From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis@FreeGate.net> To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Crypto-law etc Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 2:35 PM
The longer I follow the crypto "debate" the more I begin to understand what must have been the real intent behind the 2nd amendment of the constitution.
If the White House can get crypto code defined in the true legal sense (that is backed up by case law) as a munition, do US citizens then have a constitutional right to "bear" it?
Sure. We get the same right to bear it as we have to own rocket launchers, machine guns, or flame throwers--none. The second amendment hasn't protected our right to possess those things, which pretty clearly fall into the realm of its direct intentions--why would it protect our right to use crypto, which isn't even that clear cut?
Just curious, --Chuck
--John Kelsey, kelsey@counterpane.com