Firearms, and Tribal Jurisdiction

[Texasgrillchef]

Many tribal lands have various restrictive regulations and “laws” regarding owning, possessing, and carrying firearms. Some outright ban them, others recognize various state LTC’s and some do not. However.... there is also a basic understanding as well with certain exceptions that Tribal law does not have jurisdiction civil or criminal over non-Indian non-members. Again their are exceptions. For example murdering, raping, a tribal member, or robbing a Indian casino. However, I can not find any case law where jurisdiction has been upheld against a non-Indian non-member in regards to owning, carrying or possessing a firearm, loaded or unloaded. Now I understand just because I was not able to find any case law doesn’t mean that none exists.

however I did find this in regards to Tribal Jurisdiction.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43324.pdf

 

[billtool]

I and my ole mutt took a detour when on a road trip to Tombstone and the Grand Canyon from Dallas. We made a right or a left and were driving through some of the most desolate and beautiful desert I could have imagined. We were on a paved two way "highway" with nice shoulders on both sides. I was clipping along about 15 miles over the speed limit when a police pickup crested the hill moving in the opposite direction. The truck lit'em up and I slowed down and pulled over to the shoulder. I put on my hazards, turned off the vehicle (it was July), and placed the keys on the dashboard then my hands at 10 and 2. The officer walked up to the vehicle, advised me of my speed and told me drug runners often made this trip. He asked for my license and registration. I removed my license and CCL from my wallet and handed both to him with my other paperwork. He asked if I had a gun - I said yes - he asked where - I said in the armrest. One thing led to another and he advised that the AZ reciprocity with TX did not include the Navajo nation. He told me to leave my gun alone until I left it's borders, and left me with a business card and a verbal warning. So - learn this - had this officer not felt respected - I'd have been enjoying an evening at least in a Navajo jail and wondering what the heck happened to my dog. Not something anyone would want I would guess.

Moral of the story is, if one goes into tribal lands armed, one does so at one's own risk and peril. Even after what I experienced, I would not change my carry status or behavior.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I and my ole mutt took a detour when on a road trip to Tombstone and the Grand Canyon from Dallas. We made a right or a left and were driving through some of the most desolate and beautiful desert I could have imagined. We were on a paved two way "highway" with nice shoulders on both sides. I was clipping along about 15 miles over the speed limit when a police pickup crested the hill moving in the opposite direction. The truck lit'em up and I slowed down and pulled over to the shoulder. I put on my hazards, turned off the vehicle (it was July), and placed the keys on the dashboard then my hands at 10 and 2. The officer walked up to the vehicle, advised me of my speed and told me drug runners often made this trip. He asked for my license and registration. I removed my license and CCL from my wallet and handed both to him with my other paperwork. He asked if I had a gun - I said yes - he asked where - I said in the armrest. One thing led to another and he advised that the AZ reciprocity with TX did not include the Navajo nation. He told me to leave my gun alone until I left it's borders, and left me with a business card and a verbal warning. So - learn this - had this officer not felt respected - I'd have been enjoying an evening at least in a Navajo jail and wondering what the heck happened to my dog. Not something anyone would want I would guess.

Moral of the story is, if one goes into tribal lands armed, one does so at one's own risk and peril. Even after what I experienced, I would not change my carry status or behavior.

Absolutely... they may not like it, and had u shown disrepect he may uave gone beyond jurisdictional boundries.

but even when your right and the officer is wrong, it can still cost time and money with lawyers to fight something that your right about.

All leo's are human and many make mistakes and some are even corrupt and act on their feelings rather then what is legal. Thats where we get leo's in the news when they screw up and kill someone, or like waco, or ruby ridge, or many others.

The original post though i wanted to keep to the legalities, not on what one should or should not do, or what should or should not be.

My personal opinion is all states and reservations and tribal lands should treat a vehicle on public highways the same as your home residence. As long as your gun is in the vehicle and tour not brandishing it, it should be legal. But my opinions and desires arent what is legal in all 50 states or on tribal lands.

I know someone that wrote a hot check to winstar. If she steps foot back on winstar proerty they will arrest her. But both oklahoma state and Texas will not take any action.
She is a non-indian. A lawyer told her that even if she did go back and get arrested by the tribal police, he could get the charges dropped in federal court, because of jurisdiction. Thing is he would charge her $2500 for the trouble.

That however is for a $100 check, different then carrying a open or concealed handgun.

 

[P5 Guy]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-rules-eastern-half-of-oklahoma-is-tribal-land

The state argued that ruling in favor of McGirt would result in "cleaving Oklahoma in half." The state's attorneys claimed that the Creek Nation’s historic territory is not a reservation and argued that siding with McGirt would be the "largest judicial abrogation of state sovereignty in American history."

Geeze, gotta be real careful on OK.

 

[Craig_AR]

A few notes:
1. The SCOTUS ruling applies initially only to Muscogee (Creek) land but probably also to the eastern Oklahoma area defined by the tribal land of the Five Civilized Tribes: Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek), and Seminole. It affects no other tribal lands.
2. The ruling in no way changes the legal jurisdictions of the five affected tribal governments, laws, police, and courts. Under the Major Crimes Act the ruling removes the authority of the State of Oklahoma to charge and try tribal members for major crimes (felonies?) on tribal lands; it reserves the to the Federal government that authority.
3. If I have read the summaries correctly, the State of Oklahoma still has authority to charge and try non-tribal members for major crimes on tribal land. I would appreciate confirmation on this point by one of our legal eagles in THR.
4. The Cherokee Phoenix newspaper in the Cherokee Nation has a good article explaining the ruling: SCOTUS McGirt ruling favors Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
From that article,
The argument that the historical MCN reservation was never terminated could expand tribal and federal authority into some affairs normally handled by the state. The ruling is expected to also apply to the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole nations, and the tribes released a joint statement in response.
“The State, the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations have made substantial progress toward an agreement to present to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice addressing and resolving any significant jurisdictional issues raised by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma,” the statement read. “The Nations and the State are committed to ensuring that Jimcy McGirt, Patrick Murphy, and all other offenders face justice for the crimes for which they are accused. We have a shared commitment to maintaining public safety and long-term economic prosperity for the Nations and Oklahoma.”

 

[Texasgrillchef]

A few notes:
1. The SCOTUS ruling applies initially only to Muscogee (Creek) land but probably also to the eastern Oklahoma area defined by the tribal land of the Five Civilized Tribes: Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek), and Seminole. It affects no other tribal lands.
2. The ruling in no way changes the legal jurisdictions of the five affected tribal governments, laws, police, and courts. Under the Major Crimes Act the ruling removes the authority of the State of Oklahoma to charge and try tribal members for major crimes (felonies?) on tribal lands; it reserves the to the Federal government that authority.
3. If I have read the summaries correctly, the State of Oklahoma still has authority to charge and try non-tribal members for major crimes on tribal land. I would appreciate confirmation on this point by one of our legal eagles in THR.
4. The Cherokee Phoenix newspaper in the Cherokee Nation has a good article explaining the ruling: SCOTUS McGirt ruling favors Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
From that article,
The argument that the historical MCN reservation was never terminated could expand tribal and federal authority into some affairs normally handled by the state. The ruling is expected to also apply to the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole nations, and the tribes released a joint statement in response.
“The State, the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations have made substantial progress toward an agreement to present to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice addressing and resolving any significant jurisdictional issues raised by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma,” the statement read. “The Nations and the State are committed to ensuring that Jimcy McGirt, Patrick Murphy, and all other offenders face justice for the crimes for which they are accused. We have a shared commitment to maintaining public safety and long-term economic prosperity for the Nations and Oklahoma.”

But as i understand that, it has nothing to do with Tribal lands having or not having jurisdiction over non-indians. Correct?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

So what jurisdiction does Tribal reservations have over non-inidians on Tribal land? Or is it given to the FBI or other federal Leos?

I know what i saw when i worked at an indian casino, but that doesnt mean anything legally.

 

[Craig_AR]

But as i understand that, it has nothing to do with Tribal lands having or not having jurisdiction over non-indians. Correct?

It makes absolutely no change in the existing authorities of tribal police and courts to deal with non-Indians in Indian Territory. However, I am not knowledgeable on exactly what that authority is. I assume that if the Cherokee Nation Marshall service ticket you for speeding in Tahlequah, that is a valid police and court action. However, we need an accurate reading on these details.

 

[Craig_AR]

So what jurisdiction does Tribal reservations have over non-inidians on Tribal land?

This is a complicated question, because of the large number of separate tribes (over 500) and civil governments involved.
I believe this question has to be answered for each individual tribe and state.

Specifically for my own tribe, the Cherokee Nation, the Tribal web site at
ᏣᎳᎩ ᎠᏰᎵᎤᏙᏢᏒ
About The Nation
says
"The Cherokee Nation also provides for the safety of its citizens, other residents and visitors through its law enforcement agency, the Cherokee Nation Marshal Service. The Marshal Service has jurisdiction over all tribal and trust land throughout the tribe’s 14-county jurisdiction and is cross-deputized with more than 50 federal, state, county and city law enforcement offices to provide seamless services to everyone in the area."
The other Five Civilized Tribes may have similar agreements with Oklahoma and their counties.

For broader analysis, I found
The Tribal Court Clearinghouse, General Guide to Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) Indian Law Handbook.

and, from the Department of Justice (DOJ) National Justice Institute
Policing on Indian Reservations

Not being a lawyer or LEO, I leave it to others to interpret those documents.

 

[mjsdwash]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliphant_v._Suquamish_Indian_Tribe I contacted my nearest tribe police detectives, and none of them knew an answer to this very question, or what their officers would do. They never got clarification, but the above ruling gives some implication that legal activity on state land remains legal on tribal land. I will say again though, who knows how the police will see it.

 

[1942bull]

I used to travel For workin the Southwest, particularly NM, AZ, CO. I drove rental cars, and I always too my EDC. I had permit coverage because I had an AZ non resident permit and a PA permit, combined I was covered in the three states. I had to drive across reservations at times. I would call the reservation police before doing so to check on what the current regulations were for any specific reservation. They were always very helpful, but as mentioned above the variations between reservations was wide. I always dealt with reservations by considering the to be another country whose laws I had to comply with. Fortunately during the ten years of that experience I never was stopped on a reservation.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

This is a complicated question, because of the large number of separate tribes (over 500) and civil governments involved.
I believe this question has to be answered for each individual tribe and state.

Specifically for my own tribe, the Cherokee Nation, the Tribal web site at
ᏣᎳᎩ ᎠᏰᎵᎤᏙᏢᏒ
About The Nation
says
"The Cherokee Nation also provides for the safety of its citizens, other residents and visitors through its law enforcement agency, the Cherokee Nation Marshal Service. The Marshal Service has jurisdiction over all tribal and trust land throughout the tribe’s 14-county jurisdiction and is cross-deputized with more than 50 federal, state, county and city law enforcement offices to provide seamless services to everyone in the area."
The other Five Civilized Tribes may have similar agreements with Oklahoma and their counties.

For broader analysis, I found
The Tribal Court Clearinghouse, General Guide to Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) Indian Law Handbook.

and, from the Department of Justice (DOJ) National Justice Institute
Policing on Indian Reservations

Not being a lawyer or LEO, I leave it to others to interpret those documents.

I used to work for Winstar casinos, where i witnessed a fellow employee being aressted by the FBI for stealing a large sum of money from the casino. Now i have no idea what the conclusion was to that case, as in charges dropped or a conviction was made, or in what court the person went too.

I know of another person that wrote a hot check to the casino. I was told by her that if she goes baxk she will be arrested, but wont be arrested by any Oklahoma Leo, only the tribal Leo. Now i admit i dont know if the i formation she gave me was correct though or made up.

Both of those crimes though are somewhat different then carrying a handgun on reservation land.

I did read a legal brief somewhere that clearly stated that in domestic abuse where one partner was a non-indian that the tribal courts did have jurisdiction for both criminal and civil purposes, as well as being able to handle child custody and divorce cases. That was my understanding, but i could be wrong.

I believe they have jurisdiction in some matters and they dont in other matters. Just trying to figure out which, am i correct?

I did just come back from a trip from new mexico. I was pulled over for speeding by a tribal officer near Taos. He told me to watch my speed but also told me he couldnt write a ticket because he didnt have the authority to do so. He didnt explain further. I do not know for which tribe he was affiliated with though.

All of which makes me wonder what and where they have Jurisdiction and dont.

I will read those links that you posted. thank you.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliphant_v._Suquamish_Indian_Tribe I contacted my nearest tribe police detectives, and none of them knew an answer to this very question, or what their officers would do. They never got clarification, but the above ruling gives some implication that legal activity on state land remains legal on tribal land. I will say again though, who knows how the police will see it.

I concurr, That is one of cases I read earlier, as well. Which why i started this thread.

Correct me if i am wrong though.... Just because the police see it as breaking the law the prosecututers may not and drop the case, or even the judge or grand jury maynot and the case is dismissed or dropped. As well as the case could go to court and the defense wins.
However, once the police make an arrest it will cost money with legal fees at that point. Correct? So one usually i assume wouldnt want it to involve the police at all?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

This is a complicated question, because of the large number of separate tribes (over 500) and civil governments involved.
I believe this question has to be answered for each individual tribe and state.

Specifically for my own tribe, the Cherokee Nation, the Tribal web site at
ᏣᎳᎩ ᎠᏰᎵᎤᏙᏢᏒ
About The Nation
says
"The Cherokee Nation also provides for the safety of its citizens, other residents and visitors through its law enforcement agency, the Cherokee Nation Marshal Service. The Marshal Service has jurisdiction over all tribal and trust land throughout the tribe’s 14-county jurisdiction and is cross-deputized with more than 50 federal, state, county and city law enforcement offices to provide seamless services to everyone in the area."
The other Five Civilized Tribes may have similar agreements with Oklahoma and their counties.

For broader analysis, I found
The Tribal Court Clearinghouse, General Guide to Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) Indian Law Handbook.

and, from the Department of Justice (DOJ) National Justice Institute
Policing on Indian Reservations

Not being a lawyer or LEO, I leave it to others to interpret those documents.

Per one of the links u gave...
Criminal Jurisdiction on Reservations Not Affected by PL 280/State Jurisdiction

Indian Status

Type of Crime

Major Crime

(as defined by Major Crimes Act(MCA))

All Other Crimes

Non inidan perp, non-indian victim
Major crime - state jurisdiction
other crimes - state jurisdiction

Non-indian perp, Indian victim
major crime - federal
other crimes - federal

So is speeding or carrying a handgun by a
non-indian a crime against another non-indian or against an indian?

Is speeding or carrying an otherise legal handgun if it were state or federal land a major crime on tribal land?

There are also crimes that are considered victimless, i didnt see where those were covered by any of the links you posted.

Is speeding considered a victimless crime?
Is carrying an otherwise legal firearm a victimless crime?

I see many online references to reciprosity for LTC's and mention that tribal lands sometimes dont recognize some LTC's. I see it might effect an Indian member, but how would that effect non-indians? Would it be "other" crimes, or a major crime?

If carrying an otherwise legal hangun per the states law, and if thats considered under the table as non indian perp non indian victim, then state jurisdiction would rule and this be legal. But if it is considered as an indian victim then federal courts would prevail using state law and thus would still be legal because under state law would be legal. Correct or incorrect?

Also I am refering more to the breaking of Tribal law by a non-indian in tribal land, than a non-indian breaking a state or federal law on indian land.

 

[daniel craig]

Act as if tribal land is a seperate sovereign nation. Many of their laws and regs are the same as the US, some are not.

Before doing anything in a different sovereign nation it is always best to call the local authorities to get an idea of what can and can’t be done.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Act as if tribal land is a seperate sovereign nation. Many of their laws and regs are the same as the US, some are not.

Before doing anything in a different sovereign nation it is always best to call the local authorities to get an idea of what can and can’t be done.

Problem is some of the indian tribal reservations want to claim power and jurisdiction where and when they dont have that power or jurisdiction.

I ran into that issue when I was part of a lawsuit against Winstar/Chikasaw Nation over employment violations. Some of which was succesfull some of which wasnt. But that was Civil court and not criminal.

There is a difference between breaking a tribal law on reservation land here in the USA and breaking a law in Canada. Correct? Beyond jurisdiction. Meaning Federal law and courts still have some control and power over what Tribal courts can and cant do, where as our federal courts have no power or control over what Canadas courts do as a sovereign nation. Right?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Or we can put this way... Your a non-indian with a state LTC or one recognized by the state. You enter reaervation land on a official hiking trail open to the public. (Thus no trespessing issues) The indian reservation doesnt recognize LTC's issued by anyone other themselvs. Your a non-indian. You have broken no state or federal laws. Just Tribal.

Legally speaking do they have a right to charge you in Tribal court, State court, Federal court or none? If they attempt to charge you in their court, and you dont show up for court, and you live in another state. Do they have a right to issue an arrest warrant that is requires to be honored by other states or even the state the reservation is in?

Do they have jurisdiction to try you in their courts for breaking tribal law as a non-indian?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Going in circles.

This is a huge topic. The question involves issues of the different laws adopted by different tribes. The question also involves issues of the different treaties that the federal government has entered into with different tribes. There are probably a lot more variables.

The OP is going to have to satisfy his curiosity in other ways. Perhaps these resources will help:

• Native American Law & Legal Sources
  
  
• Tribal Criminal Law and Procedure
  
  
• Tribal Court Clearinghouse
  
  
• Native American Law Guide: Federal Indian Law & Tribal Law Materials