If this was in the US, the Second Amendment would be irrelevant. The argument would be that if a right was not given up in a treaty, it still exists. Of course, Congress would just have to mention tribes specifically when regulating guns to kick in the plenary powers doctrine, if it hasn't already (I've never looked).
Steve Russell "Natives Seek Exemption From gun Registry: Court Challenge: Law Violates Hunting Rights, Says Saskatchewan Group," Tom Blackwell, National Post, February 6, 2003, Copyright 2004 National Post, All Rights Reserved National Post (Canada). ["Status Indians should not have to take part in the much-maligned federal gun registry because it violates long-held hunting rights, a Saskatchewan First Nations group is asserting in a largely unheralded court challenge. The Firearms Act not only interferes with constitutionally entrenched treaty rights, it creates a hardship for isolated aboriginal hunters and even makes it difficult to give ceremonial gifts of firearms, a long-standing tradition, the organization argues. It wants the Federal Court of Canada to rule the act does not apply to First Nations people. If anyone regulates gun use by aboriginals, it should be their own governments, maintains the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. . . . The case suffered a setback last week as the Federal Court refused to issue an injunction temporarily exempting aboriginal gun owners pending the outcome of the challenge. The federation is still pushing ahead with the case, though it would be just as happy with a decision by Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, to axe the registry entirely, Mr. Joseph said."] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
