10 ms·

The classification of cryptography as munitions was an interesting choice. The first amendment may protect domestic encryption capabilities as stated by the wik

The classification of cryptography as munitions was an interesting choice. The first amendment may protect domestic encryption capabilities as stated by the wikipedia article. From a legal standpoint, does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? As information becomes weaponized, it's an interesting thought. The first amendment is arguably more vulnerable these days, so I wonder if perhaps a second amendment argument could be made in support of domestic encryption. It certainly would help with marketing the argument to a certain segment of the population.

cloudwalking 9y ago
It does not, because the 2nd amendment protects arms, not munitions (for example, bombs).
- localhost 9y ago
  Here is the entire text of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
- madengr 9y ago
  What's the difference? The 2A certainly applies to cannons. Are those arms or munitions? Grenades are legal to own, just need the tax stamp.
  - danesparza 9y ago
    Arms are munitions. Not all munitions are arms. More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List
- hnal943 9y ago
  I think the distinction is between "arms" and "ordinance". Reading through the comments here, it seems "munitions" is a super set of both.
tc313 9y ago
IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.
- orf 9y ago
  Isn't the 2a just a "well armed malitia"? Maybe an RPG is more than well armed, but encryption?
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    "well-regulated militia," but it's pretty much an open question how much that actually has to do with the right described in the second clause. Gun rights activists tend to down-play that first bit, as it implies a collective perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with unlimited individual gun ownership rights.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      Some context into the mindset and beliefs of the people who penned the original amendment is helpful in this case, but you find very little in support of the level of control that the anti-2A people want. Gun rights antagonists tend to downplay that bit, as it implies an individual perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with tightly-controlled gun ownership permissions.
      - ams6110 9y ago
        They also downplay that in every case of a gun being used in some criminal way, numerous laws and regulations are already being broken. So what difference will more regulations make? The only thing that could possibly give the gun-control people what they really want is total confiscation of all guns, and even if that were somehow possible there would be a civil war over that if it were to be seriously attempted.
        agar 9y ago
alistairSH 9y ago
does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? It doesn't much matter. Even if somebody made the case that "crypto is a form of 'Arms', subject to 2A protection," the 2A doesn't grant an unregulated right to own whatever "arms" one chooses. All the rights granted by the Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation. So, Congress could simply legislate a restriction on crypto, much as they have done with machine guns, grenades, and nukes.
- jteppinette 9y ago
  Where does it say you can regulate my rights?
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    WRT the 2A, it's right there in the text: "well regulated". WRT other rights... Explicitly? Not always in the Constitution. But, if you think you can cry "Fire!" in a theater, you would be mistaken. SCOTUS has upheld reasonable restrictions on rights over and over. It's a settled matter. (edited - cleaned up my thoughts a bit)
    - salawat 9y ago
      Stop quoting that case. That was SCOTUS upholding the right of the government to clamp down on speech that encouraged draft dodging or could even be marginally interpreted as disagreeing with it during wartime. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... It ain't Dred Scott dumb, but it's up there in stupidity and retarded law. Well regulated doesn't mean the feds get to control the details of what the militia can use either. The militia is every able-bodied 18-47 year old. The regulated part implies a command structure which the National Guard provides.
      - alistairSH 9y ago
        I'm not sure what case you're thinking of, because I didn't explicitly mention one. Chaplinsky v. NH was in 1942 and had nothing to do with draft dodging. Since then, the courts have ruled inconsistently on the matter. The only common thread is the courts mostly agree that some restriction on speech is permissible - where that line lays is very much up for debate. WRT the militia - the government disagrees with your assertion. A random citizen cannot go into the gun store and buy a machine gun, or grenades. Special (and expensive) permitting is required. If you're contention is that these restrictions are unConstitutional, I'm not really sure we should bother debating the point.
rjsw 9y ago
The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to foreigners. Classifying encryption as a munition meant that I have never truthfully answered all the visa waiver questions on entering the US.
- throwaway84742 9y ago
  It does. A permanent resident alien can purchase and carry firearms in most states, and nonresident aliens can get a license to do so as well.
- bmelton 9y ago
  Fischer v Massachussetts[1] (and other cases won by the second amendment foundation) holds that resident aliens are counted amongst "the people" for purposes of second amendment protection (and other rights too!) [1] - http://ia800500.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135876/gov.uscourts.mad.135876.31.0.pdf http://ia800500.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135...
  - eric_h 9y ago
    resident alien != foreigner I believe GP was referring to times s/he's entered the US on a visitor visa of some sort.
    - bmelton 9y ago
      Then there may be a de facto restriction against the exercise of such a right by such a person, as one needs to have a permanent address to comply with the laws as they are currently interpreted.
garmaine 9y ago
Nuclear weapons are munitions. A U235 bomb like Hiroshima’s is technically a gun even. Do you have a right to carry one of those?
- briandear 9y ago
  If you can carry a Hiroshima bomb, I’m ok with letting you.
cyphar 9y ago
This is actually a question that was featured in an xkcd comic[1]. [1]: https://www.xkcd.com/504/ https://www.xkcd.com/504/
pteredactyl 9y ago
Novel thought. I could definitely see an argument for it falling under 2A.

cloudwalking 9y ago

It does not, because the 2nd amendment protects arms, not munitions (for example, bombs).

localhost 9y ago
Here is the entire text of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
madengr 9y ago
What's the difference? The 2A certainly applies to cannons. Are those arms or munitions? Grenades are legal to own, just need the tax stamp.
- danesparza 9y ago
  Arms are munitions. Not all munitions are arms. More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List
hnal943 9y ago
I think the distinction is between "arms" and "ordinance". Reading through the comments here, it seems "munitions" is a super set of both.

tc313 9y ago

IANAL but I’m pretty sure the second amendment only applies to guns; you can’t walk around with an RPG on your shoulder.

orf 9y ago
Isn't the 2a just a "well armed malitia"? Maybe an RPG is more than well armed, but encryption?
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  "well-regulated militia," but it's pretty much an open question how much that actually has to do with the right described in the second clause. Gun rights activists tend to down-play that first bit, as it implies a collective perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with unlimited individual gun ownership rights.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Some context into the mindset and beliefs of the people who penned the original amendment is helpful in this case, but you find very little in support of the level of control that the anti-2A people want. Gun rights antagonists tend to downplay that bit, as it implies an individual perspective that they find conceptually incompatible with tightly-controlled gun ownership permissions.
    - ams6110 9y ago
      They also downplay that in every case of a gun being used in some criminal way, numerous laws and regulations are already being broken. So what difference will more regulations make? The only thing that could possibly give the gun-control people what they really want is total confiscation of all guns, and even if that were somehow possible there would be a civil war over that if it were to be seriously attempted.
      - agar 9y ago

alistairSH 9y ago

does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? It doesn't much matter. Even if somebody made the case that "crypto is a form of 'Arms', subject to 2A protection," the 2A doesn't grant an unregulated right to own whatever "arms" one chooses. All the rights granted by the Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation. So, Congress could simply legislate a restriction on crypto, much as they have done with machine guns, grenades, and nukes.

jteppinette 9y ago
Where does it say you can regulate my rights?
- alistairSH 9y ago
  WRT the 2A, it's right there in the text: "well regulated". WRT other rights... Explicitly? Not always in the Constitution. But, if you think you can cry "Fire!" in a theater, you would be mistaken. SCOTUS has upheld reasonable restrictions on rights over and over. It's a settled matter. (edited - cleaned up my thoughts a bit)
  - salawat 9y ago
    Stop quoting that case. That was SCOTUS upholding the right of the government to clamp down on speech that encouraged draft dodging or could even be marginally interpreted as disagreeing with it during wartime. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... It ain't Dred Scott dumb, but it's up there in stupidity and retarded law. Well regulated doesn't mean the feds get to control the details of what the militia can use either. The militia is every able-bodied 18-47 year old. The regulated part implies a command structure which the National Guard provides.
    - alistairSH 9y ago
      I'm not sure what case you're thinking of, because I didn't explicitly mention one. Chaplinsky v. NH was in 1942 and had nothing to do with draft dodging. Since then, the courts have ruled inconsistently on the matter. The only common thread is the courts mostly agree that some restriction on speech is permissible - where that line lays is very much up for debate. WRT the militia - the government disagrees with your assertion. A random citizen cannot go into the gun store and buy a machine gun, or grenades. Special (and expensive) permitting is required. If you're contention is that these restrictions are unConstitutional, I'm not really sure we should bother debating the point.

rjsw 9y ago

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to foreigners. Classifying encryption as a munition meant that I have never truthfully answered all the visa waiver questions on entering the US.

throwaway84742 9y ago
It does. A permanent resident alien can purchase and carry firearms in most states, and nonresident aliens can get a license to do so as well.
bmelton 9y ago
Fischer v Massachussetts[1] (and other cases won by the second amendment foundation) holds that resident aliens are counted amongst "the people" for purposes of second amendment protection (and other rights too!) [1] - http://ia800500.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135876/gov.uscourts.mad.135876.31.0.pdf http://ia800500.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135...
- eric_h 9y ago
  resident alien != foreigner I believe GP was referring to times s/he's entered the US on a visitor visa of some sort.
  - bmelton 9y ago
    Then there may be a de facto restriction against the exercise of such a right by such a person, as one needs to have a permanent address to comply with the laws as they are currently interpreted.

garmaine 9y ago

Nuclear weapons are munitions. A U235 bomb like Hiroshima’s is technically a gun even. Do you have a right to carry one of those?

briandear 9y ago
If you can carry a Hiroshima bomb, I’m ok with letting you.

cyphar 9y ago

This is actually a question that was featured in an xkcd comic[1]. [1]: https://www.xkcd.com/504/ https://www.xkcd.com/504/

pteredactyl 9y ago

Novel thought. I could definitely see an argument for it falling under 2A.