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 10:08 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.

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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

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]

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 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.

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