USA Yuba City Sikh Says California Gun Law Doesn't Let Him Practice His Religion !

[spnadmin]

Gursant Singh Khalsa, a follower of the Sikh faith for 35 years in Yuba City, has filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California.



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

The suit claims the state is stopping him from fully practising his religion by not allowing him to own and use assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

“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,’” Khalsa said, according to NEWS10/KXTV.

He said some practising Sikhs already carry what he calls “the sword of dharma” for protection. Khalsa said if assault weapons were legalized in the state, the loss of life in mass shootings, like the one in Wisconsin, could be minimized.

“I am just going by what the Sikh religion and what Sikhs are mandated to do,” Khalsa said. “We have an obligation to defend those who can’t defend themselves.”

But not all Sikhs believe in what Khalsa is aiming to do, NEWS 10/KXTV said.

Yuba City Sikh Temple director Tejinder Dosanjah said he believes everyone, regardless of religion, has a right to protect themselves, but said to interpret religious scriptures for personal benefit is not right.

“He should not involve the Sikh faith directly or indirectly into this lawsuit,” Dosanjah said

 

[spnadmin]

Related Story

Yuba City Sikh says assault weapons ban infringes on his faith

Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/gr0314sikhlawsuit-123911--.html#ixzz2NdG6Bgr5


The sword of dharma isn't enough for a Yuba City man who filed a federal lawsuit against California on Tuesday claiming the state is infringing on his Sikh religion by not allowing him to own and use an assault rifle.

Gursant Singh Khalsa, a follower of Sikh faith for 35 years, filed a lawsuit in US District Court in Sacramento claiming the state is preventing him from fully practicing his religion by restricting his possession and use of assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

"I definitely intend to fight it," he said. "I'm not just doing it for fun."

Khalsa said he needs the assault rifles and high capacity magazines to properly defend himself and protect others — actions that cannot be accomplished with California's gun laws.

The idea to sue the state for infringing on his religion has been on Khalsa's mind since he moved here from New Mexico, where gun laws aren't as strict, he said.

"It really started to dawn on me just how much of a disadvantage California residents are," Khalsa said.

According to the lawsuit, hate crime attacks in the nation have accelerated because people see Sikhs' turbans and mistake them for Taliban members.

Yuba City resident Harjeet Singh, a software engineer and member of the Punjabi American Heritage Society, said Sikhs are required to have weapons, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should carry assault rifles.

"In my personal opinion," he said, "I don't think you need an assault rifle to protect yourself."

Many Sikhs abide by a code of conduct that requires followers to possess weapons for self-defense, Singh said, but the code can be broad and interpreted in several ways. For this reason, Singh said Khalsa isn't wrong for filing a lawsuit against California because Khalsa is interpreting the code in a broad sense.

Khalsa said he thinks all Californians should fight the assault rifle and high capacity magazine ban, and that teaching gun safety should be a priority.

"If you learn how to fire weapons and respect them, they are nothing more than a tool," he said.

Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/gr0314sikhlawsuit-123911--.html#ixzz2NdFtVOWb

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

Oh boy I don't know where we go from here

 

[spnadmin]

Is an assault rifle the "sword of dharma?"

Singh ji is invoking the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution of the United States which asserts the right to freedom of religious expression. However his interpretation of the 1st Amendment conflicts with established case law regarding the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms. Individual states may regulate gun ownership: that is, how the right to bear arms/2nd Amendment is implemented.

New Mexico permits ownership of both assault rifles and high capacity magazines. California bans ownership of both assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Pennsylvania permits ownership of assault rifles, but ownership of the high capacity magazines is closely regulated.

Nothing to worry about. He hasn't a leg to stand on. The US Constitution asserts the right to bear arms. However, if you read the 2nd amendment carefully it does not give the right to bear assault rifles, tanks, flame-throwers, anti-aircraft missiles. :realangrymunda: There are many yahoos in the US who make this claim time and again. I actually know a man, who converted to Sikhism, because he too understands Sikhism to be "the only religion that agrees with the 2nd Amendment." That is why he converted ! Then he expresses huge frustration because the management committee will not go along with his ideas about gurdwara programs for target practice, martial arts training, gun ownership, and the like. Sangat does love him anyway. :kaurkhalsaflagred:

 

[techsingh]

i have been reading alot of comments by sikhs that we shouldn't be armed or need guns. I wonder if any of these people had there family members butchered in '84 and onwards.

 

[spnadmin]

i have been reading alot of comments by sikhs that we shouldn't be armed or need guns. I wonder if any of these people had there family members butchered in '84 and onwards.

I think that depends on where you live. If you live in a US state or a country that permits gun ownership by private citizens, then Sikhs would own them. There is always the situation where individual Sikhs do not themselves want to own guns... just like everyone else. Some do; some don't. In countries where gun ownership is forbidden or severely limited, Sikhs would be bound by the same laws as everyone else.

There is something illogical in the claim made by the singh in this article. He says that he should be permitted to own assault rifles because he is a Sikh. If the courts agreed with that, they would also be saying that members of one religion have more rights than members of every other religion. Sikhs, YES, they can own assault rifles, because "the sword of God is the sword of dharma." Baptists, NO, they cannot, because high capacity weaponry is not part of the religious expression of Baptists. The law has to apply to everyone equally. We do not have more rights because we are Sikhs.