#affordable apartments in munger | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mo-torious-mo-blog · 6 years

Text

Twitter.com/motorious_cafe

[CHANGING MY NAME TO: Mo (first name) Torious (last name)] i asked my parents if I could come up to westchester to have dinner with them, or to briefly stay while I looked for an apartment. They said no. It’s funny, Dr Tabar at Belkvue Hospital (Dr Mounir, intake), told me that I should cut off my relationship with my mother. The only reason my father asked me to attend her 80th birthday party, was to keep up appearances. Before the night was over, and after my speech (unmmmzm....I got you a car), he told me in no uncertain terms that I am no longer welcome in his house. I dove get it. His brother Ladipo Fayemi is a caseworker at HRA HASA, who never once intervened for me, and who nobody in that agency thought to refer my case to. Mr. McCoy, used to make fun of the name. No matter, I no longer want to be called that. I told them that since my father still continues to lie about not having received a copy of the doctored IRS Filings which Lucy Ostrofsky (acting in house counsel) had filed, directly ignoring my instructions, before I was forced out of the company and off the corporate bank account (it takes 3 members of management: myself, Richard McGinnis (Kurt Salmon Associates), President of Motorious Retail Stores (m&m/Mars Family: sponsor of Kyle Bush’s Toyota at NASXAR), patent holder, casino slot machine algorithms) and Philip Munger (who once, unbeknownst to me, withdrew $5,000 in cash from his personal Citibank account, and deposited it into my (the corporate) account, triggering FBI Money Laundering Red Flag: I have never even seen $5,000.00 in cash in one place in my entire life. I spent $500 to $10,000/month on my AMEX PLATINUM: and repaid it within 30 days. Beginning in 1992. Until I didn’t and went bankrupt for $60,000. Bottom line: I don’t trust the man, and he and I no longer have a relationship. All he and my mother have done is agree with the psychiatrists who keep diagnosing me with paranoid delusions that I run a company. All this, I believe, because the only company he ever ran, ended up in trouble with the IRS. I’m beginning to be really suspect about his book selling and his AIDS Charity for orphans in Africa. Before he kicked me out of the house, he asked me if I wanted to help him with his Foundation, and I said « no » I want German citizenship. A look at my brief work history shows I never stay in 1 place very long. What’s wrong with having wanted a change and to seek opportunities abroad? Science Advisers, led by Norman Heyman, Jean Robert Le Shufy, and Kevin DeVito (New Capital Horizons, the US arm of New Capital AG in Switzerland: COPE Holdings (XTERA DAX | NASDAQ) Zuggero, CEO | lent ICV, llc (Integrated Concepts Vehicles, llc, Flipboard.com/@ICV_llc, the first $137,000 after I had lent the corporation $60,000. MOTORIOUS MONEY GRID: says $100,000.00 loan am was made by Phil Munger on November 1, 1999. If that had been the case, why were none of the vendors at the show paid, and why did I receive a phone message on December 31, 1999 from Philip Munger: [email protected], the DAY AFTER I received a message from Wayne Irving of Spin Records that he had secured $25 Million from ING Barings? My only Full Time Employee: John Goodwin, who I met at Pump No 8 at the Mobil Gas Station in Rancho Palos Verdea, took a salary of $80,000.00 + benefits + expense reimbursement, where on July 2, 1999 he secured an LOI with the Make A Wish charity for a proposed October 31, 2000 Charity Rade at Texas Motor Speedway. He had 9 months to secure a deal with Ford to provide NASCAR vehicles for the event, which was supposed to commemorate 100 Years of Motorsports in America, and also commemorate both Ford and Harley Davidson’s 100th Anniversary. Moose returned saying that the sponsors (especially the protected sponsor, Coke, will not let the drivers out of their contests to drive the event) Autoweek Magazine, the same issue it quoted several drivers as wanting to participate, reported that My Apple Laptop « had ears ». Motor Trend Magazine wrote an article entitled « The Automotive Analyst », a « fictitious story about a Wall Street analyst having problems with his wife, while talking to his shrink. The concluding sentence: « Build The Car » My only contribution to Ford would have been when I called the $3 million monstrosity (Focus) built by John Colletti and Motor Trend: Ian Cartabiano has penned a sick Mis-Engined Ford Focus Rally Car, which was to have shared a platform with the Renault R5 (Nissan: where Doi had previously worked after NCIS). That, and the referral from Mark Stehrenberger to Scott Sharpe Racing, to [Ford Tuner: I ferget] , who wrote a proposal for tuning the 4.0 liter Jaguar V8 for the Motorious Show Stand, as a potential BMW M5 competitor. Of the $137,000.00 loan, $50,000 went to Mark Stehrenberger Design, who was to generate 3 proposals for the Deusenberg PHAETON: Mercedes Benz Ocean 4 door convertible concept...to. E build at the DRESDEN Factory in Germany), the other $50,000 went to Robert Marianich in Huntington Beach, who was to have converted his studio, and built a « clay resurfaced » proposal of the RIVOLUZIONW: 1999 LA Auto Show, next to Shelby Series One (I met Carroll at Jay Leno’s, where he asked me to contact his assistant, Pearlita Shelby, about helping him with production of the OLDSMOBILE AURORA Engined SERIES ONE: autopsia.wordpress.com, slated to return to INDYCAR, to replace the Honda unit, now that they created Touring Car. I wanted to get the rights to MG ROVER (BBC: BMW’s English Patient), known as Rover Sterling 825 in America (Acura Legend): ARCONA | After the misérable failure of Phoenix Holdings, which paid Queen Elizabeth the nominal sum of £10, and then before becoming the four most overpaid executives in the UK Auto Industry. I even went so far as to ask Lakshmi Mittal (Arcelor Mittal and Harris’s) if he would help me to purchase Land Rover from TATA. CAR AND DRIVER MAGAZINE (Hearst Publications: Vladimir Putin) April Fool’s | Toyota buys Oldsmobile Trademark for $5,000. FIAT acquire the right to the Oldsmobile Aurora Engine through my partnership with Carroll Shelby, Gets the Oldsmobile Dealerships (10 year warrante on the engine), Change the nage to Alfa Romeo, and modify the engine for use in US Alfa’s, like the GT-V8, Spider Véloce (Duetto V8: BMWfilms.com Béat the Devil). Unfortunately, John Goodwin went bankrupt, my ex-wife had a hidden camera in our bedroom vent (Waiting to Exhale, Bernadine’s Rage: 6624 Oceancrest Drive, RPV, CA, 90275). And all of our personal and my corporate accounts were closed on August 14, 2001, due to malfeasance on her part: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwNcNOTVzY [The Private Bank: Union Bank of California (Mitsubishi Sumitomo: KIRETSU): Peggy Fahnestock, Gloria Marquez: who refinanced my BMW Financial Loan from JP Morgan Chase, because it was higher interest rate than a similarly situated white nan, all other things being equal. The VENDETTA (redesigned Rivoluzione: 200 LA Auto Show, was in an accident THE FIRST DAY I DROVE IT. I didn’t even make it to the highway. There was at least $100,000? In customization (hand hammered and rolled Aluminum body parts riveted and bonded to the steel: Robin Officer, Captain Metal, Magic Mountain, CA (A Kiwi). who I believe, was interviewed on the Jay Leno show dresses in drag. By keeping all the receipts to every modification, the insurance company: GEICO, had to first restore the vehicle to its original condition, THEN, cover all the replacement customization which they did, before canceling my policy the sane day the lease on my 328i was repossed, with $5,000.00 worth of renderings and sketches by Ian Cartabiano, which actually appeared in Bimmer Magazine in 1998. My mother refuses to give me my birth certificate. Whats wrong with this picture? mo torious On Oct 14, 30 Heisei, at 2:25 AM, mo torious wrote: David Ebersman, Will you be the part time CFO on my private placement? except for the fact that Angel List is formerly Google, and I found it impossible to do due diligence on who people claimed to be. since I came from Wall Street, and have helped raise over $500 Million for companies during my career, even though it is many years later, I still know many of the same people. The first person who made a referral for me, was Paul Howard of HQH: Hambrecht & Quist Healthcare, in NYC, when he introduced me to his MIT Sloan School Claasmate, Douglas A Doi (founder of Doi Golf). I see his name on many research publication footnotes, such as the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE ARTICLE: The Beginning is the End of AIDS. The second referral came from Barney Hallibgby, who introduced me to Doug Casey at Gates Capital at 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY, who floats Government Bonds and Municipal Bonds for manufacturing, such as at the March Global Port, which was a former military base turned into a commercial port. As part of the 3Q/2001 earnings report, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, William Clay Ford, III made two announcements: 1. We are no longer pursuing our aftermarket strategy. (usurped and mismanaged by Jacques Naaser) 2 We can no longer afford to spend 11.1% of sales, on Marketing/Advertising. Bad news for Ogilvy/Mather. Possible 11.1% increase in margins. William Clay Ford: Uber is losing hundreds of millions to billions every year. If All the risks are borne by the driver, why can’t they turn a profit? The following article on the same page of the WSJ, was that The Blackstone Group « was looking for its next big deal ». Instinct tells me to defer from inviting them, or Goldman Sachs or any of its clients (like Facebook and Twitter) to participate in this private placement. http://fortune.com/2012/02/01/meet-the-man-behind-the-facebook-ipo/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B5gQoZEZn04 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8PM_EybRdo https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/facebook-not-feeling-friendly-with-nasdaq/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/09/04/facebook-sets-another-new-low-nyt-rips-cfo-ebersman/ mo torious On Oct 13, 30 Heisei, at 10:56 PM, mo torious wrote: M_DriversLicense (@onyx_project) 2/6/28 H, 12:51 PM i-am-motorious.tumblr.com/post/129742049… ⁦‪@AngelList‬⁩ ⁦‪@UBSf1‬⁩ ⁦‪@UBS‬⁩ frontinalispartners.com ⁦‪@Ford‬⁩ @LapoElkann_LE ⁦‪@Zurich‬⁩ ⁦‪@CreditSuisse‬⁩ pic.twitter.com/2pZqP9LAin

1 note · View note

architectnews · 3 years

Text

Architect resigns over mostly windowless University of California dormitory

Architect Dennis McFadden has stepped down from a University of California committee in protest over designs for a university dormitory at its Santa Barbara campus where over 90 per cent of its 4,500 students would reportedly live in windowless rooms.

Named Munger Hall, the University of California Santa Barbara student housing would measure 1.68 million square feet (156,000 square metres) and house up to 4,500 students, according to local newspaper Santa Barbara Independent.

McFadden resigned from his role as a consulting architect of 15 years on the university's design review committee over the project, saying he was "disturbed" by the design of the building, The Washington Post reported.

Munger Hall was conceived by billionaire investor Charles Munger, who donated $200 million to the project, which has an overall budget of about $1.5 billion.

Majority of students to live in windowless rooms

The gigantic Munger Hall would have just two entrances, and 94 per cent of students living in it would reportedly be in windowless rooms. The single-occupancy bedrooms would instead feature virtual windows that would simulate sunlight.

Each of the nine residential floors in the dormitory would have eight "houses", with eight separate "suites" organised around a communal kitchen and living area. The top floor would feature a one-acre courtyard with "social pods" and seating areas.

Read:

LOHA creates Westgate1515 student apartment complex in Los Angeles

In his resignation letter, McFadden called the design "unsupportable from my perspective as an architect, a parent, and a human being".

"An ample body of documented evidence shows that interior environments with access to natural light, air, and views to nature improve both the physical and mental wellbeing of occupants," he wrote.

"The Munger Hall design ignores this evidence and seems to take the position that it doesn’t matter."

No other project "potentially more destructive to the campus"

McFadden said he left the committee as there was no possibility of making changes to the dormitory's design, according to the Santa Barbara Independent.

"The design was described as 100 per cent complete, approval was not requested, no vote was taken, and no further submittals are intended or required," he said.

"Yet in the nearly 15 years I served as a consulting architect to the DRC, no project was brought before the committee that is larger, more transformational, and potentially more destructive to the campus as a place than Munger Hall."

McFadden also pointed out that the current largest single dormitory in the world, Bancroft Hall at the US Naval Academy, houses only 4,000 students and is spread over multiple wings with more than 25 entrances.

If this report is true, this design is a grotesque, sick joke — a jail masquerading as a dormitory. No, design isn’t up to billionaire donors. How far UCSB has fallen since the days when it had architects like Charles Moore. https://t.co/ERFIzAz5jZ

— Paul Goldberger (@paulgoldberger) October 29, 2021

Pulitzer Prize-winning American architecture critic Paul Goldberger also slated the Munger Hall project online, tweeting: "If this report is true, this design is a grotesque, sick joke — a jail masquerading as a dormitory."

"No, design isn’t up to billionaire donors," he added. "How far UCSB has fallen since the days when it had architects like Charles Moore."

Virtual windows to have circadian-rhythm control system

Munger, who conceived the building, is the vice chairman of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate and has no formal architecture training.

The detailed design of UC Santa Barbara building is being carried out by VTBS Architects, which is the architect of record on the project.

"This design emanates from Mr Munger's research and iterative processes to devise a transformational approach to student housing," VTBS Architects managing principal Navy F Banvard told Dezeen.

"While the single occupancy bedrooms afford each student his/her private space, every effort has been made to encourage student life co-living and collaboration."

The lack of natural light inside the majority of the students' rooms was one of McFadden's critiques of the project, but Banvard believes this is unfounded.

"All of the single-occupancy bedrooms have either a conventional window or a 'virtual' window," he said.

Read:

Leddy Maytum Stacy covers entire roof of Berkeley design centre with photovoltaics

"All virtual windows will have a fully programmed circadian rhythm control system to substantially reflect the lighting levels and color temperature of natural daylight," he added.

"Circadian rhythm lighting is already found in many types of buildings. All of the common areas and amenities, including the Great Rooms and Kitchens within each House, have significant access to natural light."

Munger has previously contributed buildings to other campuses, including Stanford and the University of Michigan.

The main image of Munger Hall is courtesy of University of California Santa Barbara.

The post Architect resigns over mostly windowless University of California dormitory appeared first on Dezeen.

#Architecture – Dezeen

0 notes

loyallogic · 5 years

Text

How the new laws on keeping arms affect the present situation

This article is written by Shruti Singh, 2nd year Law intern from Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur pursuing B.A.LLB(Hons.) Course. This article concentrates around the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 its critical analysis and the changes brought by it.

Background of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019

The Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union Home Minister Amit Shah on November 29, 2019. This bill amends its principal act, the Arms Act, 1959. The bill was passed without any amendment from Lok Sabha on December 9th, 2019 and from Rajya Sabha on December 10, 2019. The opposition proposed several amendments to the bill, which were rejected.

Lok Sabha Debates

There were certain facts that came in front in the Lok sabha during the passing of Arms(Amendment) Bill, 2019. These are:

Six-decade-old law contained many discrepancies as it made crime control difficult.

By going as per our historical traditions, the ancient arms-bearing tradition of India continues to supply the manpower demand of the current national security establishments of India. Later on, a negative consequence of disarming the population by law was the growth of illegal country arms and smuggling of firearms. This is the major source of crime today and not legally licensed firearms.

There are approximately six crore fourteen lakh illegal arms in our country which are the main one of the main reasons behind the serious crimes happening in our country. Easy availability of illegal arms has made the underworld effective in cities like Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Indore and U.P. The largest factory of illegal weapons is situated at Munger District of Bihar and Khargaon in Madhya Pradesh. Illegal weapons are smuggled into this country from other countries also. Underworld is getting arms through Nepal and Bangladesh route. One of the largest factories of the world is situated in Darrha-Adam Jail at Peshawar, Pakistan. In addition to that illegal arms and Naxal insurgency are posing a great threat to our country and the society, in general. UP, Jammu and Kashmir, Patna and Munger district of Bihar have become one of the largest hubs of manufacturing illegal arms.

An illegal arms control cell should be set up in every state for regulations of illegal arms and anticipatory bail should not be granted to the accused booked under the Arms Act. Similarly, the licencing system should be made more transparent.

Apart from that, the import policy of the year 1984 should be reintroduced. It would be better if the prices of various arms manufactured in ordnance factories should be kept affordable. This will prevent people from getting illegal arms from other sources and especially from other countries.

With regards to the celebratory gunfire, the Government has made the provision of punishment of two years. It was proposed that seizure of licence, punishment for minimum six months, fine or something like that can be done for this purpose because punishment for two years is too much for an offence like celebratory gunfire.

After the amendment, the Government has reduced to keep the number of weapons from three to two, at any time by a person. There is no place in police stations to keep these weapons. All seized weapons are lying in very pathetic condition there. As per record, there is a loss of Rs.90,000 crore due to this. It was suggested that in spite of reducing the number of weapons, law and order situation should be improved.

It was seen from the cases that to issue licences to women is not considered to be appropriate. Rifle Clubs must be provided financial assistance to train women. It was further suggested to enact such legislation which protect us against the misuse of weapons.

Laws should be enacted for such laws which provide a conducive environment for aspiring shooters. The Government should approve the clubs affiliated with the National Rifle Association to set up shooting ranges wherever such ranges do not exist. It was further suggested that Government should issue expedience licence if one person of a family proposes to give the weapon to another person of the same family.

Permission to import arms should also be granted this will facilitate the availability of better quality weapons to people and revenue to the Government. Similarly, certain relaxation should be provided to aspiring sportsmen. Police firing ranges must be opened once in a week to facilitate practice session for them.

A very crucial point that was put forward was that the Government has introduced the concept of organized crime syndicate by amending Section 9(6) of the Bill. This particular definition of ‘organized crime syndicate’ is exactly as is given in the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA). The Maharashtra Assembly had enacted the MCOCA Act under the State List. The Union has no power to interfere in the States’ powers to investigate, prosecute and penalize the organized crime. Furthermore, the Government offers no explanation as to why it is necessary to incorporate organized crime syndicate under the Arms Act. It seems that this Government does not believe in federalism. They want to trample upon the State List. Inclusion of organized crime syndicate by amending Section 9(6) shows that they are completely encroaching upon the State List.

All these suggestions made by different ministers were rejected and the bill passed without much amendments from the Lok Sabha.

Changes Brought by the Amendment

Newly added Definition of Licence- Section 2

Before

Any definition on License was not present in the Act.

After

A new definition of licence was added- licence means a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules that are made thereafter and also includes licence issued in electronic form. [Clause (ea) has been added after Clause (e)]

Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition (Number of weapons)- Section 3

Before

No person except for those mentioned in clause 3 shall acquire, have in his possession or carry more than three firearms, at any time.

Persons mentioned in Section 3(3) are firearms dealer or any member of a rifle club.

After

In Section 3 of the principal act the words ”two arms” has been substituted against “three arms”. It means that now a person at a time cannot carry more than two firearms, previously three firearms were allowed.

A proviso to Section 3 has also been inserted which says that if a person possesses more than two firearms at the commencement of the act, he shall keep any of the two arms with him and deposit the rest with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or with a licensed dealer within a period of one year. And where the person belongs to armed forces he shall deposit in the unit armoury and after which it shall be delicensed from the ninety days of the expiry of the said one year. And while granting arms licence on inheritance or heirloom basis, the limit of two firearms-, in any case, can be exceeded.

It is still not applicable to any dealer in firearms or to any member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government using a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice. [Section 3(3)]

Scope of licence for manufacture, sale, etc. of arms and ammunition- Section 5

Before

In Section 5(1)-

No person shall manufacture, use, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, and

Expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearm, or

Any other arms or ammunition of such class or description as may be prescribed unless he holds a valid licence in accordance with the provisions of the law.

After

In section 5(1)-

The word manufacture has been substituted by “manufacture, obtain, procure”. It means that no person has the right to manufacture, obtain and procure firearms as described under the act without a valid licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Licence for the shortening of guns or conversion of imitation firearms into firearms- Section 6

Before

Section 6 stated that no person shall shorten the barrel of the firearm or convert an imitation(copy) firearm into a firearm unless he holds a valid licence issued on his behalf in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

After

In section 6 of the principal Act, after the words “convert an imitation firearm into a firearm”, the words “or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms” shall be substituted.

After the amendment, one more category where conversion is not allowed has been added as is mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016. It now covers more items by widening its scope of application of this provision.

Click Above

Prohibition of sale or transfer of firearms not bearing identification marks on it- Section 8

Before

Section 8(1): No person shall obliterate(destroy utterly), remove, alter or forge any name, number or other identification marks stamped or otherwise shown on a firearm. It prohibits any kind destruction of the number or identification marks stamped or shown on a firearm by any person.

After

In Section 8 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), for the word “firearm”, the words “firearm or ammunition” shall be substituted. It has the effect of widening the scope of firearm and covering all lot more types of firearms and ammunition.

Grant of licences (Firearm for target practice)- Section 13

Before

In Section 13(3)(ii): It states that licensing authority shall grant licences in regard of a point 22-bore rifle or an air rifle to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognized by the Central Government.

After

In Section 13 of the principal Act, in clause (a) of sub-section(3), in sub-clause (ii), for the words and figures “point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle”, the word “firearm” shall be substituted.

It means that now the licensing authority can grant licence in regard to a firearm to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognized by the Central Government of India.

Section 15: Duration and Renewal of licence- Section 15

Before

Section 15(1): A licence under section 3 shall continue to be in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted if it is not revoked in between this period.

Provided that if the person so requires the licence can be granted for a shorter period only if the licencing authority considers that the reasons are such that it needs to be recorded. In this case, the licence will be granted for a shorter period on the desire of the person who requires a licence with the grant of licensing authority.

After

In sub-section(1) of Section 15 the words “five years” has been added in place of “three years.”

It means that now a licence shall continue to be in force for a period of five years from the date on which it is granted if it is not revoked. A proviso has also been added which says that the licensee needs to produce the licence along with the arms and ammunition before the licensing authority after every five years from the date on which it was granted or renewed.

Punishment for certain kinds of offences (Enhancement of Punishment)- Section 25

Before

Section 25(1):

(a) those who are involved in manufacturing, selling, transferring, converting, repairing, testing or proving, or exposing or offering for the sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

After

In Section 25

Sub-section (1):

In clause (a), instead of the word “manufactures,”, the words “manufactures, obtains, procures,” shall be substituted.

It means that now whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for the sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5.

Clause (b)- After the words “convert an imitation firearm into a firearm”, the words “or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms” shall be inserted.

Whoever shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm or convert from any category of firearms as under Schedule I of the Rules under this Act to another category, in contravention of section 6.

Clause (d)- Whoever brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 6.

In the long line, for the words “three years but which may extend to seven years”, the words “seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life” has been substituted.

Any person who practices anything mentioned in Clause (a), (b), (d) will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also a fine. The minimum punishment as per the current amendment in violation of said offence will be seven years as against three years that was present in principal act.

Sub-section (1A)- Enhancement of punishment for acquiring prohibited arms in contravention of section 7

Before

According to this provision, whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

After

Instead of the words “five years but which may extend to ten years”, the words “seven years but which may extend to fourteen years” shall be substituted. The term of punishment for the said offence has been increased. The minimum punishment in such cases will be seven years instead of five years.

The following proviso shall be inserted,

The new provision which will be added states that “Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.”

After clause (1A) one additional clause (1AB) has been inserted:

According to this provision any person who by using force, takes the firearm from the police or armed forces shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”

Enhancement of punishment for manufacturing/possession of prohibited arms in contravention of section 7- Subsection (1AA)

Before

Any person who indulges in manufacturing, selling, transferring, converting, repairing, testing or proving, or exposing or offering for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

After

Instead of the words “seven years”, the words “ten years” shall be substituted.

Any person who manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Sub-section(1B): Marking of arms for tracing

Before

A person who acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention to section 3, arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

After

The words “one year but which may extend to three years”, has been substituted with the words “two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine”.

In the proviso, instead of the words “one year”, the words “two years” shall be substituted. It has increased the term for punishment.

After sub-section (5) new sub-sections (6), (7), (8) and (9) shall be inserted. It deals with organised crime and illicit trafficking and the punishments in such cases.

Before

There were no provisions for offences like organised crime syndicate, illicit trafficking and celebratory gunfire in the principal act.

After

Introduction of Organised Crime Syndicate(Added)- Sub-section (6)

If any member of organised crime syndicate on his own behalf possess or carry arms and ammunition without licence they will be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Organised Crime Syndicate- Sub-section (7)

Whosoever acting on behalf of an organised crime syndicate will also be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable for fine.

An explanation clause has also been added to Sub-section(6) and (7) which explains the words “organised crime”, “organised crime syndicate” and “continuing unlawful activity”.

Added new offence of Illicit trafficking- Sub-section (8)

Whoever is involved in or aids in the illicit trafficking of firearms and ammunition in contravention of sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. An explanation for “illicit trafficking” has also been added.

Rash and negligent use of firearms (Celebratory Gunfire)- Sub-section (9)

This sub-section prohibits firing in rash or negligent manner which has the tendency of endangering a person’s life and safety of others. The person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine up to rupees one lakh, or with both.

Punishment for using arms (Enhancement of Punishment)- Section 27

Before

Any person who uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, they shall be punishable with death.

After

In Section 27 of the original Act, in sub-section (3), for the words “shall be punishable with death”, the words “shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine” has been substituted with. So now in case of use of prohibited arms or ammunition the punishment is imprisonment for life or death and shall be liable to fine.

Power to make rules- Section 44

Before

Section 44(2)(f): the manner in which the maker’s name, the manufacturer’s number or other identification mark of a firearm shall be stamped or otherwise or shown thereon.

After

In Section 44 of the original Act, in sub-section (2), in clause (f),

For the words “firearm shall be stamped or otherwise shown thereon”, the words “firearm or ammunition shall be stamped or otherwise shown thereon for the purposes of tracing” shall be substituted.

Definition of Tracing added

An explanation for the term tracing has been provided which means a systematic tracking of firearms and ammunition from the manufacturer to purchaser for the purpose of detecting, investigating and analysing manufacturing and trafficking.

Critical Analysis of the new Amendment

Renewal Period of License Increased

The act has increased the period between which the licence can be renewed from three years to five years. This means that now a person can possess arms without much restriction and tension of renewal for a longer period.

Enhancement of Term of Punishment

The amendment largely talks about increasing the term of punishment under various offences, it does not cover any regulation to restrict illegal marketing and availability of guns in the market. Will increasing the punishments to an offence reduce the happening of an offence related to arms, This is an important question that needs to be addressed. We are a common law country, whose primary aim is providing justice to its citizens. But just by increasing the punishment will bring a change in the current crime scene in the country. For example, drugs are banned in India, still, we see that it is available so easily. Some states like Punjab are affected by it to a great extent. We also see students in colleges and universities consuming it on a daily basis. Has there been any difference to it? Likewise, for arms and ammunition, the availability of it should be strictly monitored.

Unrestricted use of licences

The State has over the years granted licences and also issued licences for firearms for crop protection to farmers as provided in the Arms Act. There is also a great cultural importance that citizens belonging to the martial communities take pride in retaining arms. These groups also need to be regulated and checked.

Availability of Illegal weapons

Then abundance of illegal weapons is the biggest problem in our country. The people who carry arms with licence anyways not pose much threat to the country. The people who do not have a valid licence or illegal weapons are the main reason behind the problem. From where the people get weapons who use them illegally? This is more important that what we are going to do with those weapons? The law-abiding people should not have any fear in their mind. I think there is no problem to issue licences to law abiding citizens.

Intention of the Bill

The intention of the bill is to punish those people who are indulging in an unlawful act which was meant for pecuniary benefits. Sometimes, the crime can be committed on the basis of the principle of antagonism against a person or a group. That type is not addressed in the Bill.

Grant of licences

One of the questions is, what should be the criteria to decide as to who will get the licence. It can be seen that private security agencies are seeking licences and they are providing firearms to private security guards. The question is, whether private security guards who are carrying those firearms are authorized to do so. Are they regulated by the government?

Effect on Private Market

The government allows 49 per cent FDI( Foreign Direct Investment) in small arms’ manufacture and then, want to limit it from possessing three arms to two.

Tension on Sports Community

There are a lot of worried people in the shooting sports community in India, and their anxiety and stress is that it limits the number of weapons that will hit new and emerging talent. Practising with weapons is part of their jobs and curbing this will have a huge impact on them.

History of the Arms(Amendment) Act, 2019

The Arms Act,1959 is the principal act which consolidates and amend the laws relating to arms and ammunition in the country to curb illegal weapons and violence stemmed from them. It replaced the Indian Arms Act, 1878 which was made by Britishers. The Indian Arms Act, 1878 was an act that regulated the manufacture, sale, possession and carrying of firearms. As before the Indian First War Of Independence in 1857, there were very few gun control laws in the country.

The Act is divided into 6 Chapters.

Chapter I: Parliamentary; Provides a short title and definitions and interpretations of terms used in the act.

Chapter II: Acquisition, Possession, Manufacture, Sale, Import, Export, and Transport of Arms and Ammunition; It provides for the rules and regulations around acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, import, export and transport of arms and ammunition in India.

Chapter III: Provisions relating to licences; Details how to procure a license, rules around grant, refusal, fees for licence.

Chapter IV: Powers and Procedure; Provides details on the powers that the government officials have to enforce like seizure and detention, the deposit of arms and search of vessels, etc of this act.

Chapter V: Offences and penalties; Explains punishments associated with breaking rules by individuals and companies that are related to this Act.

Chapter VI: Miscellaneous; Deals with the other miscellaneous parts of the Act such as exemptions, delegation, arrest and searches.

Significance of this Amendment

The Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019 has been introduced to control the use and possession of weapons in the country, to reduce their rash and illegal usage, which can endanger another human being in the country. It tries to impose more stringent punishments for production of arms and ammunition illegally and those possessing illegal arms. It also punishes those who indulge in a rash or negligent firing at a place of celebration and risk the life and safety of others.

Conclusion

This new amendment lacks to cover some important areas that were proposed by different ministers in the Lok Sabha debate. This amendment has majorly increased the term of punishment for various offences and also introduced some new category of offences. Something significant here is that, will this amendment bring a change in the society in terms of crimes that happen with arms and ammunition. The answer to this question largely comes in negative as still the availability of arms and ammunition has been overlooked or rather not dealt with.

References

http://loksabhadocs.nic.in/Synop/17/Second/Syn-09-12-2019.pdf

https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/10495/1/arms_and_ammunition_act_1959.pdf

http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214662.pdf

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

The post How the new laws on keeping arms affect the present situation appeared first on iPleaders.

How the new laws on keeping arms affect the present situation published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

0 notes

renatoled · 5 years

Text

The Unconventional Way to View the Property Market

I am going to discuss a worthwhile way to look at real estate investing that may be a bit unconventional to the majority tedge condo investors. A while ago, I watched a video through Charlie Munger, who is well-known as the business partner in Warren Buffet and his famous quote "Tell others where I'm gonna die and I'll make sure When i don't go there. " In this video, Charlie who had been 83 at the time, shared his life time of wisdom to help with making him a billionaire with a group of university graduates who sadly are about to start their career. There is one particular statement that actually interests me; he said "You are not entitled to an impression unless you can state the arguments against your belief better than your opponents can. " I find it statement quite profound but very difficult to apply in physical locales, I thought I would put it through some of the opinions extensively circulated within real estate investment and see how it goes. Prior to I am entitled to an opinion of "how useful Charlie's record is", the counter argument of "how useless the software is" can be something like the following: We are all entitled to our own judgment about anything, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, isn't going to really matter what other people say. Sometimes an opinion are generally completely wrong, but still workable in life. "The earth is without a doubt flat and still" is a good example of this, completely wrong, and yet workable! Wouldn't it be more workable to think that you are going for a walk on a still and flat surface than a rotating ball? Hence for the rest of the article, allow me to focus on how useful It is my opinion Charlie's statement can help us as real estate investors. The things I have done is, go back to look at some of the tenets regarding real estate investment that we have taken for granted without examining one other arguments, then see if we can learn something of computer, and more importantly see if we can discover investment chances most people miss because they fail to see the other side from the story. I found the most common opinion about real estate investing will be: Land goes up in value because of its limited supply therefore buy properties where land is of limited present! If you look at the property performance in Australia since 1996, good quality established suburbs all share this land scarcity factor, they all perform very well according to this tenet. For example , while building cost is increasing 3-4% a year administering CPI, the land value has increased as much as 12-14% a year, which averages out a 10% growth for your property over the last 15 years. It is very easy to not dilemma the opposite side of this opinion when the facts are overwhelmingly encouraging this argument. What if we follow Charlie's suggestion, the particular counter argument can be something like: "Land goes down in importance because of limited supply, don't buy properties where area is of limited supply. " I must say whenever i first wrote this down, I thought to myself this unique must be considered crazy by anyone with any common sense from the investment industry, it is just utterly against anything we've been told about investing in property. The only reason I just didn't stop there was because of Charlie, he didn't become a billionaire by being stupid, he must see tremendous value through this counter argument exercise to spot investment opportunities most people pass-up. So I 'forced' myself to see under what circumstances the counter argument could make sense. Interestingly enough, it couldn't take too long for me to see that this counter argument as well as has its value, but it could also help us explore investment opportunities most experienced property investors miss in today's world. Let me explain. It is obvious that land appreciation was initially the main driving force behind the property price growth in the last 15 years. But property prices are ultimately prescribed a maximum by how much income people have for qualifying for just a mortgage, this is more so in today's lending market where launching equity without income support has become increasingly difficult. To aid you to almost say over the longer term, we should see something like: Cash Growth = Property Price Growth (which can be digested to Land & Building price growth) So should Income Growth is 3%, and Building Cost Improvement is 3%, then Land Price Growth should also possibly be 3% to make this formula work over the longer term. Elizabeth. g. Income Growth (3%) = Property Price Progress (3%) [Land Price Growth (3%) & Making Cost Growth (3%)] However , in the last 15 years, the Income Growth is tracking along the Building Cost Growing, which is around CPI (3-4%), but the Land Price Emergence has been 12-14% per year. So you have something like: Income Expansion (3%) < Property Price Growth (10%) [Land Price Growth (12%) & Building Cost Progression (3%)] You can see the Land Price Growth has been much quicker than Income Growth. When investors look at where to order, they bought in areas where Land Price Development has been 12%+ per annum, usually in established suburbs whereby land supply is very limited. And it has worked for them within the last 15 years (between 1996 till now). The subject is "how long can the gap between Source of income Growth and Land Price Growth last without the Area Price Growth being forced to slow down? " Graphs of your Melbourne median house price between 1978 and 09 show property prices have grown much faster than income for some time of time till 1990 (reflected by the mortgage repayments of a average house taking up too larger a percentage of an average income), Property Price Growth then stopped for about 5 numerous years to wait for the Income Growth to catch up. All of these graphs show a similar phenomenon is looming if you step your attention towards 2009. So I can see the countertop argument "Land goes down in value because of limited deliver, don't buy properties where land is of constrained supply" makes sense when the Land Scarcity factor has been through sold for too long to the point that land value was basically severely over priced. In other words, Land Scarcity can be the main reason the reason investors can make good money, but it can also become the major reason why investors may make less money or even lose money. Before individuals rush to abandon the traditional high growth areas, we all believe that there is a shortage of supply of properties in comparison to interest, so property prices are likely to continue to go up for a while. The strong growth areas didn't become high growth places for no reason. After a period of flat performance (such as 1990-1996), they will always bounce back and quicken the growth, so I personally think they will always be decent areas to hold your properties for the longer term. The thought is where you should be putting your money to work intelligently covering the next 5-7 years to make the best return with the most affordable risk? Right now, if you buy an old house in a normal strong growth area within 20km of CBD to all major cities, you are expected to pay $700k+ with a low rent of 2 . 5-4%. Some of these properties were worthwhile only $200k-$300k less than 10 years ago. In contrast to these sections, you can still find property prices around $350k to make sure you $400k within 20km of CBD, whether they are properties in some transition areas (areas that are being re-zoned just for residential housing) or lower price apartments in the more established locations, gross rent can still be around 4. 5-6%, using the taxman helping the cash flow the first 5 years should the property is reasonably new. Let's look at an example. Let's say you will have the capacity to buy up to $800k worth of investment real estate, your wage is $100k pa, and you can borrow 100% plus stamp duty and costs at 7. 5% interest rate, because you have equity from other properties. Let me compare the following two possible options using Melbourne information as an example: Option 1: If you buy 2 x $400k properties, two brand new houses, $200k building and $200k land, in a transition suburb 17km from Melbourne CBD. Achievable gross rent currently is 4. 6%, organic meat assume a potential growth for the next 5 time is at 9. 4% per year (Melbourne's average for the last very few decades) due to its relatively lower price in comparison to Melbourne's median house hold price of $550k and its distance from the CBD. Therefore 5 years later, each of these properties will be around $627k. Option 2: If you buy 1 x $800k place, an old house of 25 years, $200k building as well as $600k land, in an established & traditionally high development suburb, also 17km from Melbourne CBD. Achievable uncouth rent currently is 3. 5%, we may assume the slightly lower growth at 6. 5% for the then 8 year due to its relatively inflated land value after a 15 year great run. So 5 years subsequently, this property will be around $1. 1m. (Please realize that a $1. 1m home in the same neighborhood within 7. 5% interest rate, will attract a $83k property loan repayment per annum, which is coming out of a family's after place a burden on net income. ) So let's look at the following diagrams for you to compare the Cash Flow of the above two options. Preference 1 (2 x $400k): $75/week or $4k/year out-of-pocket the first year. A total $19k out-of-pocket for the first 5 years. (see below table) Now - Property Importance $400, 000 Year 1 - Property Value $437, 600, Cost per week to hold $75 Year 2 - Property Value $478, 734, Cost per week to hold $97 Year 3 - Property Value $523, 735, Fee per week to hold $82 Year 4 - Property Worth $572, 967, Cost per week to hold $65 Year 5 - Property Value $626, 825, Cost per week to keep $45 Option 2 (1 x $800k): $489/week or perhaps $25k/year out-of-pocket the first year. A total $113k out-of-pocket for those first 5 years. (see below table) Now : Property Value $800, 000 Year 1 - Place Value $852, 000, Cost per week to hold $489 Time 2 - Property Value $907, 380, Cost per week to hold $465 Year 3 - Property Value $966, 360, Cost per week to hold $436 Year 4 -- Property Value $1. 029m, Cost per week to hold $405 Year 5 - Property Value $1. 096m, Price tag per week to hold $375 Let's compare the total money crafted over a 5 year period by simply using: capital develop + cash flow. Option 1 (2 x $400k): Growth capital Gain ($627k x 2 -$400k x 2) + Cash Flow (-$19k x 2) = $416k. Option three (1 x $800k): Capital Gain ($1. 1m - $800k) + Cash Flow (-$113k) = $187k. On top of that, typically the stamp duty difference was: $43k - $7k times 2 = $29k. So Option 1 is better down than Option 2 by: $416k + $29k : $187k = $258k. This doesn't include the following two big factors in favor of Option 1: Easier finance: it is quite easy to get 95% finance for a $400k property, and nearly impossible or too expensive to do the same for a $800k property. To explain, option 1 needs less money from you! Lower chances: the risk for a $400k property to lose $100k in worth is a lot less than an $800k property in the current heated current market condition. In other words, option 1 is lower risk for your dollars. Before I rush to claim "Option 1 is better than Option 2", I need to see under what circumstances Decision 2 will be better than Option 1, if I were to click on Charlie's teaching "You are not entitled an opinion unless you will be able to state the arguments against your opinion better than your own opponents can. " So the argument for buying a more significant price old house in an established suburb for investment decision purpose in the current market condition is that good and surrounding suburbs will always be in high demand, and rich people get livlier quicker. One can never underestimate the long-term potential individuals high growth suburbs even when they may experience some short-lived slow down coming off a long period of strong growth. All these suburbs may 'lose the battle' over the next 5-7 years against the up and coming transition suburbs, but they still experience what it takes to 'win the war' over a much longer interval.

#tedge condo

0 notes