Several years ago, California decided that certain rifles which had previously been sold openly and without restriction were now to be classified as "assault rifles," and owners were to fill out forms and register them. (I don't recall if a fee was involved.) (Some of you readers may, of course, think that such guns are in fact more dangerous than, say, shotguns. This is not so, but this is also beside my point. My point is not to argue that a Colt AR-15 with various cosmetic features (such as "flash suppressor") should not be registered. Indeed, I take it as a given that such registration is in violation of the Second Amendment. Rather, my point is about the dangers of complying with such registration laws.) It turns out that the suckers who voluntarily registered the so-called assault rifles they owned were subjected to _additional_ and _unwarranted_ delays in later purchases. The article below refers to some cases. Not surprisingly, the act of voluntarily registering an "assault rifle" placed one on a computerized list of suspicious citizen-units. (I'm glad I had the presence of mind not to register my Colt AR-15, bought in 1975, and having the "evil features" which the criminals in Congress declared to be evil. Had I done so, I might have been unable to buy the various guns I've bought recently.) Although guns are not the same as crypto, and comparisons of crypto to firearms are flawed, the lesson is that one should NEVER VOLUNTEER! No doubt in 1999, when citizen-units are ordered to voluntarily register their copies of assualt cryptography tools, those who step forward like lambs to the slaughter will find themselves on lists of subversive citizen-units. Yet more of a reason for Stego-PGP. This article appeared in rec.guns: In article <4vssg2$3dh@xring.cs.umd.edu>, wd6cmu@netcom.com (Eric Williams) wrote:
In a previous post, John C. Woo (jwoo@rezn8.com) wrote: : Eric Williams wrote: : # I read somewhere (I can look it up if someone cares) that the DOJ is : # holding up paperwork on purchases by people who have registered their : # "assault rifle" with the state. Has anyone experienced this?
: This is starting to sound like a conspiracy. : I DO happen to own a registered AR-15 here : in sunny California.
: I would be interested to know where you discovered : this tasty tidbit.
It came from an paper by David Kopel, "Why gun waiting periods threaten public safety." (Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, V1 #4, summer '92) He writes:
About 10% of California's 300,000 "assault weapon" owners have registered their weapons, as required by law. The group that complied with the retroactive registration law surely qualifies as a highly law-abiding set of people. Yet this group of highly law-abiding gun-owners, when they attempt to buy a new rifle or pistol following California's 15-day waiting period, find that the California Department of Justice has put a 1 to 4 month hold on their applications because they are registered "assault weapon" owners.
As a cite, he references LA Daily News, March 4, 1991, a letter to the editor by William Davis under the title "Gun Law Backfires". The letter was from a law enforcement officer and licensed federal firearms dealer whose application was put on hold. -- Eric Williams | wd6cmu@netcom.com | WD6CMU@WD6CMU.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
"The information superhighway is a revolution that in years to come will transcend newspapers, radio, and television as an information source. Therefore, I think this is the time to put some restrictions on it." -- Sen. James Exon (D-Neb.)
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."