On Property and the State

Something has been bugging me lately, and I didn't quite know what it was, until I read the Opinion in the case of Nordykes v. King, from the 9th Circuit court (which, incidentally, incorporates the 2nd Amendment against the States, but that's another post).

What's been bugging me is the almost universally accepted idea that "Federal land" or "State" or "County" or "City" property -- such as National and State Parks, etc. -- are owned by the relevant beaurocracies, in the same manner as Private land is owned by it's deed-holders.

There is an unspoken assumption, especially on the left, that "public" land is claimed land, claimed by the beaurocracies, specifically, and that you have to get permission from the bureaucrats to actually do anything on said land, as you would have to get permission from a private owner to do anything on his land. They treat it like the Public is a guest on their lands.

But they don't realize that Public land is public. Unless we as a People have chosen, for the public good, to prohibit certain behaviors on public land (such as Indecent Exposure), nothing is prohibited.

This includes, among many other things, the right to bear arms, open or otherwise, on public property. And since the rule of the Law of the land is that we as a People can only remove that right via Consitutional Amendment, any Law to the contrary is null and void, and of no effect -- to be flouted at will. Furthermore, actions taken by "officials" to enforce such unlawful Laws are, by definition, illegal themselves, and subject to as much resistance as we can muster, and that not subject to reprisal.

Ok, so this post is a rambling conglomeration of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional limitation with the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."

Still...there's something seriously backward about the fundamental assumptions most people have when it comes to Public land. What to do about it? Not sure yet. Let me know what you think.