1997-05-06 - Re: FC: Responses to Tim May’s criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal

Header Data

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 3465e66f3dcd7a660ae2eaea64bb0927336a364979cbc673ad98251033c83b2d
Message ID: <19970505214347.40130@bywater.songbird.com>
Reply To: <199705051842.LAA21649@krypton.chromatic.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-06 05:26:02 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 13:26:02 +0800

Raw message

From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 13:26:02 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FC: Responses to Tim May's criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal
In-Reply-To: <199705051842.LAA21649@krypton.chromatic.com>
Message-ID: <19970505214347.40130@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, May 05, 1997 at 04:53:28PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 1997, Ernest Hua wrote:
> > I don't completely like the first amendment argument because it is
> > solely based on claiming that software is, first and foremost,
> > expression.  In fact, software has mechanism and side effect of
> > mechanism.  If software were strictly expression, it is hard to
> > imagine how a multi-billion industry could have spawned from such an
> > inert practice.  Another example: one could argue that crafting an
> > grenade launcher is artistic expression, but surely few would consider
> > THAT argument when faced with such an "expressive" neighbor.
> I concur. A citizen has the right to manufacture a grenade launcher under
> the Second Amendment (irrespective of what judges scared into submission
> by Roosevelt et al may have ruled), not the First. 

I have heard, from a knowledgable person, that the reason that the NRA
has not pressed a constitutional challenge is that their lawyers tell
them that the historical context clearly indicates that the second
amendment does *not* protect individual ownership of firearms, and
that a constitutional challenge would almost certainly lose.  Hence
the NRA resorts to lobbying.  That is, it is not a matter of 
Roosevelt scaring the judges, but a matter of the clear intent of the 

This made sense to me -- if the constitutional grounds were clear the
NRA could save a tremendous amount of money and trouble just by
letting the court rule on it -- Roosevelt is dead.

Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55