PDA

View Full Version : Sovereignty of Indian Nations?


Experimentalist
01-06-2011, 7:27 PM
The topic of Indian Nations came up over lunch time conversation, and some debate arose over how independent they truly are.

My friend thinks they can pretty much do whatever they want, to include the free sale of full auto weapons. :rolleyes: He says the only reason they refrain is because they don't want to offend the social mores, and make relations with the U.S. Federal Government tense.

I contend that they're limited by the U.S. Government to a large degree. The Indian Nations would see a visit by BATFE should they start selling guns with intact happy switches.

What is the truth? Are Indian Nations truly Sovereign, or not?

jl123
01-06-2011, 8:18 PM
The topic of Indian Nations came up over lunch time conversation, and some debate arose over how independent they truly are.

My friend thinks they can pretty much do whatever they want, to include the free sale of full auto weapons. :rolleyes: He says the only reason they refrain is because they don't want to offend the social mores, and make relations with the U.S. Federal Government tense.

I contend that they're limited by the U.S. Government to a large degree. The Indian Nations would see a visit by BATFE should they start selling guns with intact happy switches.

What is the truth? Are Indian Nations truly Sovereign, or not?

If it is true, the Fed Gov probably extorts the tribes like it does the states.

Bobula
01-06-2011, 8:26 PM
The only people who would be able to give you an answer is the 12 people on the jury after it goes to trial. Reservations fall under tribal law with splashes of federal laws. Those apply to Tribal MEMBERS only. Guests typically fall under defacto federal laws while on a reservation.

taperxz
01-06-2011, 8:30 PM
The only people who would be able to give you an answer is the 12 people on the jury after it goes to trial. Reservations fall under tribal law with splashes of federal laws. Those apply to Tribal MEMBERS only. Guests typically fall under defacto federal laws while on a reservation.

Unless you break a tribal law. Then the tribe will have their way with you.

CalBear
01-06-2011, 8:33 PM
Four words should tell you how controlled they really are:

http://www.manataka.org/images/bureau-of-indian-affairs.gif

US government relations with Indian groups are an absolute joke. It's the perfect example of how awful guilt-driven legislation can be. The government has made the tribes dependent on handouts, and they control their economies. As a result, unemployment is typically sky high on reservations, the residents rely on welfare, they take up drinking, and things go to hell.

If we'd just let go of our self-serving guilt for once and if the friggin government would just leave them alone and let them manage themselves without reparations, the reservations would flourish. It's the world's best example of why welfare and guilt do way more harm than good. After all, guilt isn't about serving others, it's about making yourself feel good, and wrecking others in the process.

dustoff31
01-06-2011, 8:59 PM
If it is true, the Fed Gov probably extorts the tribes like it does the states.

Funny. You obviously haven't spent much time in/on/around reservations. There is tons of extortion going on. But it's the opposite of your suggestion.


ETA: What CalBear said.

AJAX22
01-06-2011, 9:07 PM
I'm not sure exactly how this works.

Every Indian tribe (admittedly a small cross section) that I've had the pleasure of interacting with did not pay any mind to federal gun laws.

Every one of them had fully automatic weapons, destructive devices, and suppressors.

They take their sovereignty seriously.

I believe they technically fall under fed law on this, but there isn't any enforcement I've heard of.

Window_Seat
01-06-2011, 9:19 PM
The question I have asked here in the past regarding IT/Ns is if Heller applies to them, and is an IT/N considered a Federal Enclave? How could they not be if they are subject to certain federal statutes, being visited by certain agencies (like the FBI, BATFE, Secret Service, etc.)? Is there more than one kind of Federal Enclave? I've been told pretty much every time that they are their own sovereign nation, therefore they make their own laws. If that's the case, then why not just say "BAD BATFE, NO ACCESS FOR YOU!"? It would be nice to not have to be disarmed because I exited the freeway to go "10-7B" and realized I was on an IR and now I'm suddenly dangerous... :rolleyes:

Erik.

Bobula
01-06-2011, 9:24 PM
The only two agencies, far as I know, with jurisdiction on reservation without tribal consent are the US Marshall's and possibly BIA.

I used to be a non bia tribal police officer.

JimWest
01-06-2011, 9:24 PM
...Every one of them had fully automatic weapons, destructive devices, and suppressors....

Pale Face available for tribal adoption. :red_indian:

Eat Dirt
01-06-2011, 9:29 PM
I'm not sure exactly how this works.

Every Indian tribe (admittedly a small cross section) that I've had the pleasure of interacting with did not pay any mind to federal gun laws.

Every one of them had fully automatic weapons, destructive devices, and suppressors.



Ain't that the truth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indubitably
01-06-2011, 10:49 PM
Due to public law 280 tribes in some states, including CA are bound to CA law. I have heard that some regulatory issues do not apply on reservations, such as smoking in a bar. Because of PL 280 local law enforcement was tasked with the law enforcement duties on the reservation. CA assault weapons laws should apply and other criminal offences are enforced on reservations.

Dreaded Claymore
01-06-2011, 10:50 PM
Pale Face available for tribal adoption. :red_indian:

Yah seriously. :red_indian: I wish we belegaanas had that kind of freedom

(belegaana: Literally means "the white lady," it's a Dinee (Navajo) term for people of European ancestry)

kmca
01-07-2011, 7:53 AM
Maybe they should open an ammunition booth in their casinos :)

Jack L
01-07-2011, 8:19 AM
Your CCW is not recognized on many reservations. Have to ask permission from tribal elders or police to carry.

In AZ;

From USACarry:

There are 21 Indian reservations in Arizona. If you are otherwise carrying lawfully, you may carry on federal and state highways that cross reservations. If you are not an American Indian, a reservation cannot prosecute you for carrying a firearm if your carry is legal in the surrounding county. However, if your firearm should be confiscated, it is up to the tribe if it wishes to provide you a means to seek its return; you cannot sue a tribe unless it consents to be sued. A privately conducted 2005 survey of 20 of the 21 reservations asked if they honored the Arizona CWP:
1. Ak-Chin Yes
2. Cocopah No
3. Colorado River Yes
4. Fort McDowell Yavapai Yes
5. Fort Mojave No
6. Fort Yuma-Quechan Yes
7. Gila River No
8. Havasupai No
9. Hopi Yes
10. Haulapai No
11. Kaibab-Paiute No
12. Navajo Yes
13. Pascua Yaqui No
14. Salt River Pima-Maricopa No
15. San Carlos Apache Yes
16. Tohono O’odham Yes
17. Tonto Apache No
18. White Mountain Apache Yes
19. Yavapai Prescott No
20. Yavapai Apache No

Note that tribal governments may change, that open carry is likely to be viewed as provocative if you are not engaged in a licensed hunt and that many tribes don’t allow their own members to carry deadly weapons.

Kukuforguns
01-07-2011, 10:27 AM
Tribal sovereignty is considered dark and impenetrable territory by virtually any lawyer who does not specialize in that area. Good luck getting a reliable response.

Kukuforguns
01-07-2011, 10:42 AM
Oh, even if is legal for tribes to sell weapons to non-tribe members, I strongly doubt it would be legal for non-tribe members to buy them and transport them off tribal land without ATF approval (which I don't see happening for fully automatic firearms). I bet that would be considered importation.

CalBear
01-07-2011, 10:51 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_280

Public Law 280 (Pub.L. 83-280, August 15, 1953, codified as 18 U.S.C. 1162, 28 U.S.C. 1360, and 25 U.S.C. 1321–1326, ) is a federal law of the United States establishing "a method whereby States may assume jurisdiction over reservation Indians," as stated by Arizona Supreme Court Justice Stanley G. Feldman. (State v. Zaman, 1994)

The Act mandated a transfer of federal law enforcement authority within certain tribal nations to state governments in six states: California, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Nation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation), Wisconsin (except later the Menominee Indian Reservation) and, upon its statehood, Alaska. Other states were allowed to elect similar transfers of power if the Indian tribes affected give their consent. Since then, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, Florida, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona, Iowa, and Utah have assumed some jurisdiction over crimes committed by tribal members on tribal lands.

The Act added to a complex matrix of jurisdictional conflict that defined tribal governance at the end of the 20th century. In various states, local police, tribal police, BIA police, the FBI are the arms of a law enforcement system that enforces laws of tribes, states and the federal government.

Under the Act, states, local sheriffs and state law enforcement agencies take tribal members to state courts for prosecution in cases arising from criminal matters within reservation boundaries. But most tribal governments and pueblos have also adopted their own codes, and administer court systems to adjudicate violations of the code.

In states where the Act has not been applied, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) police respond to major crimes on reservations or pueblos. The FBI joins in investigations of the most serious criminal matters such as murders or kidnappings. In those states, when allegations against tribal members arise from crimes on a reservation, the United States Attorney cites violations of the United States Code in a United States district court. Tribal and pueblo police also enforce local codes in "non-PL 280" states.

Jack L
01-07-2011, 11:00 AM
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/tribal_law_ccw.pdf

Eat Dirt
01-07-2011, 11:30 AM
Maybe they should open an ammunition booth in their casinos :)

I'd be happy just getting hooked up to do the Brass Clean-up ....:59:

blakdawg
01-07-2011, 12:35 PM
Tribal sovereignty is considered dark and impenetrable territory by virtually any lawyer who does not specialize in that area. Good luck getting a reliable response.

I worked as a law clerk for a firm practicing Indian law while I was in law school, and have maintained an intellectual interest in the field since then, though I don't practice in the area. I think it's fascinating from a philosophical/political science point of view.

There's no simple and correct way to address the broad sovereignty question. Also, the answer as viewed by the US DOJ and US BIA is going to be different than the answer as viewed by various tribes.

However, I do feel confident saying that if a tribe or tribal members were to start selling full-auto (or other NFA weapons) to non-tribal members from within Indian country, there would be no meaningful dispute that the US Code (including Titles 18 and 26) applied, and the participants in that transaction would be subject to prosecution in federal court.

Steveo8
01-07-2011, 12:40 PM
Due to public law 280 tribes in some states, including CA are bound to CA law. I have heard that some regulatory issues do not apply on reservations, such as smoking in a bar. Because of PL 280 local law enforcement was tasked with the law enforcement duties on the reservation. CA assault weapons laws should apply and other criminal offences are enforced on reservations.

I am not to sure about this. My wife worked in the Tribal offices on one of the local reservations, there was a problem the involved a lot of agencies and all of them had to go to the tribal council for permission to enter the reservation.