Carrying on Indian Reservations

LenS · #51 04-16-2017, 11:00 AM

ispcapt, since Indian reservations are "sovereign territory" we aren't technically in the US anymore when on their property. IANAL but it is my belief that LEOSA won't protect us. I'm going to make further study of this in the future, as I will be doing my first LEOSA qualification this coming week.

ispcapt · #52 04-16-2017, 07:22 PM

They're actually like any other US territory. While sovereign they still come under US law. Legal matters are before US courts and eventually could be to the US Supreme Ct. Criminal violations on reservation lands come under the jurisdiction of the FBI. So while sovereign they're still US possessions and their residents are US citizens.
Sort of look at them as a territory or another state which has it's own laws like any other territory or state but ultimately they're US property. Sovereignty does not mean independent from or a separate nation from the US. In fact, the sovereignty is only because Congress passed the law granting tribes their sovereignty. It pretty much means the tribal lands are another state, with laws like any other state. The USSC has also ruled tribal lands are still under the control of the federal govt but like states they can exercise some laws at their level. US territories are pretty independent to a degree of US control such as reservations. Therefore, without doing a lot of research into it I believe one could make the case the LEOSA is covered.

Mistered · #53 04-16-2017, 07:45 PM

Quote:

The best thing to do is avoid Reservations if you can.

I agree. We have Warm Springs Res in North Central Oregon and while relatively productive (casino, hot springs resort, lumber mill) it is a very dangerous place to be after the sun goes down and outside of the resort areas. The 'residents' are very predatory toward 'outsiders' and crime is rampant.

Muss Muggins · #54 04-16-2017, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ispcapt

They're actually like any other US territory. While sovereign they still come under US law. Legal matters are before US courts and eventually could be to the US Supreme Ct. Criminal violations on reservation lands come under the jurisdiction of the FBI. So while sovereign they're still US possessions and their residents are US citizens.
Sort of look at them as a territory or another state which has it's own laws like any other territory or state but ultimately they're US property. Sovereignty does not mean independent from or a separate nation from the US. In fact, the sovereignty is only because Congress passed the law granting tribes their sovereignty. It pretty much means the tribal lands are another state, with laws like any other state. The USSC has also ruled tribal lands are still under the control of the federal govt but like states they can exercise some laws at their level. US territories are pretty independent to a degree of US control such as reservations. Therefore, without doing a lot of research into it I believe one could make the case the LEOSA is covered.

That's all well and good until you're staring at a Tribal Police Officer on a Friday evening at the side of the road. Not many reservations in Illinois, so I suspect your analysis is about like the rest of ours . . .

Mistered · #55 04-16-2017, 07:56 PM

Quote:

That's all well and good until you're staring at a Tribal Police Officer on a Friday evening at the side of the road.

Yea - you might find yourself 'Dancing with the wolves'

ispcapt · #56 04-16-2017, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

That's all well and good until you're staring at a Tribal Police Officer on a Friday evening at the side of the road. Not many reservations in Illinois, so I suspect your analysis is about like the rest of ours . . .

I already said that. When I was on the state committee implementing LEOSA after it was signed tribal lands was not an issue we researched. There are no tribal lands in IL.
I did have a lot of experience sitting on the committee and doing the research on LEOSA. It wasn't an assignment I asked for tho.
Here's something to throw in the mix and something to think about. From other research I've seen tribal officers are covered by LEOSA just like the rest of us who qualify for it.

LenS · #57 04-17-2017, 08:51 AM

ispcapt, I like your analysis. I would just hope that the various tribal police units agree. We have very little tribal land in MA and no such casinos yet. Sadly the MA Gaming Commission created a CMR banning all armed LE (and any guns) from all casino property (we have a non-tribal casino) unless they are Mass State Police AND assigned to the gaming commission! I doubt that their CMR complies with MGL but it is now administrative law.

VictorLouis · #58 04-18-2017, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gen3guy

.....the Gila River reservation south of Phoenix...... the tribal cop (Dept. of Interior) unsnapping his holster as he ....did say; "I could confiscate your guns, arrest you, and you would face a hefty fine." I said; "What if I was just out here taking pictures?" He replied; "I could confiscate your camera, arrest you, and you would face a hefty fine."
......

I have a friend on that particular force. They can and do bar the news media from covering the crime that occurs there. Despite the fact such nastiness is almost always far-removed from the Casinos/Resorts....the knowledge getting out would be bad-for-business.

LenS · #59 04-19-2017, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VictorLouis

I have a friend on that particular force. They can and do bar the news media from covering the crime that occurs there. Despite the fact such nastiness is almost always far-removed from the Casinos/Resorts....the knowledge getting out would be bad-for-business.

My town tries to keep the media from covering crime too, to keep it looking like no crime happens here. That has nothing to do with Indian Reservations . . . it is due to town fathers (tribal leaders) trying to keep a "clean profile" to the unwashed masses.