PDA

View Full Version : Heller vs. Indian Reservations?


Purple K
07-16-2011, 9:02 PM
Since Heller didn't apply to the States because D.C. is a Federal Enclave, would Heller apply to the Federal Enclaves known as Indian Reservations? The reservations like to claim that they are sovereign nations. In reality they are only as "sovereign" as Congress and the Bureau of Indian Affairs allows them to be. Many State and Federal roadways traverse Indian lands. There are many roadside business' (gas station, restaurant, convenience store, etc.) on Indian lands. There are many Indian casinos. PL 280 indicates that State Reg's apply and that tribal police only have jurisdiction of reservation residents. Is my CCW valid on tribal lands? Do NFA rules apply on tribal lands? It seems as though tribal counsels, like the 58 County Sheriffs, have been unchallenged in the arbitrary rules and reg's that they've created.

What say Ye?

gunsmith
07-16-2011, 9:39 PM
good question that I'm curious about too, local rumor was the Indian LE a few miles away used to confiscate all guns they found.

I've never had a problem but I never stop. afaik my ccw is only good traveling thru. As long as I'm on the road, in a vehicle, moving.

ElvenSoul
07-16-2011, 9:46 PM
Never thought about it...but umm good question!

socalblue
07-16-2011, 9:50 PM
good question that I'm curious about too, local rumor was the Indian LE a few miles away used to confiscate all guns they found.

I've never had a problem but I never stop. afaik my ccw is only good traveling thru. As long as I'm on the road, in a vehicle, moving.

Heller would have no effect on a reservation as they are semi-autonomous countries.

hoffmang
07-16-2011, 10:06 PM
A hard question that is rare enough that it will be outside most people's experience.

-Gene

Purple K
07-16-2011, 10:11 PM
Heller would have no effect on a reservation as they are semi-autonomous countries.

"Semi-autonomous." so you think that they can "Cherry Pick" from the Code of Federal Regulations? I think not! An Indian Casino employee gets seriously injured or killed, OSHA or Cal-OSHA will be there. Illegally dump hazardous waste on Indian land, the EPA will be there! Shall I go on? I think the Reservations have gotten away with so much for so long simply because they've not been challenged.

Purple K
07-16-2011, 10:22 PM
A hard question that is rare enough that it will be outside most people's experience.

-Gene

I like it when people have to think outside of their experience. :)

Tripper
07-16-2011, 10:24 PM
i'm going to guess osha/cal-osha/epa, might be there, but, i'm thinking they'll be politely told to go away, and as a result will ultimately be going away. I know where I'm from, no government anybody messed with indian anything. rules that apply on indian land/reservations, are generally rules the the tribal councils allow to apply.
not sure how heller would go, i'm gonna guess it wouldnt apply, i dont think much fed law applies on reservation, state even less. just my guess.

Tripper
07-16-2011, 10:28 PM
and, yah, they do alot and dont get challenged because its not easy to challenge the indians, feds are still making amends with indians, so are quite lenient. so, yes, they do get to cherry pick which codes and regulations they want to abide by. been that way for a long time, look back at the begging CA did to make deals with them early this decade for the casino profits.

Briancnelson
07-16-2011, 10:46 PM
Indian reservations are domestic, dependent sovereigns under the dominion of the Federal government. This definition exempts them from many State laws, but the Constitution and Federal law apply there, except as modified by the various laws enacted by Congress regarding Indian rights and privileges.

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-411.ZS.html

This case states the principle that Indian law has no jurisdiction over outsiders, generally, except where they have made legal agreement to the contrary, or where it directly endangers the welfare of the tribe. In this case it was a real estate dispute.

This principle, through other case law, is generally applied to give the tribal police the right to enforce laws on tribal land, etc., even outsiders, where general police action is appropriate. There are limits even to that however.

My take is that the tribe has the right to a certain level of regulation of firearms, even on outsiders, because it would be held to directly impact the safety and welfare of the tribe. However, it would be subject to the Constitution and all Federal case law regarding 2A rights. Therefore anything approaching an outright ban or serious infringement would likely be subject to the same reasoning as Heller and cases following it.

I'm no 2A or Constitutional lawyer, just a poor corporate/real estate attorney, but my experience, such as it is, with dealing with Indian lawa with regard to real property leads me to believe that interpretation is correct.

hoffmang
07-16-2011, 11:01 PM
I like it when people have to think outside of their experience. :)

Winning is about efficiency.

-Gene

OleCuss
07-17-2011, 4:10 AM
Indian reservations are domestic, dependent sovereigns under the dominion of the Federal government. This definition exempts them from many State laws, but the Constitution and Federal law apply there, except as modified by the various laws enacted by Congress regarding Indian rights and privileges.

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-411.ZS.html

This case states the principle that Indian law has no jurisdiction over outsiders, generally, except where they have made legal agreement to the contrary, or where it directly endangers the welfare of the tribe. In this case it was a real estate dispute.

This principle, through other case law, is generally applied to give the tribal police the right to enforce laws on tribal land, etc., even outsiders, where general police action is appropriate. There are limits even to that however.

My take is that the tribe has the right to a certain level of regulation of firearms, even on outsiders, because it would be held to directly impact the safety and welfare of the tribe. However, it would be subject to the Constitution and all Federal case law regarding 2A rights. Therefore anything approaching an outright ban or serious infringement would likely be subject to the same reasoning as Heller and cases following it.

I'm no 2A or Constitutional lawyer, just a poor corporate/real estate attorney, but my experience, such as it is, with dealing with Indian lawa with regard to real property leads me to believe that interpretation is correct.

Thank you. I really appreciated your explanation/opinion.

GaryV
07-17-2011, 7:22 AM
This question actually is a significant one in South Florida, where the Seminole reservation, and a major casino/entertainment venue on their land, are right adjacent to a major metro area (Miami-Dade/Broward). In the past, if they caught you with a gun on their property, you lost the gun. But since Heller, and because Florida is a Shall Issue CCW state, the question of carrying on their property has taken on new significance.

I'm not aware of any specific case law on the subject yet, but Florida CWLs are valid on Seminole property, meaning that you are not committing a crime if you carry there. However, they have a blanket policy against it on their property, and if you are caught, you will be kicked out. If you don't leave immediately, you will be charged with trespass, and in Florida trespass while armed is a separate and very serious offense.

Florida might be a unique or unusual case, however, as the state has a specific law that puts all Indian land under state legal authority:

285.16 Civil and criminal jurisdiction; Indian reservation.

(1) The State of Florida hereby assumes jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians or other persons within Indian reservations and over civil causes of actions between Indians or other persons or to which Indians or other persons are parties rising within Indian reservations.

(2) The civil and criminal laws of Florida shall obtain on all Indian reservations in this state and shall be enforced in the same manner as elsewhere throughout the state.

Also, as far as their jurisdiction over non-tribal members, see Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), and Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990).

r3dn3ck
07-17-2011, 7:38 AM
just because florida says they have jurisdiction, does not mean they do. Just because they attempt to adjudicate cases as if they were in control, they are not.

Briancnelson
07-17-2011, 7:40 AM
Actually, as to non tribe members, state laws apply on all reservations, generally speaking. That was the gist of the above case i cited. Tribal courts usually only involve disputes between two indians, or an indian and someone who has voluntarily put themselves in their jurisdiction.

Public safety allows them to have a certain amount of jurisdiction, to say, stop someone who is drunk driving near a casino, but the citation will likely be for the California law and heard in California court. That's my admittedly limited understanding of it.

GaryV
07-17-2011, 8:10 AM
just because florida says they have jurisdiction, does not mean they do. Just because they attempt to adjudicate cases as if they were in control, they are not.

Possibly. However, since the state does not prohibit carry on Indian property, and the tribal laws do not apply to nonmembers, short of a federal prohibition (and federal laws on reservations, except for very serious crimes, are virtually never enforced), the result is the same for non-Seminole CWFL holders - carry is legal.

command_liner
07-17-2011, 9:00 AM
On occasion I have thought about this one, as my wife is part native.

What happens if there is a school on the reservation. Does the federal
1000' rule apply? What about if there is a school outside the reservation,
but within 1000' of the border?

Massachusetts would be an interesting place to test this. New York too.

BigDogatPlay
07-17-2011, 9:11 AM
While the reservations / casinos / smoke shops are deemed somewhat sovereign, they can't serve a drop of alcohol in California without a state issued liquor license. Sacramento and the counties tend to use the liquor license as a massive hammer to get concessions out of the tribes. The same is true in all 50 states.

To some degree there are tribes that pick and choose the laws they want to follow. Those with designated lands do not have exclusive jurisdiction and the laws and licenses of the state apply. Tribal courts are strictly for tribal matters, one tribe member against another etc.

If tribal police take my gun away when I am a non-member and merely passing through reservation land on a public road, I think they have a problem.

Peter.Steele
07-17-2011, 10:02 AM
"Semi-autonomous." so you think that they can "Cherry Pick" from the Code of Federal Regulations? I think not! An Indian Casino employee gets seriously injured or killed, OSHA or Cal-OSHA will be there. Illegally dump hazardous waste on Indian land, the EPA will be there! Shall I go on? I think the Reservations have gotten away with so much for so long simply because they've not been challenged.



Interesting thing about reservations, really. OSHA and the EPA would be there, yes. Cal/OSH and the APCD / ARB / CARB / whatever would not. Activities taking place on reservations are subject to Federal regulations. Power plants on the reservation? Clean Air Act provisions apply, state regulations do not. It's very handy, and fully taken advantage of in some areas.

This flows from the Commerce Clause. The state really has no power to regulate 'trade' with the Indian nations, outside of what Congress grants to them.

Window_Seat
07-17-2011, 10:54 AM
In my law enforcement courses I took in the past, I was always told that the FBI, and other federal law enforcement agencies (like the Secret Service, etc.) have Federal jurisdiction on IR land.

If that's the case, and if USSC case law affects the U.S. Territories, then why not IR land?

Heller would apply, and so would any holding that affects the future of carry rights outside the home, but 14A Incorporation wouldn't be an issue, correct?

Erik.

Curtis
07-17-2011, 11:08 AM
"Semi-autonomous." so you think that they can "Cherry Pick" from the Code of Federal Regulations? I think not! An Indian Casino employee gets seriously injured or killed, OSHA or Cal-OSHA will be there. Illegally dump hazardous waste on Indian land, the EPA will be there! Shall I go on? I think the Reservations have gotten away with so much for so long simply because they've not been challenged.

I had a project or two on Indian Reservations. The building code didn't apply to them. But all the trades I dealt with used the codes for their design (with a few exceptions). Thee was no plan check or building inspections. I think there was some type of inspection that only dealt with progress. I always assumed this was related to funding, not life-safety concerns.

Quiet
07-17-2011, 11:11 AM
Public Law 83-280 (18 U.S.C. 1162, 28 U.S.C. 1360), commonly called Public Law 280, basically allows state laws to be enforced on indian reservations located in that state.

When Public Law 280 was passed, in 1953, it affected indian reservations in 5 states & 1 territory.
Since 1968, more states started applying it to indian reservations in their states. However, it may not be legal for Pulbic Law 280 to be applied to these additional states, but the states are using it anyway as a way to enforce what they want. Courts are undecided in this matter, with conflicting rulings depending on the state.

Currently, 16 states are using Public Law 280 to enforce their state laws on indian reservations located in their states.

The original "six" states affected by Public Law 280:
AK, CA, MN (except the Red Lake Reservation), NE, OR (except the Warm Springs Reservation) and WI.

The 10 states that are using Public Law 280:
AZ, FL, ID, IA, MT, NV, ND, SD, UT and WA.


18 USC 1162
(a) Each of the States or Territories listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of the State or Territory 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 or Territory:

State or Territory of Indian country affected
Alaska. All Indian country within the State, except that on Annette Islands, the Metlakatla Indian community may exercise jurisdiction over offenses committed by Indians in the same manner in which such jurisdiction may be exercised by Indian tribes in Indian country over which State jurisdiction has not been extended.
California. All Indian country within the State.
Minnesota. All Indian country within the State, except the Red Lake Reservation.
Nebraska. All Indian country within the State
Oregon. All Indian country within the State, except the Warm Springs Reservation.
Wisconsin. All Indian country within the State.

(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement, or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof.
(c) The provisions of sections 1152 and 1153 of this chapter shall not be applicable within the areas of Indian country listed in subsection (a) of this section as areas over which the several States have exclusive jurisdiction.

25 USC 1321
(a) Consent of United States; force and effect of criminal laws
The consent of the United States is hereby given to any State not having jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country situated within such State to assume, with the consent of the Indian tribe occupying the particular Indian country or part thereof which could be affected by such assumption, such measure of jurisdiction over any or all of such offenses committed within such Indian country or any part thereof as may be determined by such State to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over any such offense committed elsewhere within the State, and the criminal laws of such State shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country or part thereof as they have elsewhere within that State.
(b) Alienation, encumbrance, taxation, and use of property; hunting, trapping, or fishing
Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement, or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof.

Quiet
07-17-2011, 11:33 AM
Is my CCW valid on tribal lands? Do NFA rules apply on tribal lands?

In regards to CA...

Yes, your CA CCW permit would be valid on an indian reservation in CA.
However...
If they catch you carrying concealed, they can ask you to leave the reservation. Refusal to leave can result in arrest for tresspassing.

Yes, all NFA rules apply on an indian reservation.
Federal laws always apply to indian reservation.

Over a decade ago, there use to be a 01-FFL/03-SOT operating on an indian reservation in SoCal.
The FFL/SOT lived on the reservation and was employed by the tribe. He ended up losing his FFL/SOT due to domestic violence charges.

Purple K
07-18-2011, 5:37 AM
It certainly looks like the Reservations, like some Sheriffs, have been running with scissors for a long time and are overdue for a smackdown.

NotEnufGarage
07-18-2011, 5:44 AM
This question actually is a significant one in South Florida, where the Seminole reservation, and a major casino/entertainment venue on their land, are right adjacent to a major metro area (Miami-Dade/Broward). In the past, if they caught you with a gun on their property, you lost the gun. But since Heller, and because Florida is a Shall Issue CCW state, the question of carrying on their property has taken on new significance.

I'm not aware of any specific case law on the subject yet, but Florida CWLs are valid on Seminole property, meaning that you are not committing a crime if you carry there. However, they have a blanket policy against it on their property, and if you are caught, you will be kicked out. If you don't leave immediately, you will be charged with trespass, and in Florida trespass while armed is a separate and very serious offense.

Florida might be a unique or unusual case, however, as the state has a specific law that puts all Indian land under state legal authority:



Also, as far as their jurisdiction over non-tribal members, see Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), and Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990).

I lived adjacent to the Seminole reservation in the early 90's and got pulled over there one time on the way home. Since FL law at the time allowed concealed carry in the car, I had my G17 loaded and holstered under the seat. The Seminole cop asked if I had any weapons and I affirmed that I did. He asked me to get out of the car, retrieved the weapon and had me open the locking compartment in the trunk area, where he stored it, unloaded, and let me go along my way.

I guess it wasn't pretty enough to keep.

GaryV
07-18-2011, 6:32 AM
I lived adjacent to the Seminole reservation in the early 90's and got pulled over there one time on the way home. Since FL law at the time allowed concealed carry in the car, I had my G17 loaded and holstered under the seat. The Seminole cop asked if I had any weapons and I affirmed that I did. He asked me to get out of the car, retrieved the weapon and had me open the locking compartment in the trunk area, where he stored it, unloaded, and let me go along my way.

I guess it wasn't pretty enough to keep.

As you said, by the '90s Florida had already passed its carry laws, so things were already changing. In the '70s or early '80s things might have gone differently. It's curious that he still didn't allow you to carry in a perfectly legal way.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-18-2011, 6:41 AM
Just to add to the confusion:

When I was a Notary Public (technically,an Officer of the State of California), I was asked to perform a notarization on one of the local reservations. I called the Secretary of State's Office & asked if I could do so (since, they are semi-autonomous nations & all that). I was told that I could.

Now, California notaries are specifically forbidden to notarize out of the state. Since I was also specifically told I could notarize on a reservation, that means the reservation is in the state of California. Right?


The Raisuli

gun toting monkeyboy
07-18-2011, 8:01 AM
We have at least 27 IRs om San Diego county, so this is relevent to a lot of people on here. I do not have any personal experience, however, I have spoken to several flavors of law enforcement over the years, and it sounds like when it comes to guns, some of the reservations are still very much the wild west. They have mentioned automatic weapons, open and concealed carry, and a host of other stuff that made it no fun for them to roll up on drunk and disorderly calls. I don't know how truthful these accounts are, but they seemed fairly consistant from source to source.

-Mb

kcbrown
07-19-2011, 4:50 PM
Interesting thing about reservations, really. OSHA and the EPA would be there, yes. Cal/OSH and the APCD / ARB / CARB / whatever would not. Activities taking place on reservations are subject to Federal regulations. Power plants on the reservation? Clean Air Act provisions apply, state regulations do not. It's very handy, and fully taken advantage of in some areas.

This flows from the Commerce Clause. The state really has no power to regulate 'trade' with the Indian nations, outside of what Congress grants to them.

Why not? The state clearly has the power to regulate "trade" with other states, else California's law against importation of standard-capacity magazines would have no teeth.

The Commerce Clause quite clearly does nothing to prevent states from regulating interstate trade. All it does, rather, is (in effect, based on Supreme Court jurisprudence) grant the federal government unlimited power.

Anchors
07-19-2011, 8:27 PM
There are a bunch of reservations near town in Phoenix/Scottsdale/etc in Arizona.

I have always been told not only can I not carry there, but I can't drive through there with my guns in my car.
Could be FUD, but I would live some clarification if anyone knows.