Professor Michael Froomkin penned, amid the "freedom knight" noise: <snip>

my point is a simple one. The fact that the President has declared an emergency here is primarily a technical legal event. It is not a sign that martial law is about to be declared, that they are coming to take you or your [fill in blank] away, or that anything fundamental has changed.

OK, let's fill in the blank. Gun. I have heard noises that sound like you wouldn't mind this, even though I am totally peaceful and would never want to shoot anyone absent extreme provocation (such as armed invasion of my home). The way I see it, martial law could be declared at any time, or it could slowly be declared now, which I think is happening. Checkpoints and house-searches for drugs and drunks are to get us used to checkpoints and house-searches for guns and unauthorised crypto. This is only my opinion, and I fear revealing my identity publicly because people with guns are starting to get used to hiding our emotions if we are peaceful and harmless, like me. I rarely even go to the range and practice anymore (2-4 times a year). I can imagine my kids feeling the same way about sending messages with strong crypto protection.

Multi-year emergencies in which the executive uses one statute to compensate for the Congressional decision/failure to pass another statute is not, I submit, a particularly telling sign of a mature and healthy democracy. But this goes to large and gradual processes, not to anything that suddenly happened.

Why am I thinking about boiling frogs now?