So I don't disagree with what you've written. But-- and it's a big but-- there's still a tension between the 2A absolutists and the facts on the ground: that the US has a comparative surplus of dead and injured people and especially children and teenagers. How do we retain the benefits of an armed populace for recreation, personal safety, and tyranny opposition while not paying the cost of dead kids?
The idea that gun carrying as symbol works as a banner against tyranny is certainly more realistic than the myth of gun carrying as a physical counter to the US military. I don't think the mechanism is unique to guns. People have been circling wagons around targets of FCC censorship attempts as well. People circled up on mask mandates, too.
What guns have going for them is the myth, the symbol, the community.
Interposition is precisely most valuable in those situations where the nature of justice itself is contested. That was very much the case during the Civil Rights movement and there are similar concerns right now in terms of 1st and 4th amendment rights, etc.
The Constitution gives the execution of immigration policy to the Executive branch. Hence, sanctuary cities are an obstruction. Interposition would be frivolous there.
The executive can execute the law without using local resources. The Constitution does not require that local governments directly assist local law enforcement. And if states feel the law is being interpreted or executed unconstitutionally (as in, for example, violating the 1st or 4th amendment) they can interpose: refuse to cooperate entirely and/or file suit on behalf of their residents.
So I don't disagree with what you've written. But-- and it's a big but-- there's still a tension between the 2A absolutists and the facts on the ground: that the US has a comparative surplus of dead and injured people and especially children and teenagers. How do we retain the benefits of an armed populace for recreation, personal safety, and tyranny opposition while not paying the cost of dead kids?
You help me think about the complexities. Thank you.
I am committed to nonviolence, so I will not join a gun club, however :)
The idea that gun carrying as symbol works as a banner against tyranny is certainly more realistic than the myth of gun carrying as a physical counter to the US military. I don't think the mechanism is unique to guns. People have been circling wagons around targets of FCC censorship attempts as well. People circled up on mask mandates, too.
What guns have going for them is the myth, the symbol, the community.
What is the value of interposition when justice is obstructed ?
Interposition is precisely most valuable in those situations where the nature of justice itself is contested. That was very much the case during the Civil Rights movement and there are similar concerns right now in terms of 1st and 4th amendment rights, etc.
The Constitution gives the execution of immigration policy to the Executive branch. Hence, sanctuary cities are an obstruction. Interposition would be frivolous there.
The executive can execute the law without using local resources. The Constitution does not require that local governments directly assist local law enforcement. And if states feel the law is being interpreted or executed unconstitutionally (as in, for example, violating the 1st or 4th amendment) they can interpose: refuse to cooperate entirely and/or file suit on behalf of their residents.
Yes. But what is unlawful is that local resources conspire to block the feds. For that, they need to be charged.