CDR: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...

[Tim May]

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.