Soo Locks CEZ

[Divegeek]

I was in Sault St. Marie this weekend, and was going to visit the locks. Got to the front gate, where I saw big no weapons signs, and another smaller one that said all visitors are subject to search. The wife and I turned around went back to the car where I disarmed. I then proceeded to limp back to the gate. (my knee has been acting up again) When we approached the gate the gaurd asked to see my camera case. He gave it a cursory inspection and as he was giving it back asked if I had been carrying a gun. Surprised I said I was but I took it back to the car. He said that he had been trained to look for unusual things like that. He said he see's it frequently since Michigan went Shall Issue. We had a nice little conversation where I found out the Army Corp of Engineers treats it like a military facility and only military personal, or people employed by them can have weapons. They are trained that anyone inside the compound, with a gun not in a uniform gets shot. He then said that police can't carry, even in uniform, at the locks. Apparently off-duty police frequently give him a hard time about this. He was very nice and seemed supportive of my rights, but had to follow the policy outlined by the Army.

[bluethunder]

Thanks for the heads up,I like to watch the boats go thru the locks and go every time I can. Just out of curiousity,was he a 'rent-a-cop' or a government employee? Sounds like he was doing a good job if he saw you go to your car and figured you were carrying. I just hope that most people aren't that observant.

[Wesley w/Glock]

This sounds like a distinction between an area of a state or the United States and a United States territory such as Washington DC or Puerto Rico. We have no rights in US territories because the constitution does not apply there. The US Congress can govern in a territory, according to the words of Webster in his 1847 Webster/Calhoun debate, "... as a father to his children."

Knowing this makes it a little more apparent why residents of the territories in the ninteenth century were so intent upon receiving statehood.

Incidentally, here is something hard to understand but true. The Constitution was seen as actually protecting slavery in the ninteenth century. Because Congress had extremely broad authority to rule in the territories it could simply prohibit slavery there but not in the states. It was a property issue. Calhoun was hoping to successfully argue that the Constitution applied to the territories as well as the states and thereby allow slavery to propagate to the territories.