Even better, were this held on private land. If private land I need the permission from the land owner. If he says no bad for me because the USC does not factor in private actions. So I try public lands, but ah, that is owned by the government thus I still need to ask permission to hold a protest.
You seem to be forgetting one thing in your analysis: In the U.S., the government is supposed to be owned by the people, the public (I'm not saying it is, mind you), so public lands are supposed to be owned by the people, to be used by the people.
Having to to ask permission to exercise your right of peaceful assembly on public lands, of which you are part owner, seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution, as it is intended.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.