6 thoughts on “Our Time Is Now

  1. I like the sentiment. I would only add that our time is always now, and now is always our time.

  2. He says it “should be illegal” for corrupt politicians to restrict our second amendment “freedoms”. Well, it already is, and we don’t have any “freedoms” here, we have rights. He never called for prosecutions.

    National reciprocity may sound good, but calling for it is to cede to the notion (to uphold and support the notion) that a fundamental right is subject to approval and licensing. Say whatever you want about that (I’m sure I’ve already heard it iterated a thousand different ways) but it’s still true. If it is subject to either approval or licensing, it isn’t a right.

    This is the point where those who think themselves patriots or conservatives, or libertarians, will arge from the Progressive authoritarian position, and think of it as a clever tactic. Although a tactical retreat may at times be prudent, at least know one when you’re advocating one, and never lose sight, or voice, of the principles.

    Advocating for national reciprocity is at best a tactical retreat. Getting your way doesn’t mean the war is won. It should be seen for what it is; a holding action with potentially deadly perils attached to it. “Winning” national reciprocity (a surrender of principle) would be no cause for celebration, for it would create a bigger hurdle to cross later on.

    Much better would be to demand enforcement of the second amendment (how’s that for a novel concept?) which means, among other things, prosecuting the violators and the recognition of national “constitutional carry” as a right and not something granted and administered by government. THAT would be a victory.

    • Tactical retreat? I don’t think so. I think of national reciprocity as an achievable goal as a good first step with constitutional carry the next step, perhaps in five to seven years. I used to be skeptical of those who claimed licensed concealed carry was a good step rather than “Vermont Carry” as it was called then. We are now getting constitution carry in many states and we get virtually no flack in the media for licensed carry like we used to.

      Instrumentalism works.

      • The devil is, of course, in the details. If the national reciprocity were handled, not as yet another element of local control ceded to the Feds, but as something the states arranged among themselves, like the Uniform Commercial Code or the Uniform Building Codes, reciprocity could be a step in the right direction. To give it to an anonymous Federal agency as so many other local political issues have been is to yield, not to the lowest common denominator but to the state that holds out for the strictest requirements for a CCL. There’s a reason the Peoples’ Republic of California has no reciprocity treaty, and the problem that causes with disfavored enumerated Constitutional rights would only be aggravated.

        • Yes, the lowest (or most restrictive) common denominator is a risk.
          I agree with the Constitutional Carry argument, I made it a few days ago myself. Still, as a matter of incremental tactics, reciprocity makes sense. I would describe it as “just like a driver’s license”. The issuing state gets to pick its rules; all states accept it. No denominators. I don’t know if the Feds are involved in driver’s license reciprocity. In this case, though, the plain text of the 2nd amendment would authorize the Feds imposing it, and even if you don’t understand that, the 14th amendment doubles down and makes it more explicit.
          Hm, I just wondered (see “Hope” by Smith and Zelman) — does Vermont Carry apply to non-residents? If so, reciprocity is the same as nationwide Constitutional Carry, because all of us would be authorized to carry by Vermont, and that right would reciprocate over to the other states. 🙂
          On lower court judges, he was wrong to say that there is no recourse. There’s always impeachment, and perjury is unquestionably valid grounds for that. Perjury in their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, to be specific.
          On Heller and DC not complying, that’s even easier: Congress can simply impose Shall-Issue (or Constitutional Carry) in DC. Congress governs DC; it has a “local government” only by courtesy and only to the extent that those people are permitted to do what they want to.
          On “freedom” vs “rights”, sure, the technical term is “rights”. I think “freedom” is a fine term, though. For one thing, it may be psychologically more compelling. For another, the reason the right matters it that it protects freedom, so you can think of the phrase he uses as a shorthand for that.

  3. Here’s to hoping that Trumpster Fire doesn’t follow through on his expressed desire to arbitrarily deny rights based on secret lists that have “due process” nowhere in their actual processes.

    A desire, I would note, that Trump expressed *before* the NRA endorsed him.

Comments are closed.