TT
member
Just out of curiosity, if your firearm is confiscated by a Tribal LEO (regardless of whether he was legally justified in doing so) what recourse do you have?
Concealed carry on indian reservation
- Thread starter rampantandroid
- Start date
- Status
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'm not sure. Tribal authorities would be the obvious starting point for this. Or an actual attorney experienced in legal matters between tribal and non-tribal people.
I'm of the opinion here that an ounce of prevention is most definately worth a pound of cure! Get the answers on what to expect before a planned visit to any reservation.
brboyer
Member
TT
member
.
Call me cynical, but I think if I report that a Tribal LEO stole my firearm the local county/state PD won’t care a whit. But I will keep it in mind should the situation ever arise.
NavyLCDR
member
Tribes on reservations are not "sovereign" to the extent that they can do whatever the heck they want to, to whomever they decide to do it. The legal recourse would be to file a lawsuit against the police officer in Washington State court. If the Tribal police officer was also a sworn Washington State peace officer, the lawsuit would be for violation of the 4th Amendment and the illegal seizure of private property without legal authority. If the Tribal police officer was not a sworn peace officer, then it would simply be a civil suit, the same as if I took your gun from you on my property and refused to return it. Your mere presence on my property does not give me jurisdiction to seize your private property for no other reason than it's presence on my property. Tribes have no legal authority to seize the private property of non-Indians for no other reason than presence on their property. Otherwise, they could also just take every vehicle that came on their reservation.
danez71
Member
Indian Reservations are not prviate property.
Here's a nice little FAQ:
http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm
and
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Mar/24/132651.html/
Here's a nice little FAQ:
http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm
and
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Mar/24/132651.html/
RetiredUSNChief
Member
hermannr
Member
We are not talking about civil torts and courts in this post...we are talking about how to handle carry on a reservation...
As I said, you treat their land as if it were private property, you will do just fine.
Yes, in the state of WA...all reservation police are swarn officers of Washington State, as well as thier respective tribe. Idaho was headed that way last year, don't know if they ever finalized the agreement or not.
NavyLCDR
member
The prohibition of firearms in Federal facilities applies to: "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties." and those Federal facilities "shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility". An Indian reservation in no way meets that definition... although a Federal building located on an Indian reservation certainly could.
The 1000' rule applies to school zones, both on and off Indian reservations, and a permit issued by the state the school zone is located in exempts the person from the prohibition.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
That is exactly what I'm talking about and it is probably one of many ways you can get cross ways with the Feds.
Much Reservation traffic that I know off is done by tourists in states other than their residence and since the OP said he was visiting I thought it worth mentioning especially since many giving advice haven't mentioned the Federal aspect of Reservation violations.
In the 4 Corners Reservations it is rare if not impossible to be able to pass through town without going within the 1000' and if you piss off the local Five O they might be more than happy to make a Federal Case of it (pun intended).
RetiredUSNChief
Member
With respect to the 1,000 foot rule, a blanket statement that "a permit issued by the state the school zone is located in exempts the person from the prohibition" cannot be made when talking about indian reservations.
It may be true for some tribes, but not for others. Or it may not be true for any at all.
States don't have authority over federally recognized tribes on federal indian reservations unless Congress has authorized it. Tribal laws can be either tougher or more lenient than the states they reside in. HOWEVER, tribes can enter into government-to-government agreements with the state(s) they reside in over matters of common interest.
And yes, this takes into account Public Law 280, as amended in 1968.
Here's what the Washington state code (37.12.010) has to say about the authority of the state over tribal affairs:
The state of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands within this state in accordance with the consent of the United States given by the act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd Congress, 1st Session), but such assumption of jurisdiction shall not apply to Indians when on their tribal lands or allotted lands within an established Indian reservation and held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, unless the provisions of RCW 37.12.021 have been invoked, except for the following:
(1) Compulsory school attendance;
(2) Public assistance;
(3) Domestic relations;
(4) Mental illness;
(5) Juvenile delinquency;
(6) Adoption proceedings;
(7) Dependent children; and
(8) Operation of motor vehicles upon the public streets, alleys, roads and highways: PROVIDED FURTHER, That Indian tribes that petitioned for, were granted and became subject to state jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter on or before March 13, 1963 shall remain subject to state civil and criminal jurisdiction as if *chapter 36, Laws of 1963 had not been enacted.
Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=37.12.010
If the indian nation on the reservation in question chooses to have tighter civil gun control laws, they can do so unless Congress has established a condition otherwise. No state issued permit can override that.
Either get a definitive answer from a legally qualified source which deals with that particulare reservation, or do the courtesty of ASKING the appropriate authorities on the reservation itself FIRST.
It may be true for some tribes, but not for others. Or it may not be true for any at all.
States don't have authority over federally recognized tribes on federal indian reservations unless Congress has authorized it. Tribal laws can be either tougher or more lenient than the states they reside in. HOWEVER, tribes can enter into government-to-government agreements with the state(s) they reside in over matters of common interest.
And yes, this takes into account Public Law 280, as amended in 1968.
Here's what the Washington state code (37.12.010) has to say about the authority of the state over tribal affairs:
The state of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands within this state in accordance with the consent of the United States given by the act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd Congress, 1st Session), but such assumption of jurisdiction shall not apply to Indians when on their tribal lands or allotted lands within an established Indian reservation and held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, unless the provisions of RCW 37.12.021 have been invoked, except for the following:
(1) Compulsory school attendance;
(2) Public assistance;
(3) Domestic relations;
(4) Mental illness;
(5) Juvenile delinquency;
(6) Adoption proceedings;
(7) Dependent children; and
(8) Operation of motor vehicles upon the public streets, alleys, roads and highways: PROVIDED FURTHER, That Indian tribes that petitioned for, were granted and became subject to state jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter on or before March 13, 1963 shall remain subject to state civil and criminal jurisdiction as if *chapter 36, Laws of 1963 had not been enacted.
Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=37.12.010
If the indian nation on the reservation in question chooses to have tighter civil gun control laws, they can do so unless Congress has established a condition otherwise. No state issued permit can override that.
Either get a definitive answer from a legally qualified source which deals with that particulare reservation, or do the courtesty of ASKING the appropriate authorities on the reservation itself FIRST.
hermannr
Member
This is one of teh reasons I say "just ask them for permission"...no harm, no faul.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Absolutely! In fact, I almost quoted you on that.
I've been researching this in detail and, based on the status of federally recognized indian nations as "domestic, dependent nations", such tribal nations have sovereign authority to govern themselves, subject to overriding federal authority. Congress enacted this to protect them from state authority. This includes activities on their lands, as well.
I said in my opening comment in this string that the interrelations between indian nations and the United States is a complex, convoluted one. Even professionals in this field are challenged.
Your bottom line is 100% consistent with all the information I could find from any other source on this: ASK THEM.
dprice3844444
member
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/tribal_law_ccw.pdf
http://webpages.charter.net/wfkussel/trust_out.pdf
http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/makahcode/makahlawt10.htm
http://www.narf.org/nill/index.htm
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?73129-OC-not-allowed-on-Makah-Rez read this and note my earlier post ref contact the sheriff
http://www.road-police.com/police/Washington/Neah_Bay/property_16382/police.html
http://webpages.charter.net/wfkussel/trust_out.pdf
http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/makahcode/makahlawt10.htm
http://www.narf.org/nill/index.htm
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?73129-OC-not-allowed-on-Makah-Rez read this and note my earlier post ref contact the sheriff
http://www.road-police.com/police/Washington/Neah_Bay/property_16382/police.html
Last edited:
danez71
Member
Thanks for re-enforcing that indian reservations are not private property.
No problem. I do what I can.
I'm speaking of federally recognized reservations.
NavyLCD was and thats who I was responding to.
Generally speaking... very generally, if you treat it like private property, generally speaking, you will do OK. But dont fool yourself or anyone else into thinking they are private property; they're not.
Last part first - thats what I said back on e page 1 post # 6 when I stated "Page 4 http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/washington.pdf "
To reinforce the 1st part, I'll refer to the authority I reference back at post # 31 that addresses SO MANY of these issues if anyone would actually like to take the time to read instead of obviously guessing.
http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm
And
And
Note how the "sovereigns" is used!!
Yes. Like I said on page 1 post #6!!!
In response to hermannr:
Absolutely! In fact, I almost quoted you on that.
Your bottom line is 100% consistent with all the information I could find from any other source on this: ASK THEM.
Well... this is getting to sound like a broken record. Wow... another one that agrees with what I said on page 1 post #6!!!
Maybe we are on to something here guys..?
And just to revist what RetiredUSNChief said on back on pg1
And back to seizures for a moment.
Lets reference the National Indian Law Library. They would seem to have good info.
http://www.narf.org/nill/index.htm
Emphasis added by me.
So lets recap.
Why can they do this? Because they are sovereign.
(National Indian Law Library)http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/makahcode/makahlawt10.htm
(Bureau of Indian Affairs)
http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm
Can you sue them. Sure.
Will you get anywhere? Not likely.
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Mar/24/132651.html/
So whats the best thing to do?
"ASK THEM" as stated by 3 different people about 6 times and in page 4 of http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/washington.pdf which is specifically in reference to Washington as the topic in the OP.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Originally Posted by danez71:
So lets recap.
Why can they do this? Because they are sovereign.
(National Indian Law Library)http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/makahcode/makahlawt10.htm
(Bureau of Indian Affairs)
http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm
Can you sue them. Sure.
Will you get anywhere? Not likely.
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Mar/24/132651.html/
So whats the best thing to do?
"ASK THEM" as stated by 3 different people about 6 times and in page 4 of http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/washington.pdf which is specifically in reference to Washington as the topic in the OP.[/QUOTE]
And there you have it! All the way back to post #2, in fact! Thank you, hermannr!
TAKE THAT, YOU DEAD HORSE!
Seriously, thanks for the Chapter 7 quotes, danez71...I had just stumbled on them a few minutes ago myself. Took me a while.
So lets recap.
Why can they do this? Because they are sovereign.
(National Indian Law Library)http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/makahcode/makahlawt10.htm
(Bureau of Indian Affairs)
http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm
Can you sue them. Sure.
Will you get anywhere? Not likely.
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Mar/24/132651.html/
So whats the best thing to do?
"ASK THEM" as stated by 3 different people about 6 times and in page 4 of http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/washington.pdf which is specifically in reference to Washington as the topic in the OP.[/QUOTE]
And there you have it! All the way back to post #2, in fact! Thank you, hermannr!
TAKE THAT, YOU DEAD HORSE!
Seriously, thanks for the Chapter 7 quotes, danez71...I had just stumbled on them a few minutes ago myself. Took me a while.
danez71
Member
Well... if you would just take a gander pg 4 of http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/wa atshington.pdf you just may find it. And low and behold... its the same state the OP was inquiring about.
Seriously....Its only been posted about 4 times now including the attempted hand holding by pointing out pg 4.
And there you have it! All the way back to post #2, in fact! Thank you, hermannr!
Seriously, thanks for the Chapter 7 quotes, danez71...I had just stumbled on them a few minutes ago myself. Took me a while.
Actually, I got thatspecific info from reading what was provided by dprice3844444 instead of guessing or parroting something I heard through the grapevine.
Yes, a few of us still investigate things ourselves but dprice3844444 deserves credit for pointing me in the right direction.
The first 4 links he provided are very informative and from a reliable source of authority.
TAKE THAT, YOU DEAD HORSE!
You're new here. This horse aint dead yet despite not drinking after being lead to water over 1/2 dozen times.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
You're new here. This horse aint dead yet despite not drinking after being lead to water over 1/2 dozen times.
I'm new here and already I love it! There are some great strings...and some pretty entertaining.
MrDig
Member
Minnesota
Here it is a specific issue at Casinos and the Hotels they run, and or out state an issue on Tribal Lands in remote areas.
There are two that fall under different regulatory agencies they are Red Lake and Nett Lake. There is no published information on-line about right to carry permit to carry from these Tribal Governments. I cannot tell you what their policies are.
Two I was able to contact were White Earth and Leech Lake and as long as a person has their permit on them when they are carrying they are good to go.
Many of the Casinos are posted, however I have anecdotal reports that Hunters staying in the Hotels asked for permission to secure their fire arms in their rooms and were allowed to do so. They were escorted to and from their rooms with the weapons cased and there were no problems.
The Bottom line is check first, and be polite you may be quite surprised how far a little respect offered garners great respect in return.
Here it is a specific issue at Casinos and the Hotels they run, and or out state an issue on Tribal Lands in remote areas.
There are two that fall under different regulatory agencies they are Red Lake and Nett Lake. There is no published information on-line about right to carry permit to carry from these Tribal Governments. I cannot tell you what their policies are.
Two I was able to contact were White Earth and Leech Lake and as long as a person has their permit on them when they are carrying they are good to go.
Many of the Casinos are posted, however I have anecdotal reports that Hunters staying in the Hotels asked for permission to secure their fire arms in their rooms and were allowed to do so. They were escorted to and from their rooms with the weapons cased and there were no problems.
The Bottom line is check first, and be polite you may be quite surprised how far a little respect offered garners great respect in return.
NavyLCDR
member
Personally, I think I will just stick with the universal rule of concealed means concealed. I've never encountered a metal detector on an Indian reservation and no duty to inform police in Washington.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'm all about concealed, too.
But there's the "law abiding" aspect that those of us who have concealed carry permits have to consider, too. We set the example...because there isn't anybody else who will.
Gotten pretty much back an forth with no new information for a while.
- Status
