We conflict not, David, because without the plenary powers doctrine there is no treaty abrogation. Plenary powers is the disease and treaty abrogation a mere symptom, although a deadly one. You know, the Indian Commerce Clause and the Commerce Clause are literally one in the same. If the Commerce Clause were read against state power as vigorously as the Indian Commerce Clause is read against tribal power, there would quickly be another Civil War, or at least an amendment.
To stay on topic, I do wonder how many gun regs have been written to apply to reservations? Not that it matters, in the sense that a tribal gun shop outside of federal regulation would last until the next session of Congress.
Steve Russell
I don't recall any... I think the world just goes on the assumption that all federal regs apply.
Quirk--I once did a bit of research on laws against selling guns to Indians. Arizona's was only repealed with the 1956 code revision! (It had an exception for shotguns and cartridges with birdshot). I assume it wasn't enforced, at least in the 20th century, and probably not in the 19th as to friendly tribes. (The Apache Wars were not a good time to hack off the Pimas, Papago and Maricopas who were on your side and fielded far more fighters than did the US Army).
--
_______________________________________________
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
