Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Indian reservations

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    I go back and forth to the res over here and the officer stated he dosen't think that the RCW apply to the reservation any Ideas? He hasen't tryed to stop me because they can't find out anything on their laws is what he said! It's like hunting on the Reservation it's legal by fed law but illeagle by res law inless you havereservation permits which the FBI stated is illeagle for them to do, Believe me I have 12 fines for hunting on res land but they have all been droped! So what the law on open carry on res land, any help? thanks

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Do a search on the forum. Pretty sure that this has been discussed at length on at least five occasions. You should turn up something interesting.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Just Us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    I had a issue with tribal police and the link below is the input I received, hope it helps.
    I still haven't received a response back yet.



    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...uyallup+tribal

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Each tribe has their own constitution that may or may not recognize the RTBA. The tribe's laws apply to tribal members and typically mirror state law. When a tribal officer has probable cause that a tribal law is being violated s/he will determine whether the suspect is a tribal member. If the suspect is a tribal member, the violation will be adjudicated through the tribal court. If the suspect is not a tribal member, the violation will be adjudicated through the local state court if there is a parallel state law. If there is not a parallel state law, the tribal officer typically has authority under the tribe's laws to immediately remove the suspect from tribal lands if there is reason to believe the suspect is a threat to the community.

  5. #5
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    I contacted the Tribal Judge and was put in touch with the Chief of Police. The PC asked for a copy of my CPL & drivers license. Now I can OC / CC with out issue on the Makah Reservation at Neah Bay.

  6. #6
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    Each tribe has their own constitution that may or may not recognize the RTBA. The tribe's laws apply to tribal members and typically mirror state law. When a tribal officer has probable cause that a tribal law is being violated s/he will determine whether the suspect is a tribal member. If the suspect is a tribal member, the violation will be adjudicated through the tribal court. If the suspect is not a tribal member, the violation will be adjudicated through the local state court if there is a parallel state law. If there is not a parallel state law, the tribal officer typically has authority under the tribe's laws to immediately remove the suspect from tribal lands if there is reason to believe the suspect is a threat to the community.
    This is my understanding as well.

    Good summary!


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Greetings,

    There is no federal law that would prevent you to carry a open(exposed) firearm on an indian reservation. Indian reservations fall under the Dept. of Interior. Unless the tribe has enacted a tribal law then you are good. According to the Tribal Officer you spoke with he stated he didn't know of any then you are good.

    Be safe out there.


    "Those who hate you don't win, unless you hate them, then you destroy yourselves."
    -Nixon





  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Militarycop wrote:
    Greetings,

    There is no federal law that would prevent you to carry a open(exposed) firearm on an indian reservation. Indian reservations fall under the Dept. of Interior. Unless the tribe has enacted a tribal law then you are good. According to the Tribal Officer you spoke with he stated he didn't know of any then you are good.

    Be safe out there.


    "Those who hate you don't win, unless you hate them, then you destroy yourselves."
    -Nixon



    Excuse me? Even if the tribe has passed a law forbidding carry it I am good. Thier tribal laws have no legal application to me as a non-indian. All they can do is tell me to leave the reservation.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  9. #9
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872

    Post imported post

    I work with many tribal police and have asked all of them this question. The answer I have always got is the same from everyone. All RCWs still apply and tribal law only applys and can be enforced on actual registered Native Americans. In short if the RCW says you can open carry then you an open carry. This is commingle from what I believe to be a reliable scource. This information is commig from people I would call "Brother"
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Yes you and Joerocket are correct, although some tribes are working to establish the ability to detain and prosecute offenders of non tribal descent on their land, and they are likely going to win this power.

    I keep forgetting to the name of the acronym for ya Joe, I haven't been out to the Rez in a while been busy.

    My great auntie might know, and she is doing a story telling and speech downtown Sunday I am planning to go so I will ask her. She is very involved in tribal government and is almost solely responsible for setting up a public defender and office for the tribe. "If You are going to have Western Style Police and Prosecution, You are going to provide the accused with Western Style defense". She got her way. Might help that my Great Grandfather was the last chief of the tribe.

    OT side note: The totem in Pioneer Square is his totem.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    If you are traveling thru the rez on a state highway, the carry of your firearm is as legal as anywhere else in the state. You get off the highway then the rez cops have a shot at you. I personally think it is time to either renegotiate the treaties (who ever heard of allowing a treaty to stand for well over 100 years?)or put a fence around all the different Rex and let them be separate countries without US government financial support.Back when the indians accepted US citizenship the treaties should have be torn up then.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    (who ever heard of allowing a treaty to stand for well over 100 years?)
    promises with expiration dates?



  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I guess we might as well tear up that 200 hundred year old constitution while we are at it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I guess we might as well tear up that 200 hundred year old constitution while we are at it.
    The Constitution is not a treaty with a foreign nation as the treaties with the indians tribes are. Then they were allowed to be US citizens but of course pay no taxes, just take our tax dollars if they stay on the rez. Oh and by this same treaty you want to keep, the US government was suppose to stop supporting the tribes 10 years after the treaty was signed, at least in the case of the Point No Point Treaty. Yet here we are still paying for a Bureau of Indian Affairs over 100 years later. The treaty also has a provision that says the President can null and void the thing just by signing a letter to that effect. Don't get me started on the fish and shellfish thing, the truth will piss you off as bad as it does me. This is not to mention the part of the treaty that says if an indian is caught drunk on the rez, just once he is suppose to booted off the rez for good, of course that never happens. Then of course there is the casino issue which again screws the white man. Oh and I know all this because not only have I read said treaty but I keep a copy to refresh my memory every once in a while. And if you really believe treaties are never renegotiated, then you are too naive to be involved in this discussion.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I guess we might as well tear up that 200 hundred year old constitution while we are at it.
    The Constitution is not a treaty with a foreign nation as the treaties with the indians tribes are. Then they were allowed to be US citizens but of course pay no taxes, just take our tax dollars if they stay on the rez. Oh and by this same treaty you want to keep, the US government was suppose to stop supporting the tribes 10 years after the treaty was signed, at least in the case of the Point No Point Treaty. Yet here we are still paying for a Bureau of Indian Affairs over 100 years later. The treaty also has a provision that says the President can null and void the thing just by signing a letter to that effect. Don't get me started on the fish and shellfish thing, the truth will piss you off as bad as it does me. This is not to mention the part of the treaty that says if an indian is caught drunk on the rez, just once he is suppose to booted off the rez for good, of course that never happens. Then of course there is the casino issue which again screws the white man. Oh and I know all this because not only have I read said treaty but I keep a copy to refresh my memory every once in a while. And if you really believe treaties are never renegotiated, then you are too naive to be involved in this discussion.
    Your paragraph is full of ignorance and hate. I guess lines like this in bold also make you a jerk. I heard this about you but was reserving judgment for myself. It is fine to disagree but that is uncalled for. And I find it funny that your points made have nothing to do with "this discussion". Which started out on a discussion of open carry on tribal lands. We have had many treaties that have lasted well over a hundred years like the treaty like the one signed with Canada in 1812 to disarm the great lakes area.

    Indians weren't allowed to become U.S. citizens they were forced.

    They do pay taxes, you are outright wrong on this. (Federal)

    Just because you don't like your side of a treaty anymore doesn't mean you can change it. Both parties have to be up to negotiating it, if the U.S. breaks it than the Indians have cause for grievance and justification to war against U.S. citizens . And if you learn some history you can see that the "white man" has already continually changed the treaties to his advantage. Believe me many tribal members would love to fence off and border their original much larger lands that were granted in the treaties and keep the likes of you off. Becareful of what you wish for a re-negotiation might just take your land away and give it to a much larger Indian population.

    The U.S. never figured tribes would survive and would either die off or be acclimated. This has not happened, they are now increasing in size.

    How are casinos screwing the white man, that is laughable. If you don't like them don't go. Or lobby the government to make casinos legal for anyone to have and the "unfair advantage" goes away.

    And you forgot the rules of this forum to cite.

    There are not one treaty but many treaties with many sovereign nations.

    I am going to ignore your stupid kick the indian off the rez for drinking comment because I doubt your racist ass would want the stereo-typical drunk Indian in town with you either. Plus it doesn't say kick off the rez so you might need to reread article 10 of that treaty. Because you are wrong.

    Oh and the constitution states that it can be changed right in the constitution.

    Here are some other treaties you might be up for re-negotiating:
    Louisiana Purchase, Purchase of Alaska from Russia, Japan-U.S. security treaty, Oregon treaty of 1818, Adams-Onis treaty of 1819, Treaty of Ghent 1814, Webster-Ashburton Treaty 1842, etc.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    SVG +10

    Bear, you seem to conviently forget, the land "GIVEN" to the Native American people was nothing more than land that had been stolen from them in the first place. You are completely out of line on this. If this is the way you are coming back to po2st, maybe you should not come back after all.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    SVG +10

    Bear, you seem to conviently forget, the land "GIVEN" to the Native American people was nothing more than land that had been stolen from them in the first place. You are completely out of line on this. If this is the way you are coming back to po2st, maybe you should not come back after all.
    I didn't forget nothing. When you loose the war, you loose.It's called being conquered. I don't care what happened 100 years ago, it did not effect me. But what is happening today does and it is flat out reverse discrimination and if any other country tried to do what the tribes are doing, there would be a war over it. Besides that read the treaty before you give me grief, I know what I am talking about. You listen to the news media on the tribes and believe them, but about guns the media lies, what's with that. Well guess what the media lies about the tribes too.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Greetings joeroket,

    What I was merely stating, if there was a tribal law that forbid open carry and you were told about it and/ or asked to leave the reservation then you might be trespassed. I understand you are not a tribal member but tribal officers could still pursue criminal prosecution under 25 CFR 11.411. As a former tribal officer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs I used this section to enforce many of the tribal laws for non-tribal members. I don't believe you would encounter such a problem unless you encounter a over zealous tribal officer who is bored. I only used that section for problematic individuals.

    Respectfully Submitted.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Militarycop wrote:
    Greetings joeroket,

    What I was merely stating, if there was a tribal law that forbid open carry and you were told about it and/ or asked to leave the reservation then you might be trespassed.¬* I understand you are not a tribal member but tribal officers could still pursue criminal prosecution under 25 CFR 11.411.¬* As a former tribal officer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs I used this section to enforce many of the tribal laws for non-tribal members.¬* I don't believe you would encounter such a problem unless you encounter a over zealous tribal officer who is bored.¬* I only used that section for problematic individuals.

    Respectfully Submitted.
    Gotcha. It sounds like we are on the exact same page and in full agreement. Your previous post sounded different. I appreciate the clarification and also the cite to that CFR.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Trigger Dr wrote:
    SVG +10

    Bear, you seem to conviently forget, the land "GIVEN" to the Native American people was nothing more than land that had been stolen from them in the first place. You are completely out of line on this. If this is the way you are coming back to po2st, maybe you should not come back after all.
    I didn't forget nothing. When you loose the war, you loose.It's called being conquered. I don't care what happened 100 years ago, it did not effect me. But what is happening today does and it is flat out reverse discrimination and if any other country tried to do what the tribes are doing, there would be a war over it. Besides that read the treaty before you give me grief, I know what I am talking about. You listen to the news media on the tribes and believe them, but about guns the media lies, what's with that. Well guess what the media lies about the tribes too.
    Well, since the treaty was, in effect, what gave the white people the "right" to take land away from the natives...it's like a mortgage. If you don't want to continue to pay the mortgage, does that mean the tribes can repo the property?

    I spent most of my youth on deeded land on the Colville reservation. I really think you should spend some time getting around a reservation and find out what life is like on one before making such broad, ill founded statements.



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    oneeyeross wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Trigger Dr wrote:
    SVG +10

    Bear, you seem to conviently forget, the land "GIVEN" to the Native American people was nothing more than land that had been stolen from them in the first place. You are completely out of line on this. If this is the way you are coming back to po2st, maybe you should not come back after all.
    I didn't forget nothing. When you loose the war, you loose.It's called being conquered. I don't care what happened 100 years ago, it did not effect me. But what is happening today does and it is flat out reverse discrimination and if any other country tried to do what the tribes are doing, there would be a war over it. Besides that read the treaty before you give me grief, I know what I am talking about. You listen to the news media on the tribes and believe them, but about guns the media lies, what's with that. Well guess what the media lies about the tribes too.
    Well, since the treaty was, in effect, what gave the white people the "right" to take land away from the natives...it's like a mortgage. If you don't want to continue to pay the mortgage, does that mean the tribes can repo the property?

    I spent most of my youth on deeded land on the Colville reservation. I really think you should spend some time getting around a reservation and find out what life is like on one before making such broad, ill founded statements.

    Pure BS, per said treaty all funding through the BIA was to cease 10 (that's right TEN) years after the signing of the treaty. Otherwise the mortgage was paid off. Some how over 100 years later we are still paying thru the nose. You guys sound like a bunch of raving liberals withyour justifications without even knowing what is in said treaty. I live right next door to a res and withing 20 miles of a second one. I used to work on a daily basis with tribal members. You can and won't teach me anything about the subject. Oh and the only thing ill founded in my statements is that they are factual while yours are just misguided opinion.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    If we disagree, we disagree....

    The US Constitution gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." (See US Constitution, Art 1, Sec 8, http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) In our country, (the United States) we view that as meaning the tribes are the same as separate nations.

    The Government uses the Bureau of Indian Affairs to manage the relations with the separate nations. "The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities as provided by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, court decisions and Federal statutes." (See Indian Affairs, What We Do at http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm).

    So....well, we'll disagree. Fine. You believe what you will, I will believe what I will. We won't sway each others opinions. Fine. It's like caliber wars. There is no winner.





  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Cite.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •