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
Unless Congress, by enacting a law of general applicability, with appropriate leg. history showing that it understood it would apply to Indians, thereby abrogated the treaty (see Dion v US, where the govt's position was based on my research, with regard to the Eagle Protection Act).... altho there the tribes might be entitled to sue for compensation based on the takings clause. White Father giveth, White Father taketh away, albeit these days with some 5th amendment protections. (grin).
--
_______________________________________________
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
