On 3/13/16, Henry Baker <[email protected]> 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/
