should there be tighter gun laws in America?
Should America put tighter restrictions on the ownership of weapons. Perhaps a gun buy-back scheme, where people get money for the handing over of their weapons. Of course, we can also be worried that the responsible gun owners will do the right thing, and the criminals will now have the upper.

Should we just give Immigrates citizenship?or send em back and have the people do it legally?
Illegals should be sent back and forced to enter via legal means or, maybe even not at all since they have already proved that they care less about our laws anyway. – yes..if they have been here long enough to were there.

Should we make ‘Sanctuary cities’ for fetuses?
We could make abortion illegal in certain cities or states, and prosecute any abortion doctors in those states for murder. If Los Angeles can violate federal laws, why can’t we? if is an evil thing to do and every city in the world should make it illegal for abortion to take place..

Should we raise the age limit for possessing a handgun to 25?
What do you think would be a proper age to posses a gun to keep our children safe. Creating laws that constrain the rights of lawful gun owners DOES NOT and WILL NEVER restrain the actions of those who will ignore the law in the pursuit of.

More Law questions please visit : LawFreeFAQ.com

Related items

• Common law Questions and Answers
• Islamic Divorce in US Courts
• Laws FAQ
• Latent shortcomings in section 4 of Muslim Family Law Ordinance
• Wafa Sultan Speaks Out For Human Rights