CDR: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state statute? Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per square foot. Additionally, it does not mention a paperwork requirement for not owning a gun. While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'. Also, given their views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-) Thanks! -p "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Tim May <tcmay@got.net>@cyberpass.net on 11/05/2000 04:32:13 PM Please respond to Tim May <tcmay@got.net> Sent by: owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
At 7:35 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state statute? Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per square foot.
While I don't agree that the 14th Amendment ("equal protection...") was needed, this is the basis for reminding states that they may not pass laws which are unconstitutional. Thus, Oregon may not pass a law banning Mormonism, even though the C. says "Congress shall make no law..." Further, every state agreed to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon entry (and perhaps as a condition of entry, though I'm not a C. expert on this) to the Union. It won't fly to say that while Congress may not ban guns, or require guns, that states and local jurisdictions are free to do thusly. As for smoke detectors, they fall in the same category as seat belts, helmets, and other such intrusions: unconstitutional, a "taking." While they may be _good ideas_, it is not the business of government to enter our homes in this way. Smoke detectors and wiring standards are, however, a long way away from banning guns, or requiring guns. Let's not get sidetracked into chestnuts like "If libertarians don't want government, how do roads get built?" There _are_ answers, but they require laying some groundwork. The point I was making is that those who think they can outsmart the gun banners by _requiring_ guns are giving ammunition to the banners. And are violating the Constitution.
Additionally, it does not mention a paperwork requirement for not owning a gun.
One becomes a violator of the law by not having a gun. One could mount a defense based on the C. issues, or the C.O. issues. This is what I meant by "paperwork." Well, we don't _need_ to justify to anyone why we don't have a television, or telephone, or computer, or rifle, or encyclopedia, or anything else "required" by some law. Think about it.
While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'. Also, given their views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-)
I make the point about "x needs killing" to help lay the moral groundwork. Just as preachers had been saying "abortion clinics are a scourge and should be bombed," and bombings then started, it helps if people start to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of rights violators having earned killing, bombing, and nerve gassing. Doesn't mean I plan to do it myself, any more than the preachers saying that killing abortionists is a moral act planned to do it themselves. It's about the moral issues. And changing the moral climate. Read "Unintended Consequences," by John Ross, for a fuller explication of this point. Crypto anarchy doesn't just mean erosion of government, it provides the means to carry the war for liberty into the belly of the beast. Unlike many, I've never hidden this basic point. Think about it. If this scares off some weak sisters, good. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Again we have one of those few occasions in which Tim and I are in perfect agreement. To require gun ownership just because "arms" or "militia" is in the Constitution makes as much sense as requiring us all to have a press just because "press" is in the Constitution. Now to the second point, police power regulation by states, implicitly cited below. We settled in the Civil War the question of whether States get to arm themselves against invasion. They don't. I have no doubt the same holds true for municipalities. The "common defense" is a national defense. A State has no authority to require you to keep or bear arms. MacN On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
At 7:35 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state statute? Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per square foot.
While I don't agree that the 14th Amendment ("equal protection...") was needed, this is the basis for reminding states that they may not pass laws which are unconstitutional.
Thus, Oregon may not pass a law banning Mormonism, even though the C. says "Congress shall make no law..."
Further, every state agreed to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon entry (and perhaps as a condition of entry, though I'm not a C. expert on this) to the Union.
It won't fly to say that while Congress may not ban guns, or require guns, that states and local jurisdictions are free to do thusly.
As for smoke detectors, they fall in the same category as seat belts, helmets, and other such intrusions: unconstitutional, a "taking." While they may be _good ideas_, it is not the business of government to enter our homes in this way.
Smoke detectors and wiring standards are, however, a long way away from banning guns, or requiring guns. Let's not get sidetracked into chestnuts like "If libertarians don't want government, how do roads get built?" There _are_ answers, but they require laying some groundwork.
The point I was making is that those who think they can outsmart the gun banners by _requiring_ guns are giving ammunition to the banners. And are violating the Constitution.
Additionally, it does not mention a paperwork requirement for not owning a gun.
One becomes a violator of the law by not having a gun. One could mount a defense based on the C. issues, or the C.O. issues. This is what I meant by "paperwork."
Well, we don't _need_ to justify to anyone why we don't have a television, or telephone, or computer, or rifle, or encyclopedia, or anything else "required" by some law.
Think about it.
While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'. Also, given their views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-)
I make the point about "x needs killing" to help lay the moral groundwork. Just as preachers had been saying "abortion clinics are a scourge and should be bombed," and bombings then started, it helps if people start to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of rights violators having earned killing, bombing, and nerve gassing.
Doesn't mean I plan to do it myself, any more than the preachers saying that killing abortionists is a moral act planned to do it themselves. It's about the moral issues. And changing the moral climate.
Read "Unintended Consequences," by John Ross, for a fuller explication of this point.
Crypto anarchy doesn't just mean erosion of government, it provides the means to carry the war for liberty into the belly of the beast. Unlike many, I've never hidden this basic point. Think about it.
If this scares off some weak sisters, good.
--Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 10:44 PM 11/5/00 -0600, Mac Norton wrote:
Again we have one of those few occasions in which Tim and I are in perfect agreement. To require gun ownership just because "arms" or "militia" is in the Constitution makes as much sense as requiring us all to have a press just because "press" is in the Constitution.
While I agree with this, most states and cities not only require you to have guns, they require you to hire guys in blue suits to carry them around. Back when we had state militias, people were often required to be part of them, and the Feds still require you to sign up for the draft so they can tell you to carry them and shoot their enemies in places like Vietnam if they can't get enough volunteers. The only difference here is they're giving you a bit more choice on who you shoot and when.... But then, if the War Between The States was really about slavery, why did Lincoln use conscript troops to fight it? (The Secession was to prevent slavery from being banned, but the War was to enforce nationalism.) But yeah, it was tacky for Kennesaw Georgia to make their law, and it's tacky for this part of Utah to do so. "You have the right to own a gun. If you do not own a gun, one will be provided for you." Or, as Woody Guthrie said about the draft, "Well, they can make me carry a gun, but they can't tell me which way to point it." Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
This is a somewhat interesting question. Presumably just as the right to speak freely includes the right to keep one's silence, the right to bear arms includes the right to remain weaponless (modulo conscription). The 2A arguably goes further than the 1A; the first is a literal prohibition on what Congress may do (at least in those pre-14th days), while the second says the right "shall not be infringed." So if we agree the right exists, by a strict originalist reading of the Constitution, it's reasonable that it would be unconstitutional for any government to require such. -Declan On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 07:35:33PM -0500, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state statute? Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per square foot. Additionally, it does not mention a paperwork requirement for not owning a gun.
While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'. Also, given their views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-)
Thanks!
-p
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Tim May <tcmay@got.net>@cyberpass.net on 11/05/2000 04:32:13 PM
Please respond to Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Sent by: owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net cc: Subject: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html
Utah town requires all households to own gun
November 5, 2000 Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT)
VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town has enacted an ordinance requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for residents' self-defense.
Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own firearms, so the initiative has lots of support, Mayor Jay Lee said.
Residents had expressed fear that their Second Amendment right to bear arms was under fire, so the town council modeled a similar measure passed by a Georgia city about 12 years ago.
The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and people who cannot afford to own a gun are exempt.
This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or Illinois, as I recall.
t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns.
The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious objections to having a gun in my house.
Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush.
Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a gun is just as foolish as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns need killing.
--Tim May
-- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state statute? Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per square foot.
An interesting exercise is to ask where the government (ANY branch of government) gets the authority to require me to put smoke detectors in my home. If my house burns down, that's my tough toenails, right? Well, probably not in the city. In a densely built area, the government is exercising the PRESUMED property rights of my neighbors to minimize the risk to their homes from fires I may start. But it has done so, in most cases, without ever consulting my neighbors or getting their authorization for such action. I really wish that property ownership, or whatever else, came with an attached list of the supposed "property rights" exercised on your behalf by government. I think people would be appalled at what their presumed interests amount to complicity in. Bear
At 10:08 PM -0800 11/5/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state statute? Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per square foot.
An interesting exercise is to ask where the government (ANY branch of government) gets the authority to require me to put smoke detectors in my home. If my house burns down, that's my tough toenails, right?
In California, smoke detectors for homes are required AS PART OF A SALE, but not before or after. That is, there is no requirement placed on an ordinary homeowner. As usual, rules for landlords are much different. Enforcement being through the usual method of renters suing for large sums because the landlord let the $7.99 smoke detector run low on battery power. On the point of a law requiring guns, I just can't think of anything the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 02:13 AM 11/6/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
I just can't think of anything the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be.
* running water * N toilets per hectare * electricity * walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (standards) * N metres of terra between A and B
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, David Honig wrote:
At 02:13 AM 11/6/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
I just can't think of anything the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be.
* running water
There's no law in Texas that requires me to use any of the city utilities. There are other laws that limit my options however with respect to alternatives.
* N toilets per hectare
You mean I need to have a toilet in my barn? Man are my cows going to be happy or what... Here in Texas it has to be a domicile or a place of business to be required to have toilets. And if the building doesn't have them then it's usualy grandfathered (at least until the next time you need a building permit to do a mod).
* electricity
Nada, call your electric company. Ask them what happens if you turn off the electricity where you live? Nothing.
* walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (standards)
Of course you can avoid this by living outside a city. Generaly the county building codes are not very restrictive. The strict city codes generaly come from bad experiences like Mrs. Oleary's cow (though it really wasn't the cow's fault). ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, David Honig wrote:
At 02:13 AM 11/6/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
I just can't think of anything the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be.
* running water * N toilets per hectare * electricity * walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (standards) * N metres of terra between A and B
Um. Not true. Many of my relatives do without the first three owing to religious proscription. Since they tend to build their own homes in big house-raising parties, (ie, would rather pay for employing their own community for a day plus have singing, a banquet, and horseshoe pitching instead of paying the same money to "some outlander", aka a contractor) the standards to which contractors are held in building have never become an issue. Then again, as far as I know no Amish-built house has ever fallen down or had the roof blow off in a storm, and the locals hold them in high regard as solid structures (this is Kansas, where the wind occasionally dismantles other buildings). I don't think a structural inspection would likely be a problem.... Bear
At 09:00 PM 11/6/00 -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, David Honig wrote:
* running water * N toilets per hectare * electricity * walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (standards) * N metres of terra between A and B
Um. Not true. Many of my relatives do without the first three owing to religious proscription. Since they tend to build their own homes in big house-raising parties, (ie, would rather pay for employing their own community for a day plus have singing, a banquet, and horseshoe pitching instead of paying the same money to "some outlander", aka a contractor) the standards to which contractors are held in building have never become an issue.
Then again, as far as I know no Amish-built house has ever fallen
Wow, you're related to the Amish? Anyway the English :-) may make exceptions for the Amish, but generally, and even in rural america, you can't sell a house for human (chiiiildren) occupation that's not wired for classical infrastructure ---water, wires, N lbs/ft^2. [Just another example of the state rape of property rights which I do not defend] Rural folks may get away with more slack, but only because they may not be caught. Simple example: No matter how rural you are, a single cat-tail gives the ARmy Corps of Engrs 'rights' to control the use of that 'wetland'; however this is hard to enforce universally because the Army Corps doesn't have access to 10 cm spy satellites to survey every farm. [not intending to start an ecological flame]
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, David Honig wrote:
At 09:00 PM 11/6/00 -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, David Honig wrote:
* running water * N toilets per hectare * electricity * walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (standards) * N metres of terra between A and B
Um. Not true. Many of my relatives do without the first three owing to religious proscription.
Wow, you're related to the Amish?
Yeah. They really are an amazing bunch and have done an astonishing amount of work on the civil-rights front. One of my grandfathers was born to an Amish family but eventually married outside that community and, um, left. But we still go occasionally to family reunions, and we are still welcome there.
Anyway the English :-) may make exceptions for the Amish, but generally, and even in rural america, you can't sell a house for human (chiiiildren) occupation that's not wired for classical infrastructure ---water, wires, N lbs/ft^2.
I don't think so. As I understand matters, the laws in most of the US are that *IF* there is electrical wiring, then it must meet certain standards, and *IF* there are indoor toilets then they must meet certain standards, and etc. These laws simply do not apply to homes built without these things. :-) FWIW, referring to those outside the community as "English" is a Pennsylvania thing. In other centers, where the Amish are themselves mainly english-speaking, the term in use is "Outlander". So when my cousins refer to me as having "Outlandish" ideas or ways, I know exactly what they mean. Unlike most of the people who use the word about me, they are just being literal. Bear
At 9:24 PM -0500 11/6/00, David Honig wrote:
At 02:13 AM 11/6/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
I just can't think of anything the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be.
* running water
Nope, no such law.
* N toilets per hectare
Nope.
* electricity
Are you just making this stuff up now?
* walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (standards)
Only at the time of construction, and only in recent years. Many "substandard" dwellings exist. There may be requirements for upgrades when houses are sold, but this isn't what I said.
* N metres of terra between A and B
Which explains rowhouses, condos, townhouses, and shotgun shacks. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 01:21 AM 11/7/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
At 9:24 PM -0500 11/6/00, David Honig wrote:
* N toilets per hectare
Nope.
* electricity
Are you just making this stuff up now?
* walls, stairs, floors made to certain state minima (standards)
Only at the time of construction, and only in recent years. Many "substandard" dwellings exist. There may be requirements for upgrades when houses are sold, but this isn't what I said.
* N metres of terra between A and B
Which explains rowhouses, condos, townhouses, and shotgun shacks.
--Tim May
Perhaps you are lucky enough to live in an area completely without building codes, but I doubt it. [Similarly, some are lucky enough to live in areas with constitutional gun laws, too, but most don't. Even if you live freely now, you remain succeptible to zoning boards and state legislatures.] Fact is, there are in many places laws on what you can build on your own land and what you need to sell it as a house. Some places even have laws about the litres used when you flush ---you can't sell a house with old toilets. These are not voluntary (e.g., CC&R) regs, nor are they anti-fraud provisions, they are laws backed by guns which prohibit certain private actions. Unconstitutional taking.
At 11:24 AM -0500 11/7/00, David Honig wrote:
Perhaps you are lucky enough to live in an area completely without building codes, but I doubt it. [Similarly, some are lucky enough to live in areas with constitutional gun laws, too, but most don't. Even if you live freely now, you remain succeptible to zoning boards and state legislatures.] Fact is, there are in many places laws on what you can build on your own land and what you need to sell it as a house. Some places even have laws about the litres used when you flush ---you can't sell a house with old toilets. These are not voluntary (e.g., CC&R) regs, nor are they anti-fraud provisions, they are laws backed by guns which prohibit certain private actions. Unconstitutional taking.
You don't get it, do you? I said there are no laws requiring me to have anything in my house. There aren't. Please read more carefully next time. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Ray Dillinger wrote:
An interesting exercise is to ask where the government (ANY branch of government) gets the authority to require me to put smoke detectors in my home. If my house burns down, that's my tough toenails, right?
They don't if you're the home owner and it's your home. The law requires the owner of rental property to have them installed, there is no law that says the tenents must use them. For example the law does not clarify who and when the batteries must be changed. Most of this stuff is regulated by insurance contract and not law (at least the non-contractual type). ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Ray Dillinger wrote:
An interesting exercise is to ask where the government (ANY branch of government) gets the authority to require me to put smoke detectors in my home. If my house burns down, that's my tough toenails, right?
They don't if you're the home owner and it's your home. The law requires the owner of rental property to have them installed, there is no law that says the tenents must use them. For example the law does not clarify who and when the batteries must be changed.
Typical Texan, thinking that Texas is the whole world. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, petro wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Ray Dillinger wrote:
An interesting exercise is to ask where the government (ANY branch of government) gets the authority to require me to put smoke detectors in my home. If my house burns down, that's my tough toenails, right?
Typical Texan, thinking that Texas is the whole world.
No, simply pointing out that contrary to Ray's assertion everyone, everywhere doesn't do it the same way. In fact I'm saying the blanket statement is wrong, as is yours. Fucking bigots. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (10)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Mac Norton -
Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM -
petro -
Ray Dillinger -
Tim May