JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I read a post elsewhere from a Native American that Washington gun laws do not apply to their reservations
I had to research that one
it was mentioned that the US came for their guns before and they remember how that went

State laws, dependent on the State. But Indian (Native Americans) Nations are bound to the Federal laws through the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and I believe a section of the Constitution declared that Indian Tribes (now Nations and Peoples) are under the plenary authority of Congress. IE, Federal gun laws absolutely apply to Native Americans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power
 
is there a Native American living on tribal property on this forum to verify this?

Native American reservations are sovereign entities, meaning the tribal government has the authority to regulate firearms on their lands. This sovereignty allows tribes to enact laws that can be more restrictive or lenient than federal or state laws regarding firearms. As such, what is legal in surrounding areas may not be permissible within reservation boundaries.

but Washington State laws do not apply to tribal members living on Native American lands.
 
the reason i looked this up is the Cowlitz tribe is purchasing more and more land in the area
something to do with $500 Million income from their Casino
they purchased undeveloped land within the City limits of La Center, the old dairy near Paradise Point and land along Salmon Creek in Clark Co.
the next time I'm on the Cowlitz reservation for gas, I'll stop by the Tribal Police office and ask for their policy
 
The way I always thought this worked is that reservations were like invisible states, but they are lesser states. They are under federal authority, so all federal laws apply to them (which would include specific exemptions in federal law that apply exclusively to them), but state law mostly does not apply to them, except where the feds says it does, of which I am lead to believe there are many examples but have no idea how to verify (e.g. fireworks sales laws in California[?])

Another weird wrinkle is that First Nations governments are treated as a semi-foreign internal entity. They are not allowed to engage in legally binding international agreements, and are wholly under the federal government in that regard, but they are allowed to negotiate with the federal government as if they were a foreign state, including sign treaties. But this does not apply to their land, which is a grant to them and is held (and owned) by the federal government itself.

The whole arrangement is just weird, and I am not sure there are many people who really understand how it all works. I am of the opinion that we should probably reevaluate the whole thing, seeing is how every single person in question is a full fledged U.S. citizen and really does not need any special distinction, but I keep hearing the argument that if they lose their "First Nation" status that will kill their entire culture. 🤷‍♂️
 
I am of the opinion that we should probably reevaluate the whole thing, seeing is how every single person in question is a full fledged U.S. citizen and really does not need any special distinction, but I keep hearing the argument that if they lose their "First Nation" status that will kill their entire culture. 🤷‍♂️
Yeah, I'm kind of the same mind on that one. At one time the American ideal was inclusion. These days, it's separation in the name of cultural preservation. But it isn't just with native Americans. Immigrants who come here very often want to retain their cultural identity; assimilation isn't on their minds.
 
Get adopted by the tribe.
Yes, if they will have you. I used to joke about the "Blue Eyed Indians" that I've met, what with 1/64th blood way back. Even before the casino revenue boom. Some tribes around here now are kicking out members who've been enrolled for decades because they are not "Indian enough."
 
Last Edited:
Another weird wrinkle is that First Nations governments are treated as a semi-foreign internal entity. They are not allowed to engage in legally binding international agreements, and are wholly under the federal government in that regard, but they are allowed to negotiate with the federal government as if they were a foreign state, including sign treaties. But this does not apply to their land, which is a grant to them and is held (and owned) by the federal government itself.
Not so "sovereign" as to be exempt from the draft. Which they have not been going back to WW1.
 
I probably could. I'm a card carrying native, I've just never used/played that card
Native Mexican, or native Tomahawk?

I'll be the fat Mexican eating tacos in the corner! 🤣

I'm a tomahawk Indian and I refuse any special treatment or hand outs. I will continue to hunt if the law passes. I'll just be a outlaw I guess
I don't know what to believe anymore. I think maybe you are a politician like Old Joe. One day he's Polish, the next African American.

:D
 
Re. state gun laws applicability to tribal lands. I can't say that I know the law on that, but supposing state laws are not applicable within tribal lands, that goes away the other side of the tribal boundary. My point being, once they cross the line, the state laws kick in again. And most reservations are smaller than US states, so if X type of firearm may be owned on tribal lands, once the owner crosses back over into state land, it's contraband? I'm thinking of machine guns in Wash. state (given that MG were permitted by the tribe).

Or would they have right of carriage within or through a state due to tribal membership?

Same idea re. shipping though the mail. AR's may no longer be transferred in Wash. state. Can tribal members buy them from out of state and have them shipped to them? The gun is entering the prohibited zone of the state before it enters tribal lands.
 
I probably could. I'm a card carrying native, I've just never used/played that card
The funny thing is most Americans have "enough" blood to get adopted if they can prove the lineage...and are willing to adopt tribal cultural norms. Nowadays the litmus test is less about blood purity and more about cultural preservation. Even "full blooded" members are being kicked out for being "too white" (western). There was a huge legal case in my home town because someone got kicked out (because the never attended the tribal cultural events) but claimed they couldn't be because they were over some high percentage pure blood, and if they were not included back in they would intentionally not have kids (or would only have kids with white chicks, depending on how they felt in the moment). They made this argument because tribal leaders were all up on the topic of maintaining "proper lineage" and how they needed every relatively pure-blooded member to "do their part."

But when you really boiled down what the fight was about? The guy was mad that they were taking away his (fairly substantial) tribal stipend they got from their casino, and the tribal elders were pissed that the guy had zero interest in actually being a "Native." The whole thing stunk of greed and racism. I would not get involved even if I could (and I probably could, if I just dug around in my grandfather's gemology for long enough, as I am willing to be most people could if they just knew were to look).
 

Upcoming Events

Rifle Mechanics
Sweet Home, OR
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top