[Cryptography] 2nd Amendment Case for the Right to Bear Crypto

[Henry Baker]

At 06:09 AM 5/12/2016, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>Never use the second amendment when you can use the first.
>
>The interpretation of both amendments have changed over time.  Less than a hundred years ago, Eugene Debs was in prison in the US for exercising his free speech right.  But there is a strong consensus on the first amendment that is really not under serious challenge in any part of the establishment.  Politicians and judges agree on an interpretation that is very close to being absolute.
>
>The current SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment is very recent, it was handed down by the Rehnquist court and even that interpretation is far from absolute.  Even Scalia probably wouldn't have found for a personal right to have hand grenades.  And what is coming with DIY drones carrying IEDs is likely to scare future courts into being very very restrictive indeed.
>
>Cryptography was being regulated as a munition during the Rehnquist era.  The case was won on first amendment, free speech grounds.

Yes, but...

Since ancient times, *defensive* systems like shields, chain mail, body armor, etc. have been considered "arms" & "armament".

So far as I know, there is *no* law prohibiting anyone in the U.S. from purchasing a bulletproof car with bulletproof windows.  I know of one Mercedes dealer in Los Angeles that does indeed sell such cars.  (These cars run up against another problem: in some cases, they weigh more than 6000 pounds, and are therefore no longer considered "cars", but that's a different issue.  These cars cannot have blacked out front windows (in California), which may be a privacy violation, but once again that's a different issue.)

I'm not aware of any law prohibiting me from wearing a "bulletproof" vest, although I understand they are bulky, uncomfortable and hot.

Suppose that there were much better "bulletproof" armor which was ubiquitously built into the clothing that we all wear.  The LEO's would freak out (just like they did after the "North Hollywood shootout" in 1997 in Los Angeles [1]), but -- as a public policy matter -- wouldn't everyone wearing such *armor* be a much better use of the 2nd Amendment than everyone carrying *offensive* weapons?

When was the last time in the entire history of the universe where kids were killed in a shooting in which the bullets were random numbers?

So I think that the Second Amendment *does* cover *defensive* armor.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout