PDA

View Full Version : Shooting on Indian Land


LOW2000
05-01-2006, 9:33 PM
Do all normal CA laws and rules apply to shooting if you are on an indian reservation, or are you only obligated to abide by federal law while on the reservation?

Bill_in_SD
05-01-2006, 9:53 PM
I got run off of a reservation east of San Diego. The boundary was not marked, and does not appear on the map that the sheriff's office provides for shooting areas. I have not followed up to see if it is legal or not, I am interested as well.

Anyone know?

Bill in SD

LOW2000
05-01-2006, 10:03 PM
I'm more interested because there are ranges on reservations and if CA gun laws do not apply there, then I would be able to shoot an off-list AR in a free-state configuration while on their property.

sintax
05-01-2006, 10:13 PM
make sure you clear it with the law enforcement there. I know some of my buddies have had run ins with tribal police on indian ground and they are not very nice. Sure the CA gun laws may not apply, but you have to deal with their own laws, some made up on the spot from what i hear...

bu-bye
05-01-2006, 10:31 PM
I would not EVEN cross onto their land without asking them first. They have their own police and I have heard from a Native American himself that they have shot at people with guns on their land and that local (US) police can't do anything about it. He said he was sure they shot one of the men.

Now, if they have a range that they allow people to shoot on then that is a different story. Not sure about off-list lowers though. Might not be worth testing.

LOW2000
05-01-2006, 10:53 PM
Range is member only. You can visit as a guest twice, but then you have to be an NRA member and yearly membership is only $40. Its not like i'd just be playing modern day cowboys and indians with them out in the middle of nowhere, its a fullblown 800+ yard range with steel from 50 yards on out.

Jeff Rambo
05-01-2006, 11:01 PM
PM enroute, L2k.

Jicko
05-02-2006, 8:36 AM
Range is member only. You can visit as a guest twice, but then you have to be an NRA member and yearly membership is only $40. Its not like i'd just be playing modern day cowboys and indians with them out in the middle of nowhere, its a fullblown 800+ yard range with steel from 50 yards on out.

Pala Range!?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=30643

harley66
05-02-2006, 5:28 PM
as soon as you enter Indian land you are entering another country - You are at their mercy - very good advice already given in the above posts

superhondaz50
05-02-2006, 9:09 PM
I would not EVEN cross onto their land without asking them first. They have their own police and I have heard from a Native American himself that they have shot at people with guns on their land and that local (US) police can't do anything about it. He said he was sure they shot one of the men.
I had a freind who is a cement truck driver and was hired by the native americans to do a job on their land. The truck drivers were warned that while driiving on the land to drive slow 10mph, or there would be penalties. well one driver did 40mph and was shot at! destroyed the trucks radiator, and then they tried to shoot him!!

socalguns
05-02-2006, 9:39 PM
I'll bet those guys never have pedestrian-v-auto :)

blacklisted
05-02-2006, 9:42 PM
I'm more interested because there are ranges on reservations and if CA gun laws do not apply there, then I would be able to shoot an off-list AR in a free-state configuration while on their property.

I believe state law stills applies, because they sign a "compact" with the state. It's all rather bizzare. I'm not familiar with tribal law, but this has been discussed before, you might want to run a search.

ETA: I did it for all of you: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28396&highlight=indian+reservation

LOW2000
05-03-2006, 10:53 AM
Yeah...so after reading all of that, can I shoot my AR in a free-state configuration on a range that i'm a member of that is on a reservation?

Satex
05-03-2006, 2:29 PM
I hope he pressed federal charges with the FBI against them. Indian land may not be under CA law, but they sure are under Federal law, and as far as I know, you don't get shot in this country for driving over the speed limit.


I had a freind who is a cement truck driver and was hired by the native americans to do a job on their land. The truck drivers were warned that while driiving on the land to drive slow 10mph, or there would be penalties. well one driver did 40mph and was shot at! destroyed the trucks radiator, and then they tried to shoot him!!

glen avon
05-03-2006, 2:32 PM
I am not aware of a federal law prohibiting Indians from shooting radiators.

there are reservations in so cal where people are occasionally shot at. including LEOs. I have yet to see the army invade the reservations to quell the violence. don't think I will, either.

superhondaz50
05-03-2006, 2:34 PM
thats just the story I heard. I never found out what the outcome was.

glen avon
05-03-2006, 2:55 PM
based on what I have heard, I have no doubts your story is true.

LOW2000
05-05-2006, 2:20 PM
Yeah...so after reading all of that, can I shoot my AR in a free-state configuration on a range that i'm a member of that is on a reservation?

back to top

rmeyer
05-05-2006, 5:04 PM
"I would not EVEN cross onto their land without asking them first. They have their own police and I have heard from a Native American himself that they have shot at people with guns on their land and that local (US) police can't do anything about it. He said he was sure they shot one of the men".

Local police sure can do something about it. Better to talk to Native Americans that haven't been sucking down firewater.

ivorykid
05-05-2006, 8:25 PM
I go dove hunting every year on the Colorado River Indian Tribe (CRIT) land. They definitely have their own rules and means for dealing with folks who break them! Two years ago, some guys were shooting at out-of-season birds, and the Indians simply confiscated all of their property - their guns, their truck, everything. I don't know what ever happened to those guys... if they ever got anything back or not. But they definitely had some 'splainin to do to their wives.

They don't call the tribes the "Sovereign Nation of [insert name here]" for nothing. If they don't like what you are doing, they will seek "compensation" any way they can, be it property seizure or shooting for blood.

Granted in my example, the people were breaking laws - both CA & AZ state and Indian laws. The bottom line: make sure to check with the tribal police / council / whatever and get permission IN WRITING for anything you do on their land, even if you just drive down a road that isn't a US highway.

glen avon
05-06-2006, 11:50 AM
OK. The answer is: Not in California.

18 U.S.C. § 1162. State jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the Indian country

* * *

and the criminal laws of [California] shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State....

See also Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

So the answer is a resounding and final no.

I am sure a few may disagree, tossing out such useless plaintive appeals such as "what about sovereignty" and "but I thought Indian lands were sovereign" and "but that's a federal law" and all sorts of other useless tidbits, but this is my researched conclusion.

State criminal law generally applies on Indian Reservations in California and I am not aware of any particular exception that would apply to AWs for citizens.

Sorry for the bad news.

LOW2000
05-06-2006, 12:10 PM
Does that apply only to indians or to crimes committed against indians though?

"committed by or against indians"

Just curious...hopefully we'll get the list outcome we all want and not have to worry about it anyway...

Jicko
06-04-2006, 4:29 PM
Does that apply only to indians or to crimes committed against indians though?

"committed by or against indians"

Just curious...hopefully we'll get the list outcome we all want and not have to worry about it anyway...

Contact the RO of Pala Range if you wanna know if your CA-AR can be run as USA-AR.... (but I'm not sure if you can trust that 100%)

Yet... the only one who can "arrest" you are the Indian LE... I think a SD-LEO may not have jurdication on their land...

PM me, I'll give u more info, if u r interested.

glen avon
06-04-2006, 4:58 PM
Does that apply only to indians or to crimes committed against indians though?

"committed by or against indians"

Just curious...hopefully we'll get the list outcome we all want and not have to worry about it anyway...

no, it's not just Indians, that's the title of the law.

the part in bold is what applies state law to state citizens even when on Indian land.

here is an excerpt with more cases:

Criminal Actions
8. Generally
California fireworks law was criminal/prohibitory rather than civil/regulatory, therefore enforceable on Indian reservation, since intent is to prohibit possession and/or sale of fireworks. Quechan Indian Tribe v McMullen (1993, CA9 Cal) 984 F2d 304, 93 CDOS 417, 93 Daily Journal DAR 896.

Act of August 15, 1953 [note to 28 USCS § 1360], grants to states power to assume criminal jurisdiction on reservations in such manner as people of state, by affirmative legislative action, obligate and bind state to assumption thereof; there is no merit in habeas corpus proceeding to petitioner's contention that state courts have no jurisdiction to sentence him because he is Indian since he is not member of Indian tribe and, even if he were member of tribe, state, by legislative act pursuant to § 1360 note, has provided procedure for assumption of criminal jurisdiction. Campbell v Crist (1980, DC Mont) 491 F Supp 586, affd (CA9 Mont) 647 F2d 956.

District court does not have removal jurisdiction over case involving state's attempted enforcement of state criminal statute prohibiting commercial gambling through civil forfeiture proceeding in which defendant is Indian tribe, since, although federal statute grants several states authority to enforce their criminal laws against tribes and tribal members and to hear private civil disputes involving Indians, such state action cannot be said to arise under federal laws so as to grant original federal court jurisdiction over such actions. Wisconsin v Wisconsin Winnebago Indian Tribe (1985, WD Wis) 603 F Supp 428.

glen avon
06-04-2006, 5:33 PM
here is a case stating that california may enforce its fireworks laws on reservations. it follows that if the state can enforce fireworks regulations on reservations, then firearms laws may also be enforced.

:rolleyes: of course, you mant to call a reservation to be sure we sure don't want to let the law and the facts get in our way.... :rolleyes:


984 F.2d 304, *; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 862, **;
93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 417; 93 Daily Journal DAR 896


QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and R & R FIREWORKS AND NOVELTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JAMES F. McMULLEN, in his official capacity as California State Fire Marshal, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-55931

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

984 F.2d 304;

OPINION: [*304] OPINION

TROTT, Circuit Judge:

In this case we are called upon to decide whether California may restrict the Quechan Indian Tribe's regulation of the sale of fireworks on its reservation pursuant to Pub.L. 83-280, § 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (1988). The district court held that California could enforce its fireworks law on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and granted the State's motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). We affirm.

[*305] I

The Quechan Indian Tribe ("Tribe") is federally recognized and exercises governmental authority over the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, a [**2] portion of which lies in California. To generate tribal revenues and to provide employment opportunities on the reservation, the Tribe authorized the sale of federal "Class C" fireworks on the reservation. These sales were to be conducted under Special Use Permits issued by the Tribe. The Tribe issued R & R Fireworks & Novelty Co., Inc. ("R & R") a permit. R & R sold "Class C" fireworks on the reservation on four separate occasions.

"Class C" is a federal designation for certain fireworks which may be sold to the general public. Under the California fireworks law, Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 12500 et seq. (1991), the State has divided Class C fireworks into "safe and sane fireworks," id. § 12529; "agricultural and wildlife fireworks," id. § 12503; "exempt fireworks," id. § 12508; and "dangerous fireworks." Id. § 12505. Sales and use of these various categories are governed by a comprehensive system of permits and licenses overseen by the State Fire Marshal. Id. §§ 12500 et seq. Safe and sane fireworks can be sold to the general public by licensed sellers between June 28 and July 6 annually. Id. §§ 12599 and 12681. One Class C firework known as a [**3] "party popper" can be sold to the public for amusement purposes year round and without any form of retail sales license. 19 Cal. Admin. Code § 966.7 (a) (1992). Permits are issued for exempt fireworks which have industrial, commercial, agricultural or religious uses. Cal. Health and Safety Code § 12508. It is unlawful for any person to possess dangerous fireworks without holding a valid permit which shows the person is trained and qualified in the use of dangerous fireworks. Id. §§ 12505 and 12677. Violation of the State Fireworks Law is a misdemeanor. Id. § 12700.

The Tribe issued a sales permit to R & R. This permit allowed R & R to sell all federal Class C fireworks. Thus, some of the fireworks sold by R & R were classified as "dangerous" under California law, and therefore prohibited except by permit issued by the State. Id. §§ 12505 and 12677. At the time of the sale, neither the Tribe nor R & R held a California fireworks sales license.

The fireworks were sold to both Quechan tribal members and to non-Indians. The majority of the customers were tribal members who used the fireworks on the reservation. When sales were made to non-Indians, they were advised that the [**4] use of some fireworks might be illegal off the reservation.

The reservation fireworks sales were advertised on local radio. These advertisements invited the public to purchase fireworks on the reservation. The first three sales periods occurred without incident. During the fourth sales period, however, a deputy from the Imperial County Sheriff's Department confiscated the fireworks and issued citations to three persons charging them with the sale of dangerous fireworks. The District Attorney later dropped the charges against the individuals.

The Tribe brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that the State had no authority to enforce California State fireworks laws against the Tribe within the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation. R & R was an additional plaintiff in this action. R & R dismissed its claim, leaving only the Tribe to pursue the litigation. The Tribe and the State entered into a stipulation as to uncontested facts and then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On March 29, 1991, the district court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order and Judgment granting the State's motion and denying the Tribe's [**5] motion. This appeal followed.

glen avon
06-04-2006, 5:33 PM
II

HN1The District Court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors ***'n., 809 F.2d 626, 629 (9th Cir. 1987). The issues presented here are issues of law and are reviewed de novo. Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986).

[*306] HN2Pub.L. 83-280 delegates power to the States to impose state laws, both civil and criminal, on the reservations. Congress delegated to the States broad powers over criminal matters "because Congress' 'primary concern' lay in the lawlessness on some reservations and the absence of tribal institutions for law enforcement . . . ." Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. State of Wash., 938 F.2d 146, 147 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Thus, Pub.L. 83-280, § 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a) (1988) states:

§ 1162. HN3State jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the Indian country

(a) Each of the States or Territories . . . shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of [**6] Indian country . . . to the same extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State or Territory, and the criminal laws of such State or Territory shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State . . . .

However, the scope of the provision relating to civil matters is very limited. It provides:

§ 1360. HN4State civil jurisdiction in actions to which Indians are parties

(a) Each of the States or Territories . . . shall have jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian country . . . to the same extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over other civil causes of action, and those civil laws of such State or Territory that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State . . . .

Pub.L. 83-280, § 4, 28 U.S.C. § 1360 (1988).

The issue in this case is whether the California fireworks law should be classified either as criminal/prohibitory [**7] or civil/regulatory. If the law is classified as criminal/prohibitory, California possesses jurisdiction under Pub.L. 83-280, § 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (1988) and may enforce the fireworks law. If, however, the law is civil/regulatory, California may not impose its fireworks law on the Tribe.

In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 94 L. Ed. 2d 244, 107 S. Ct. 1083 (1987), the Supreme Court held a California law establishing misdemeanor criminal penalties for operating bingo games except in accord with specific regulations was civil/regulatory and therefore unenforceable on an Indian reservation under Pub.L. 83-280. The Court set forth the following test for determining when a law is civil/regulatory and when a law is criminal/prohibitory:
HN5
If the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within Pub.L. 280's grant of criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory and Pub.L. 280 does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian reservation. The shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates [**8] the State's public policy.

Id. at 209. Thus, the Court relied on the intent of the statute and the State's public policy to determine whether the State statute was criminal/prohibitory or civil/regulatory. A law is not criminal/prohibitory simply because the law is enforceable by criminal as well as civil means. Id. at 211.

glen avon
06-04-2006, 5:34 PM
In a recent decision, we inaptly paraphrased the Cabazon test. In Confederated Tribes we stated:

Laws which prohibit absolutely certain acts fall into the [category of criminal prohibitory], while those generally permitting certain conduct but subject to regulation are within the [category of civil/regulatory].

938 F.2d at 147. (emphasis added). The test we must apply, however, is that which was set out by the Supreme Court in Cabazon: HN6a law is criminal/prohibitory if the intent of the law is "generally to prohibit certain conduct." Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 209.

[*307] The Tribe argues the State fireworks law is civil/regulatory and therefore not enforceable on the reservation. As proof that the intention of the fireworks law is [**9] civil/regulatory, the Tribe points to the fact that the law is codified in the California Health and Safety Code as a civil enactment. Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 12500 et seq. The Tribe also points to an opinion by the California Attorney General which characterized the state fireworks law as "regulatory." See 61 Op. Cal. Att'y Gen. 61 (1978). Finally, the Tribe cites Ventura v. City of San Jose, 151 Cal. App. 3d 1076, 199 Cal. Rptr. 216 (1984) in which the court referred to the law as a "thorough guide for the state-wide administration and regulation of the manufacture, transportation, licensing, sale and use of fireworks." Id. at 1078. (emphasis added).

The inquiry prescribed in Cabazon is, however, one of the statute's intent and not simply the label. As this court recently held, "In an inquiry such as this HN7we must examine more than the label itself to determine the intent of the State and the nature of the statute, Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 221 n. 10 . . . ." Confederated Tribes, 938 F.2d at 148.

The intent of the statute in the present case is the "protection [**10] of life and property." Cal. Health and Safety Code § 12552. In United States v. Marcyes, 557 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1977), the court analyzed the intent of Washington's fireworks statute:

We conclude that Washington's fireworks law is a prohibitory rather than a regulatory law. Even though the Washington scheme allows for limited exceptions (i.e., public displays, RCW § 70.77.290; movies, RCW § 70.77.535), its intent is to prohibit the general possession and/or sale of dangerous fireworks and is not primarily a licensing law.

The possession of fireworks is not the same situation encountered in other regulatory schemes such as hunting or fishing, where a person who wants to hunt or fish merely has to pay a fee and obtain a license. The purpose of such statutes is to regulate the described conduct and to generate revenues. In contrast, the purpose of the fireworks laws is not to generate income, but rather to prohibit their general use and possession in a legitimate effort to promote the safety and health of all citizens. Moreover, by allowing appellants to operate their stands on the reservation or in any federal enclave would entirely circumvent [**11] Washington's determination that the possession of fireworks is dangerous to the general welfare of its citizens.

Marcyes, at 1364. The Supreme Court expressly endorsed the reasoning used in Marcyes to distinguish between criminal/prohibitory and civil/regulatory. Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 211 n.10.

The intent of the California statute, though somewhat less restrictive than the Washington statute at issue in Marcyes, is to prohibit the general possession and/or sale of fireworks. The California fireworks law prohibits the sale of federally classified Class C fireworks to the public, except in a narrow situation - where the fireworks have specifically been classified by the State Fire Marshal as being "safe and sane." Cal. Health and Safety Code § 12574. The sale of this limited group of fireworks is permitted only eight days per year. Id. § 12599. Moreover, as was the case in Marcyes, the state of California does not derive revenue from the fireworks law. Id. § 12630. ("The [license] fees shall not exceed the amount necessary to cover the costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of this part.") Finally, unlike the statute [**12] considered in Confederated Tribes, California has not removed criminal penalties from its fireworks laws. The penalty for violation of the California fireworks law is at least a misdemeanor. Id. § 12700. Thus, the intent of the statute is to generally prohibit the sale of fireworks with the limited exception of a very narrow class of fireworks for eight days per year.

The Tribe argues the district court incorrectly relied on vague notions of public policy in its decision to grant summary judgment to the State. The Tribe argues [*308] that every state's public policy is to protect life and property and this vague generality should not be allowed to overshadow the fact that fireworks sales are not "generally prohibited" under the California fireworks law. This argument simply ignores the "shorthand test" set out in Cabazon. In Cabazon, the Supreme Court specifically instructed, "The shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates the State's public policy." Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 209. The district court was correct in considering the State's public policy. We hold, therefore, that the California fireworks law, Cal. Health and Safety Code [**13] §§ 12500 et seq., is criminal/prohibitory.

III

HN8In the absence of congressional consent, the decision of whether a state may assert jurisdiction over an Indian Tribe turns on "whether state authority is preempted by the operation of federal law. . . ." Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 216. Because we hold that Congress has given the state of California express authority to assert jurisdiction over the Tribe with respect to California's fireworks law, we do not consider the Tribe's argument that federal law preempts state jurisdiction.

IV

We hold the California fireworks law, Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 12500 et seq., is criminal/prohibitory because the intent of the California fireworks law is generally to prohibit the sale of Class C fireworks and because the sale of Class C fireworks violated the state's public policy to protect life and property. We therefore hold that California may, pursuant to Pub.L. 83-280, § 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (1988) enforce its fireworks law on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation.

glen avon
06-04-2006, 5:36 PM
Yet... the only one who can "arrest" you are the Indian LE... I think a SD-LEO may not have jurdication on their land...

that is wrong.

PM me, I'll give u more info, if u r interested.

please post some info here. I think we are all interested.

xenophobe
06-04-2006, 5:42 PM
More than a pound of firecrackers, bottle rockets, or anything illegal is a Felony.

blacklisted
06-04-2006, 5:51 PM
More than a pound of firecrackers, bottle rockets, or anything illegal is a Felony.

Do you know the storage limit on black powder?

I thought it was like 2 pounds (might have been one).

A while back (fourth of July, years ago), my city put out a pamphlet saying that 1 pound or more was a felony or something...didn't see it until after I made a little under 3 pounds (it was gone fast though).

xenophobe
06-04-2006, 5:59 PM
I'm not sure what the black powder storage limit. Since it is easily combustible, there are storage requirements from the Feds, State and I'm sure there are a number of local ordinances...

I know the fireworks thing because a friend was shooting bottle rockets this past Fourth of July and was told by an officer to stop. The cop left, he let off a few more, and he came back and basically said 'look, if you have a bunch of these, all it takes is one pound and I can write you up for felony possession... stop shooting them off and have a nice 4th'. My law-abiding friend didn't realize this, freaked out and then left. Later, we confirmed this.

Even though they probably wouldn't write you up for it unless the DA really wanted to press charges, or the cop was a *****, they could.

That's kind of sad... a brick of firecrackers can weigh as little as 3 lbs 8.5 oz, and a gross of plain bottle rockets weighs 12oz.... so it doesn't take much to get you in trouble...

house
06-05-2006, 4:58 PM
Not too sure if it is different here than in AZ but when i was in my AZ CCW class they told me that if you are carrying a ccw and you get pulled over by indian LE on indian land make sure that you do not leave the white lines of the high way because you CCW does not mean jack... and they normally are not real friendly about it..... maybe they were just stories maybe not... needless to say i never stopped for fuel on indian land and i sure did not tarry....

Nick

12voltguy
06-05-2006, 5:08 PM
Not too sure if it is different here than in AZ but when i was in my AZ CCW class they told me that if you are carrying a ccw and you get pulled over by indian LE on indian land make sure that you do not leave the white lines of the high way because you CCW does not mean jack... and they normally are not real friendly about it..... maybe they were just stories maybe not... needless to say i never stopped for fuel on indian land and i sure did not tarry....

Nick
I lived in AZ phx from 92-97, I drove all over the state doing service work at homes & sports bars ect. went over Indian land for hour stretches and seen many of there law cars, never pulled over even speeding in the middle of nowhere n-e AZ, I had a ccw in 96 but open carried the previous years, very laid back cops and Indians were no problem.
I even saw a guy burn to death in a 1 truck crash on Indian land, I was 2nd on Sean and could do nothing, he was dead already, 1st guy said he was screaming, cops showed up, fire trucks no Indians shooting though. an Indian girl showed up and thought it looked like her brothers truck too.

just my experience over 5.5 years at 35,000 miles per year:D

TKo_Productions
06-05-2006, 5:23 PM
Do you know the storage limit on black powder?


Local ordinances may differ, but the limit on black powder is 1 pound and smokeless powder is 20.