Here’s a first: I tentatively agree with Sue about the issue of public lands, owned by the federal government, pending further research. These lands may exist within the boundaries of a state, but they don’t belong to that state. For a state to seize land from the federal government would be no different than the federal government seizing private lands. This is not to say that I agree with the land grab. Putting those lands off limits to energy exploration is the goal of this administration. These are the lands where resources lie that could make the US energy independent for years to come. That’s NOT a goal of this administration, despite whatever lip service they pay to energy independence or to saving endangered species. Environmentalism and conservation are the excuses they use to bring about their goal of preventing the USA from using the resources that belong to the USA to remove us from under the thumb of OPEC. Or perhaps they’re setting them aside because those resources will be needed to pay China back for funding our enormous debt. Who will need oil in the future to sustain their economic growth? China. They aren’t setting this land aside for the USA. They’re doing it to further their socialist agenda. Maybe they’re reserving it for Van-Jones-style reparations: “Give them the land!” Maybe it’s all of the above. Whatever it is, there’s an agenda and it’s not one that will be transparent to the public until it’s possibly too late. As for SCOTUS: If they rule that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to states, then what other amendments will no longer apply? Free speech? Free press? Civil rights? I see no way they can rule that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to states.