by American Citizen

Created on: February 23, 2009

This is an odd vote for me, because I believe in the protections afforded Americans by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. However, US National Parks are probably not governed by State laws. They are national public lands and therefore likely property of the US Government, and therefore subject to federal, not State, jurisdiction.

Officially (but rather secretively), the United States as the federal government has separate jurisdiction, separate law, separate everything from the United States of America. In everyday conversation, there is no difference. In legal terms, the difference is maddening. And the federal government LOVES it that way.

Here's your challenge:

Go to the Government Printing Office website to search for USC (United States Code - congressional legislation passed into national law). http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

See if you can find out how many B-S laws there are that have to specify when "United States" is being used "in a geographical sense" so that it's the 50 Several States, and when it means the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and federal territories and possessions.

Why does this matter? The federal government doesn't have to abide by the United States Constitution in its territories. Doubters need look no further than the Northern Mariana Islands or the District of Columbia. But for those who do wish to look further, see if the US Constitution applies on a military base or in Guantanimo Bay. A Court Martial is not a regular-law based court. Ask a Vet if he can always appeal to the US Constitution in a court martial.

If you read the Preamble, see if you notice the difference between who it's FROM and who it's FOR. It would seem something trivial perhaps to a Liberty-for-all-loving Anti-Federalist like Thomas Jefferson. But for a conniving banker, lawyer or plantation owner (gosh just like the Federal sort who attended the Continental Congress), it intentionally creates a slippery slope.

By a similar line of reasoning that a standard was created FOR the United States of America, the national parks are held in trust by the US government FOR the people of the United States of America. There's certainly some wiggle room there for Constitutional enforcement to allow firearms inside a national park.

So while I believe that American Citizens have the infringement-free right to bear arms, there's no telling the Federal Government what to do with their property. The question then, are the national parks the "property" of the Federal Government or of the people? If the Federal Government is merely custodian on behalf of the people and not owner, then there's no lawful basis for the Federal Government to prevent a damn thing. This is why it's always of utmost importance to know where their property ends and yours begins and where your State's begins.

For further clarity, see www.supremelaw.org

I would like to give a shout-out here to all modern day Jeffersonian Anti-Federalists!

www.lp.org

http://www.freestateproje ct.org/

Learn more about this author, American Citizen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.