Well, according to the authors, "The courts have overwhelmingly supported the collective-rights interpretation" of the Second Amendment. "The federal courts in the Morton Grove case were no exception. The district court held that Morton Grove's ordinance did not violate the Illinois Constitution or the Second Amendment. It based its holding on the fact that the Second Amendment has never been incorporated into the Fourteenth and made applicable against the states. The Second Amendment, therefore, acts only as a restriction on the federal government, keeping it from passing legislation that would infringe on a state's right to arm and train its militia [...] On December 6, 1982, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed [...] Under the controlling authority of the only Supreme Court case to address the scope of the Second Amendment, US v Miller, the court concluded that 'the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment'. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower-court rulings stand." You may well disagree with this state of affairs, but can you say that any of this factual information about court rulings is reported incorrectly? That the Supreme Court declined to hear the case can only mean that they agreed with the Appeals Court decision and almost certainly would have voted to uphold it. Otherwise enough justices would have voted to hear it on appeal. That's not *quite* the same thing as saying that "no case has come before the court since 1939". Cases including Morton Grove *have* come before the Supreme Court. They simply haven't agreed to hear any, presumably because they've always agreed with the lower court opinions. Once again, I would like to say that tying cryptography to the Second Amendment is exceptionally bad strategy for the Cypherpunks. Not only is it highly unlikely to do any good, given how the courts have ruled on gun control cases in this century, but it is almost certain to backfire. Many people who strongly support the right to use cryptography to protect personal privacy are not strong supporters of "gun rights". Indeed, many of us find cryptography so appealing precisely because of its purely defensive nature. It protects my privacy by simply making it *impossible* for people to read my mail, rather than by threatening them with death or serious bodily harm after the fact. Prevention is far more effective and moral than threats and revenge, and for both reasons you will find it much easier to get the public to accept and support it. Worst of all are the complete loonies (some apparently on this list) who assert that guns are an essential protection against a tyrannical US Federal Government. Those who believe this have apparently never heard of the US Civil War, because the South tried exactly this over 130 years ago. (They failed, BTW.) It succeeded only in destroying most of an entire generation of Americans, along with much of the country. And that was before some rather significant advances in US military weaponry, vis a vis privately owned weapons. I am a strong believer in the right to protect one's personal privacy through strong cryptography and other purely peaceful means. I'm not trying to violently overthrow the government, and I'd rather not be associated with gun fetishists who give the strong impression that they are -- it can only hurt the cause I believe in. Phil