Enforcement GCA #5

The first thing you may notice when visiting the Grand Canyon National Park and other national parks throughout the States of America is the existence of armed militants called rangers. The purpose of these militants is unclear. Like the national parks system itself, the rangers have no legal validity.

Park rangers have no more authority than the squirrels they are sworn to protect. Like city/state police, or any other federal agency [IRS,FBI,CIA,NSA, and so on], they can only have the powers and authorities passed to them by those in authority to do so. That authority, however, is a right retained by the people.

And here is the importance of a republican form of government; nobody can give that which they do not have. Do I have the right to kill you? No. Do you have the right to kill me? No. So how it is that you or I can give that authority to someone else? We can't. No matter how big a majority is, they still cannot give that which they do not have in the first place.

I do not have the authority to take from you your life, liberty, or property. You do not have the right to take from me my life, liberty, or property. No majority, regardless of how great it is, has the right to take from any of us our life, liberty, or property. Therefore, they cannot give those rights to anyone else such as the park rangers, any police force, the FBI, the IRS, and so on.

In America, the power of enforcement is left at the hands of the individual citizen. The legislatures write rules [statutes], but the people enforce them. It's part of our limited government system designed to keep not only rule-breakers in check, but the rule-makers as well.


Through a local election process, the people elect an individual they feel capable and competent to uphold and administer the law. When a person has been found guilty of a crime (an infringement upon a another's right), the sheriff, as the elected representative for administering the law, detains the individual and administers the punishment.

How does that work you may wonder? Well, when a person suspects another has violated a right, the right holder charges that person in court. The accused, who is presumed innocent, in accordance with due process, faces his accuser in court. The court, in accordance with agreements made by both parties before hand, hears the charges and decides whether there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the person whose rights were violated can prove the other's guilt, then-and only then- can the other person be arrested and punished.

The concept of the park rangers and other illegal “forces” in America negates due process of law, and the American justice system. So why are they there? For protection? Protection from what? Right-holder from wildlife, or wildlife from a right-holder. Unfortunately for them, it does not matter since the sole purpose of government is not to protect anything other than our liberty.

All government agencies, representatives, and their delegates or “employees” are servants to the citizenry, not to the wildlife or environment. It is their sole responsibility to assist and serve the people.

Rangers cannot manage the people visiting the park. They cannot control the people visiting the park. They cannot force the people to do or not to do anything.

And why are they armed? Are they a part of the military? Will they shoot you dead and ask questions later if they so much as think you may have endangered the wildlife or environment? Probably. After all, how can they prove a case in court when no crime is committed. So long as America is a republic, the endangerment of wildlife or the environment can never be a crime.

And lets just suppose for a moment that the government has the authority to create a national park, which it does not. Just for the sake of another point, let say that. That would congress the authority to pass statutes concerning the area. They would then have the power to, say. . . write statutes forbidding firearms in the park. Such statute would only affect people over whom congress also has personal jurisdiction-foreigners, civilians (non-military government representatives, agents, employees and delegates, and so on), and military personnel.

The problem is, that such gun legislation already exists. And, it is limited to those individuals who congress has personal jurisdiction over. So why are these rangers, who are under the personal jurisdiction of congress, carrying guns? Why are these public servants armed? To shoot me? To shoot you? To take away our lives, liberties, or properties?

Better yet, why are so many citizens misinformed enough to believe those statutes apply to them?

This is America! Congress does not have the authority to write rules governing the citizenry or that infringes upon our rights. The national parks are illegal. The park rangers are illegal. Why are they getting away with this usurpation?