On 3/13/16, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:

At 05:59 PM 3/13/2016, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

...

No, you really can't argue this in good faith in court. The designation of crypto as a 'munition' was done by an administrative agency as a classificatory convenience to manage the export control regime (it was considered a dual use technology). That has no constitutional resonance at all.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Henry Baker wrote:

...

A case could be made that citizen crypto is protected -- at least in the U.S. -- by the *Second* Amendment. Crypto has been considered "arms" on & off for hundreds of years, so crypto is as much a right under the Second Amendment as a firearm.

One if by land; two if by sea.

Code/encryption -- all part of being a militia.

The real reason no one wants to argue this is that most of the folks who are for citizen encryption are against citizen guns. So they've tied their own hands when they go to argue in court.

Even if said crypto citizens don't argue... the one group that is for citizen guns, the NRA [1], is also rather against surveillance / spying and databases and for privacy [2][3], so were you to reach out to them you might find a powerful symbiotic ally in the crypto fight. [1] And other similar RKBA groups. [2] See their national rally videos on youtube. [3] Though they may not know how to reach out to crypto to consult and integrate the philosophy into their position for their benefit. https://www.nra.org/ https://www.nraila.org/