Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto

[azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear)]

>No. And No.  This argument will never fly in any court.
>
>If you want to see why, go to my homepage
>
>http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
>

Thanks, the material was indeed informative.  Some great work!

However, I found much disturbing.  The inference that the Exec branch could
on the one hand classify crypto as a munition ('arms' by any other name),
while for constitutional purposes the Courts may not exposes a deep-seated
legal duplicity.

Constitutional interpretations over the past century not withstanding, it
is clear (to me) that a substantial number of the Framers would abhor what
has become of the Second Amendment's ... right to keep and bear arms.

One of the primary reasons put forth by the Framers for such a right was in
order to resist the an oppressive state.

        The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep
        and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
        tyranny in government.
                                  --Thomas Jefferson

        When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.
                                  --George Washington

It is ludacrous to expect citizens armed with no more than side arms,
bolt-actions and shot guns to resist the actions of a modern military or
law enforcement which citizens may find in violation of their inaliable
natural rights (whether mistaken or not).  In my opinion, all citizens
should be be able to keep and bear any arms (without registration) which
the state might use against them.   To do so now is a criminal action.  So
be it.

Unfortunately, it is common for groups especially governmental to be come
statist, mean spirited and eventually malevolent.

I hope jim bell or his ilk are soon successful at putting up functional,
anonymous and active AP sites.  I can't wait to wager!

-- Steve