Gursant Singh sues California to stop gun ban.

[Singh559]

Was posted on MSNBC and a few other local sites and it seems like he will eventually get more press.

My analysis is that something like this should be done as I am a gun rights advocate, but he should have changed his lawsuit to the rights of all people, not just Sikhs. If he can handle himself to show that he is suing on the basis of wanting to challenge the courts while wanting to defend everyone's right and not look like a "crazy person" as some will likely paint him as, I think he can do a lot of good for the Sikh image here in USA.

Initially what he is proposing is "out there" (to get noticed you need to propose something out there), but if he handles this well and turns it balanced real fast when he gets interviewed and more about everyone's rights and as being patriotic Americans, this can do a lot of good for the cause in my opinion. It seems like Sikhs are quiet and distancing themselves from Gursant Singh and this because most are scared and not confident enough to portray themselves as being Americans who exercise their rights to freedom. We are Americans so we should act like Americans, don't you all think? Coincidentally being a Sikh is also about morality and freedom to practice dharam and defend dharam....

Personally I find it despicable when hippy Sikhs support banning guns, especially considering banning guns and creating gun free zones increases crime because criminals will continue to do what they do without any deterrent.

It's sad Sikhs in USA aren't well versed enough in the constitution and what the contents are. I think the actual foundation of USA (not the current evolved non-American system) is very similar to what a Sikh raaj would have been like. I would like to consider myself pretty patriotic and proud to be American even though I don't support the war and how the current system is being run.

(Click article to see the video of what he says)

Here is the article from one of the websites:

http://theurbandaily.com/2130101/sikh-sues-california-gun-ban/

The harder individual states push for stricter gun control laws, the more citizens fight back. A man who is a follower of the Sikh faith is suing the state of California to stop their proposed ban on guns claiming it is against his religion.

Gursant Singh Khalsa filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California claiming the gun ban stops him from fully practicing his religion by not permitting him to own or carry assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Khalsa stated, “Decrees from the Tenth Sikh Guru state in the most vigorous and clear words that, ‘a Sikh’s conception of God is the sword of God is the sword of dharma.”

Gursant Singh Khalsa has been practicing the Sikh religion for 35 years and says some practicing members already carry the “sword of dharma” as means for protection. Khalsa argued if assault weapons were legalized, mass shootings like those in Colorado and Wisconnsin would drop significantly. “We have an obligation to defend those who can’t defend themselves,” Khalsa said.

Some Sikhs don’t agree with Khalsa’s lawsuit. Yuba City Sikh Temple director Tejinder Dosanjah feels that everyone deserves the right ot protect themselves and families no matter what religion the practice. he also condemned Khalsa’s interpretation of religions scriptures for his own personal gain. Dosanjah said, “He should not involve the Sikh faith directly or indirectly into this lawsuit.”

Check out the video below. Do you agree with the lawsuit?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://now.msn.com/gursant-singh-khalsa-sikh-man-says-assault-weapons-ban-interferes-with-religion#scpshrcsfb

Man's lawsuit says he totally needs assault weapons for his religion 9 hrs ago

A Sikh man is suing California, claiming that the state's proposed ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would prevent him from fully practicing his faith. "I am just going by the Sikh religion and what Sikhs are mandated to do," Gursant Singh Khalsa said. "We have an obligation to defend those who can't defend themselves." However, Yuba City Sikh Temple director Tejinder Dosanjah spoke against Khalsa, arguing that while everyone has a right to protect themselves, interpreting scripture for one’s personal benefit is not right. "He should not involve the Sikh faith directly or indirectly into this lawsuit," Dosanjah said. [Source]

Click to see more on msnNOW.com, updated 24 hours a day.

[Jangal Da]

Having read his book, this is just the man's ethos and I can see his point, but he should have consulted local Sangat before bringing Sikhi into a lawsuite.

[Singh559]

I see, how was his book?

Here is a copy paste of what he posted:

~~~

Here is a link to the full lawsuit which should give people a better understanding of what I am saying and the issues before the court. "Lawsuit challenging Calif Gun Laws Case No. 2:13-CV-00493 MCE-KJN"

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=551821191519479&l=8409179d9d

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


GURSANT SINGH KHALSA, Case No. 2:13-CV-00493 MCE-KJN

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and
GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN,

Defendants.


________________________________________________
COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Gursant Khalsa, “PRO SE”, and complains of the Defendants as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Gursant Singh Khalsa is a natural person and a citizen of the United States,
residing in Yuba City, in the County of Sutter, California. Mr. Khalsa is a devotee of Sikhism, or a practitioner of the Sikh religion.

2. Defendant State of California is a sovereign state of The United States of America, subject to the Constitution and laws of the United States and governed by it’s own Constitution of the State of California.

3. Defendant Jerry Brown is the Governor of the State of California, and as such is
responsible for executing and administering California’s laws, customs, practices, and
policies. In that capacity, Mr. Brown is presently enforcing the laws, customs, practices and policies complained of in this action, and is sued in both his individual and official capacities.



JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

STATEMENT OF FACTS


6. Sikhism is a monotheistic religion founded during the 15th century in the Punjab region, by Guru Nanak, followed by ten successive Sikh Gurus (the last teaching being the holy scripture Siri Guru Granth Sahib). It is the fifth-largest organized religion in the world. Today there are approximately 30 million Sikhs. Sikhism has a martial history dating back to the time of Sixth Guru, Guru Har Gobind. The succeeding Gurus maintained a fighting force. The Tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, created the Khalsa warrior order of saint soldiers to stand up to oppressive tyranny and injustice. Decrees from the Tenth Sikh Guru state in the most vigorous and clear words that a Sikh’s conception of God is the sword of dharma. Not only the sword but every weapon became an attributive symbol of God for Sikhs.

"I salute the weapons of all Names ||
I salute the Arms of all Kinds ||"
Guru Gobind Singh Ji, Sri Dasam Granth Sahib

The Sikhs, although finally conquered, battled the British to a standstill in the Anglo Sikh wars (1845-1849). In the 20th & 21st centuries, Sikhs have maintained a distinguished service record in the armed forces of the United States, UK, Canada and India. To this day Sikhs are required to be prepared at all times to fight to defend themselves and others against injustice.

7. Mainstream Sikh doctrine since the time of Guru Gobind Singh requires that Sikhs be at all times FULLY prepared to defend themselves and others against injustice. Some splinter groups attempt this by wearing symbolic miniature daggers in their turbans, to comply with this requirement. But mainstream Sikhs believe that the requirement is a literal and true moral duty. As Guru Gobind Singh instructed his Sikhs; "Without uncut hair and weapons do not come before me".

8. Sikh doctrine requires that all Sikhs refrain from cutting their hair, and they are required to wear turbans and weapons. Because of this requirement, Sikhs are often targeted and attacked by bigots and white supremacists in the United States.

10. Subsequent to 9/11, hate crime attacks by bigots and white supremacists in the United States have accelerated, because the ignorant see Sikhs’ turbans and mistake them for Talibanis, with whom the United States has been at war for over ten years.
11. The Plaintiff and a host of other U.S. Sikhs have received constant death threats since 9/11. One example is a “post” Gursant received on YouTube in response to a video he posted entitled “Sikhs should be allowed to join U.S. Army to stop racist attitudes in military & deter hate crimes.” The response reads as follows:
“The problem is mr white taliban... we trying to kill the guys with a towel on their head and we just cant be having dudes with towels on their head running around with guns. It's like going to war with Japan, and not allowing japanese in the military. Pretty common sense.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqdO6s-vgyo

continued at this link:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=551821368186128&l=83e9239197

[Singh559]

Sad to see a lot of Sikhs are quiet on this subject.

He handled the lawsuit a bit irresponsibly in a legal and strictly objective point, but a lot of conservatives who are advocates of gun rights are seeing this as a big positive.

We're our own worst enemies.

[13Mirch]

This the same guy who has it in for Dasam Granth?

[GPS]

What does tejinder dosanjh, a sikh youth of america thug, know about sikhism. He is not a sikh even.Has he read

scriptures especially Dasam granth sahib that pays utmost respect to weapons. All sikh takhats have weapons placed

under canopy and held in great respect.

That does not mean that sikhs are not for peace. They are for peace but Guru sahib writes that these weapons destroy tyrants and gives solace to saints.

ਖਗ ਖੰਡ ਬਿਹੰਡੰ ਖਲ ਦਲ ਖੰਡੰ ਅਤਿ ਰਣ ਮੰਡੰ ਬਰ ਬੰਡੰ ॥
खग खंड बिहंडं खल दल खंडं अति रण मंडं बर बंडं ॥
The sword chops well, chops the forces of scoundrels and this mighty one bedecks and glorifies the battlefield.

ਭੁਜ ਦੰਡ ਅਖੰਡੰ ਤੇਜ ਪ੍ਰਚੰਡੰ ਜੋਤਿ ਅਮੰਡੰ ਭਾਨ ਪ੍ਰਭੰ ॥
भुज दंड अखंडं तेज प्रचंडं जोति अमंडं भान प्रभं ॥
It is the unbreakable staff of the arm, it has the powerful luster and its light even bedims the radiance of the sum.

ਸੁਖ ਸੰਤਾ ਕਰਣੰ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਦਰਣੰ ਕਿਲਬਿਖ ਹਰਣੰ ਅਸਿ ਸਰਣੰ ॥
सुख संता करणं दुरमति दरणं किलबिख हरणं असि सरणं ॥
It brings happiness to the saints, mashing the vicious ones, it is the destroyer of sins and I am under its refuge.

ਜੈ ਜੈ ਜਗ ਕਾਰਣ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਉਬਾਰਣ ਮਮ ਪ੍ਰਤਿਪਾਰਣ ਜੈ ਤੇਗੰ ॥੨॥
जै जै जग कारण स्रिसटि उबारण मम प्रतिपारण जै तेगं ॥२॥
Hail, hail to the cause of the world, saviour of the universe, it is my preserver, I hail its victory. 2.

Bachiter Natak. Dasam granth sahib

[Singh559]

http://www.guns.com/2013/03/15/sikh-files-lawsuit-against-california-assault-weapon-ban-violates-freedom-of-religion/

Check this out and the comments on it (also click article to view the video), it's really refreshing to see.

Confused how they found out about nidar singh though, really weird. Overall it's a good article minus the nidar aspect. I guess that goes to show that we have to learn to expand our inter-personal skills like nidar is doing. He's really good at the whole PR thing just like the SIkh Coalition (who are very business minded and know how to squeeze a good PR while furthering their own careers).

Full article in quote form:

Sikhism is a religion born in Punjab, the part of the world where India and Pakistan meet. It’s thousands of square miles that has been at the heart of many conflicts well before it was conquered by Alexander the Great, and many more since then. It is at the center of not just national, but religious crossroads, home to Hindus, Muslims, Jainists, Christians and Buddhists.

Sikhs have been defined as warrior-saints and in many ways maintain a warrior culture to this day; Sikh men and women wear five articles of faith, including the kirpan, an often ornate sword or dagger.

The weapon is not merely symbolic. It may look decorative, but is a physical means to protect yourself, and dharma — the universal law and order that upholds the universe. The belief that you must seek out justice for all mankind is paramount to Sikhs, by any means necessary.

Sikhs have, over centuries, added new “shastar” — weapons — to the arms they bear to keep themselves spiritually and physically whole, having incorporated them into martial arts like “gatka” and “shastar vidiya” — literally “the science of weapons” — at first with staves and swords and more recently, when the technology came about, firearms.

And that is why a Yuba City, Cali. Sikh has filed suit against the state. He claims that the California “assault weapon” ban is a violation of his First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

“I feel that modern weapons like the assault rifle or the semi-automatic pistols that have magazines with ten or rounds would be essential in today’s society in order to defend ourselves,” argued Gursant Singh Khalsa, in opposition to California’s intense gun control laws. “This is very restrictive of my religious beliefs.”

A Sikh (Nidar Singh) and his gun.

Sikhs were very recently the target of a nationally-witnessed act of aggression, when white supremecist Wade Michael Page fatally shot six people and wounded four others in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple preparing for a community dinner in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.

Elder Satwant Singh Kaleka was one of the victims; he died attacking Page with his knife, slowing him down so that others could escape.

Sikhs have been increasingly targeted by violent actors across America following 9/11, often being mistaken for Muslims because of their turbans, another article of Sikh faith.

“We should have all suitable weapons that enable us to defend ourselves and to defend others,” said Khalsa.

John Sims, a Pacific McGeorge Law School professor, believes otherwise, pointing out that Khalsa and other Sikhs do have access to legal firearms, and that they don’t need high-capacity magazines or “assault rifles” in order to protect themselves.

“In religious terms the possession of an assault rifle is absolutely essential, that seems to me to be a pretty dubious argument,” he said.

This isn’t the first time Sikhs have fought to maintain their articles of faith. In the past they’ve fought governments for the right to wear the turban instead of prescribed headgear (or lack thereof) in schools, on motorcycles, on duty and in uniform, and the right to carry their blades in the U.S. and around the world in places where knife control laws would prevent them from doing so.

In the U.S., Sikhs have won court cases that have allowed them to carry the kirpan, to greater or lesser degrees, on the basis of Constitutionality.

This case will rest on whether or not the court will accept the notion that the weapons of Sikhism are not limited to cold steel, deciding whether or not a person has the spiritual right to defend themselves with the best weapons they can use.

Categories: Politics & 2nd Amendment

[S1ngh]

I don't agree with gursant because one does not need high capacity magazine or military grade assault rifle to be in line with our dharam teachings. If thats the way then tomorrow i can stand in court and start blabbing about govt' not allowing me to buy fighter jet or rocket launcher on expense of my religion.

Though individually, gursant can fight this case if he feels that his religious teaching is at stake but i don't think it makes any sense of involving our dharam into this judicial war.

Yes, our dharam clearly states to arm ourself with shaastars to protect truth and justice. Being myself a gun owner, i do depend on them for protection. I may buy ar16 but I won't fight the system or oppose any new law-in-making because i think there are higher benefits of restricting military grade guns being sold in mom/pop store in local markets.

2nd amendment is not at stake because there can never be a ban on weapons in US but a ban on military designed weapons is a must as there are too many crazies in this country.

[Singh559]

I don't agree with gursant because one does not need high capacity magazine or military grade assault rifle to be in line with our dharam teachings. If thats the way then tomorrow i can stand in court and start blabbing about govt' not allowing me to buy fighter jet or rocket launcher on expense of my religion.

Though individually, gursant can fight this case if he feels that his religious teaching is at stake but i don't think it makes any sense of involving our dharam into this judicial war.

Yes, our dharam clearly states to arm ourself with shaastars to protect truth and justice. Being myself a gun owner, i do depend on them for protection. I may buy ar16 but I won't fight the system or oppose any new law-in-making because i think there are higher benefits of restricting military grade guns being sold in mom/pop store in local markets.

2nd amendment is not at stake because there can never be a ban on weapons in US but a ban on military designed weapons is a must as there are too many crazies in this country.

As Kirpan Khando Khagar Tubak Tabar Aur Teer, Saif Sarohi Sehthi Yehai Hamarai Peer.

Tubak = gun and Guru Gobind Singh Ji instructed all Sikhs to carry new and very practical arms. If by any legal means. Chandi is a shakti that resides in all weapons.

The argument that the second amendment doesn't apply today because then it also applies to fighter jets and nukes isn't consistent because our military servicemen don't have access to such weapons, only the country and the generals do. Also, most people are sold by propaganda by mass media (CNN) and democrats who try to paint AR-15's as being evil high powered military guns. That is not true at all. Normal hunting rifles are much more powerful than AR-15's and some can legally be modified to hold high capacity mags (and be semi-auto like an AR-15). To add AR-15's are semi automatic and not automatic so they are not military grade weapons as m-16's are. Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban.

The media's crusade on "assault" weapons also fails to show that the most murders in the USA are by hand guns so why are we focusing on AR-15's? Obama's administration is murdering innocent civilians (just like bush) by drone strikes and yet everyone focuses on AR-15's? The gun banning advocates know that they have a good "bet" to start banning guns by tapping into the American base's emotions and taking advantage of uninformed voters to give up their rights and what most people don't realize is that they won't stop at AR-15's - ideally they want all guns banned.

Logically speaking if they wanted to reduce "killing", they would ban hand guns.

I was an Obama supporter, but it's time to wake up and smell the coffee, he is the same thing as Bush but he's more effective at stripping Americans of their constitutional rights.

Again, like I said before, creating gun free zones INCREASES crime. No study has ever shown gun control works, in fact they have shown that places with least gun control have the same if significantly less crime than gun free zones.

Some food for thought, during the LA riots rapes and murders occurred despite 9-11 calls because the police outright stopped dispatching police. Long story short they sued the LAPD and it went to the supreme court. The decision was that the police isn't responsible for your protection, people are responsible for their own protection.

If there are crazies in this country and you're worried about your safety do what you need to ensure your own safety, don't leave it to someone else like a lot of scared elders try to brainwash the youth into becoming - drones of the system. The most effective way to stop crazies and criminals is to stop them before they can act - that is the job of the government and someone who is carrying lawfully to defend them self and others from harm. Law-abiding citizens should not be penalized by criminals. The focus should be on how we run our country's education system, healthcare and address the media and how it promotes biggotry/racism and fear.

Also, how many people did that crazy in Norway kill? (77) and take a look at how strict their gun laws are.

(I do agree that it's not right to say that Sikhs deserve this right, all Americans have a constitutional right to this) With that said, I think he did this on purpose to raise awareness on Sikhi and to get people to reevaluate their constitutional rights.

Turn off the mass media and do your own research with an open mind.

[GtLoc]

First I would like to ask the fighter jet guy how big his female parts are.

Second to op, you are not an american..

This lawsuit's idea good, but I would say the thinking behind it is wrong. It would be akin to suing mughals to get them to allow non-halal meat.

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta

Citation: R. v. Dell, 2005 ABCA 246

Date: 20050715

Docket: 0401-0241-A

Registry: Calgary

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

- and -

Bryan Matthew Dell

Appellant

Although s. 32 of the Charter limits its application to Parliament, legislatures and provincial and federal governments, when the Charter was first introduced there was some debate about its application. Since that time, the law has been settled that, as a general rule, the Charter only applies to government actions, not interactions between private citizens or institutions:

---

Can gursant singh prove he cannot already own firearms lawfully; as cali 'laws' are statutes legally defined as club laws which requure consent. Can he prove that he is subject to cali codes.

This 'lawsuit' is a pissing match (no disrespect) most gov. ones are; a lawsuit is where there is a dispute of facts. All this, is a popularity contest to convince judge and jury.

A judge, can rule on those parts of a case that he/she is allowed to; i.e where a fact has not been established.

A fact in law is what both parties agree upon; i.e either agree or you fail to dispute/re-but i.e silence.

Device going slow so vjkvjf

edit - for spelling Idk it was bad on a tablet kept skipping letters.