The legal precedent is that encryption is a munition in the United States, and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
Don't confuse people here, there is no such precedent.
Bitcoin is a digital currency. It's not a weapon, it's not a free speech mechanism. There's absolutely no way that any court would deem that Bitcoin is protected within the First or the Second amendment. If the US government has a precedent of seizing gold, why would it recognize the right to own Bitcoin as a part of the Constitution?
What I want to let us understand is that, we all aware that Bitcoin is a digital currency and also a decentralized currency,which is very understanding that government of a particular country does not have any command of Bitcoin because of it's technology.so therefore, government can add the valuation of Bitcoin or enshrined it in the law base on regulations ir condition, while in gold they can give any instructions of gold in all ramifications of order, so in summary both of them can be chosen be in the constitution of a nation depending on their wish.