From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 00:56:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: NRA and National Online Records Check bullshit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9706301850.A28965-0100000@netcom2>
Message-ID: <v03102805afdee15fe080@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 7:46 AM -0700 7/1/97, Paul Bradley wrote:
...
>Not so, I believe Kent pointed out the US statute that describes
>unreasonable punishment as being "cruel and unusual", banning ownership
>of firearms as part of the punishment for a violent crime seems perfectly
>reasonable to me, but foo on that anyway: punishment should fit the
>crime, if you commit murder or rape or any one of a number of such
>serious crimes I see no reason why you shouldn`t be punished cruelly.

The apparent meaning of "cruel and unusual" had to do with things like
torture, death by starvation, death by immersion in hot oil, and other such
things which some regimes had practiced. The "design goal" of all U.S.
capital punishment methods is generally "quick and painless."

- Hanging--very quick and very painless (the neck is snapped, and
consciousness vanishes)

- Firing squad--no further explanation needed (assuming multiple rounds hit
the target)

- Electrocution--originally designed to render subject unconscious almost
immediately. Whether it does this merits discussion, but the original
intent was surely for a "scientific" fast death (just as the guillotine was
similarly designed)

- Gas chamber--cyanide produces rapid unconsciousness

- Lethal injection--the "new" scientific method. Obviously painless.


>I can see the point of view which accepts serving of sentence as being
>the end of punishment, and I do not accept a ban on firearms as being
>implicit in the commision of a felony, but if a court explicitly states
>that part of the punishment should be a X year or lifetime ban I can
>accept that.

Does this mean that you would "accept" a wording which took away a released
convict's ability to speak freely, or to practice the religion of his
choice?

("Upon completion of your 6-month sentence for public blasphemy, you must
renounce Baalism and accept the religion so ordered by the court.")

Why is this any different from taking away Second Amendment rights?

There is sometimes a loophole for taking away some particular right, or
interfering with it in a special way, a la the language of "compelling
needs." This is how the courts look at the putative conflict of rights, as
in things like "the state has a compelling need to protect minors from
these materials." Then there's the related language of "overbroad."

But how does a lifetime, blanket ban on possession of firearms--i.e., a
complete denial of Second Amendment rights--for any of tens of thousands of
claimed "felonies" fit with this "compelling need" model? What's the
compelling need for the state to deny Second Amendment rights for life to
someone convicted of fraud or money laundering?

The compelling need appears to be related to the general trend of disarming
as many of the marks as possible, as soon as possible.

(I understand, Paul, that you are not a U.S. citizen, but this is the
framework for the current discussion.)

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."