[A comment: I will _not_ be drawn into a general Second Amendment discussion here, for several reasons. This note is only to respond to the first comments I've seen on my post...if a lot more people get into the act, I'll just let others fight it out and ignore the thread. Crypto = Guns has been debated many times in many places. I won't debate gun control, which I'm against, nor will I get into debates about how a ban on biological warfare research would be unenforceable, would interfere with bread-making and wine-making research, blah blah. This is a kind of nit-picking that echoes the libertarian disease.] At 7:23 PM 1/20/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:

...

After all, it is well-established--whether we like it or not--that the government can regulate and control access to [...]

I *think* the only thing that's been affirmed, is that the feds can *tax* weapons transfers. I think the one particular case is called "Rock Island" or something like that. The defendant was *acquitted* of possessing an un-registered machine gun, because the authority to tax transfers of newly-manufactured machine guns, no longer exists. This is an over-simplifaction. Anyway, the point is, the defendant was acquitted right there in district court.

And what about the Assault Weapons laws? Bush signed one, limiting transfers of certain types of assault rifles, assault pistols, etc. (their choice of terms, not mine). Without getting into specifics of which models were banned for import and banned for transfer to private parties, this is a very real law. Taxes have almost nothing to do with it. That some defendants were acquitted in some jurisdictions on some charges says little about the more general laws. Likewise, there are specific laws on the books banning the private possession of chemical and biological warfare agents. (This was discussed on the list a couple of years ago--a specific law was passed outlawing private research into biological warfare agents unless authorized to do so by the governemnt.) Without spending a lot of time searching for the specific laws, I recall that the Atomic Energy Act placed stringent restrictions on the dissemination of nuclear materials. One can argue that these laws are not "weapons" laws per se, but the effect is the same. Anyone possessing a nuclear warhead in the U.S. would be subject to many laws, ranging from national security laws to public endangerment laws to hazardous materials laws. --Tim May Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."