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?
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.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?
What would you do if a restaurant worker 'confiscated' your firearm? Or the guy at 7-11? Same answer.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?
.What would you do if a restaurant worker 'confiscated' your firearm? Or the guy at 7-11? Same answer
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?
Question: "Can We Sue the Tribe for Damages or Equitable Relief?"
Answer: Probably not. Like other sovereign governmental entities, tribes enjoy common law sovereign immunity and cannot be sued:[19] An Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has "unequivocally" authorized the suit or the tribe has "clearly" waived its immunity.[20] There is a strong presumption against waiver of tribal sovereign immunity.[21]
The doctrine of sovereign immunity shields tribes from suit for monetary damages and requests for declaratory or injunctive relief.[22] However, tribal government officials who act beyond the scope of their authority are not immune from claims for damages.[23]
Tribes are also immune from the enforcement of a subpoena, e.g., to compel production of documents.[24] Further, a court cannot compel the Department of the Interior (DOI) or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) – fiduciary for the benefit of tribes[25] – to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and release documents passed between tribes and the agencies unless the communications involve "tribal interests subject to state and federal proceedings."[26] Arguably, if a tribe is immune from state or federal suit, documents exchanged between tribes and DOI or BIA regarding "tribal interests" or "matters internal to the tribe,"[27] are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Moreover, tribal immunity generally extends to agencies of the tribe[28] such as tribal casinos and other business enterprises. As many U.S. citizens flock to tribal casinos and resorts, slip-and-falls and other tort claims arising on tribal reservations have increased. Nevertheless, courts routinely dismiss personal injury suits against tribes for lack of jurisdiction.[29]
Therefore, in considering whether to sue a tribe on behalf of an injured party, you must closely evaluate issues of sovereign immunity and waiver. Unless you can show clear evidence of tribal waiver or unequivocal Congressional abrogation, do not waste your time, your client's money, or a court's resources by filing suit. A judge will simply dismiss the plaintiff's claims for damages for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Thanks for re-enforcing that indian reservations are not private property.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/
We are not talking about civil torts and courts in this post...we are talking about how to handle carry on a reservation...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/
Depending upon the violation you may be treading on Federal law as well. The Reservations are administered by the BIA/Federal gov. not the states.
Think about the 1000' rule as an example.
That is exactly what I'm talking about and it is probably one of many ways you can get cross ways with the Feds.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.
__________________
Absolutely! In fact, I almost quoted you on that.This is one of teh reasons I say "just ask them for permission"...no harm, no faul.
Thanks for re-enforcing that indian reservations are not private property.
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.
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.
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.
Federal Indian reservations are generally exempt from state jurisdiction, including taxation, except when Congress specifically authorizes such jurisdiction.
Furthermore, federally recognized tribes possess both the right and the authority to regulate activities on their lands independently from state government control.
What is the relationship between the tribes and the United States?
The relationship between federally recognized tribes and the United States is one between sovereigns, i.e., between a government and a government.
This is one of teh reasons I say "just ask them for permission"...no harm, no faul.
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.
CHAPTER 7
Seizure and Forfeiture
§10.7.01 Nature of Proceedings
The forfeiture proceeding established in this Chapter is a civil in rem proceeding established to protect tribal property and to safeguard the health, safety and general welfare of the members of the Tribe, other residents of the Reservation, and visitors to the Reservation by regulating the use and disposition of weapons. It is remedial in nature and under the conditions described below can be invoked to protect the Tribe from the possession and use of weapons contrary to the provisions of this Title.
§10.7.02 Seizure
Any tribal law enforcement officer may seize without warrant any weapon or ammunition which he has reason to believe has been used or possessed contrary to the provisions of this Title
So Just who do you ask? Who has the authority to grant you a waiver just because you were polite? Do you get it in writing and have it notorized?
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.
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.
I'm all about concealed, too.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.