Ok, lets deal with your assertion that the land in question is not owned by the US Government. Now do you have anything to back up this assertion or are you just giving your opinion?
After all, A LAW has been VIOLATED!!!
Of course, when The King's Men violate "the law", well, now - THAT'S a different story.
As Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Jon Corzine, Bill Clinton, Charlie Rangel and many, many .gov others will tell us:
"Silly serfs! Laws are for peasants."
And many FReepers will be right there cheering them on, as we can see here on this very thread.
Look, if Art 1 Sec 8 wasn't enough for you, nothing else will be.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Don't just read the part you like and discard the rest. There are no "forts, magazines" nor anything else being built on this land. BLM is just making it off limits to any use not associated with some Socialist/Left-wing agenda.
Something you seem to be fighting awfully hard to uphold.
Think about which side you are on here.