From: "John Kelsey" <kelsey@plnet.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:28:27 +0800
To: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Crypto-law etc
Message-ID: <199709182314.SAA23318@email.plnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis@FreeGate.net>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Crypto-law etc
> Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 2:35 PM
 
> The longer I follow the crypto "debate" the more I begin to
> understand what must have been the real intent behind the
> 2nd amendment of the constitution.
> 
> If the White House can get crypto code defined in the true
> legal sense (that is backed up by case law) as a munition,
> do US citizens then have a constitutional right to "bear" it?

Sure.  We get the same right to bear it as we have to own rocket
launchers, machine guns, or flame throwers--none.  The second 
amendment hasn't protected our right to possess those things, 
which pretty clearly fall into the realm of its direct intentions--why
would it protect our right to use crypto, which isn't even that clear
cut?  
 
> Just curious,
> --Chuck

--John Kelsey, kelsey@counterpane.com