Scholars continue to debate the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy’s oral constitution on the United States Constitution. One thing we know: adherents to the Great Law of Peace weren’t big fans of the right to keep and bear arms . . .
When peace shall have been established by the termination of the war against a foreign nation, then the War Chief shall cause all the weapons of war to be taken from the nation. Then shall the Great Peace be established and that nation shall observe all the rules of the Great Peace for all time to come.
“Great peace for all time to come.” How gun control theology is that? Anyway, New Mexico’s daily-times.com reports that the Navajo Nation is showing similar disregard for the natural right to armed self-defense.
A proposal that would require people living on the Navajo Nation to register their firearms is working its way to the tribal council.
The bill proposes individuals who reside on tribal lands and own firearms – including automatic guns, rifles, shotguns and antique firearms – register those weapons with the Navajo Nation Police Department, which would maintain a central registry.
According to the bill, the registry would record a firearm’s serial number, a date of registration and the owner’s name and address. If the Navajo Nation Council approves the measure and the tribal president signs it into law, gun owners would have up to 180 days to register.
The arguments for the new mandate comes from the usual sorts of suspects:
Delegate Davis Filfred, who said he and his father have served in law enforcement, identified his reasons for sponsoring the bill as creating accountability for gun owners and helping law enforcement identify firearms used in criminal activities.
“It’s to have better gun control. …I want accountability,” said Filfred, who represents Aneth Chapter in Utah and Mexican Water, Red Mesa, Teec Nos Pos and Tólikan chapters in Arizona . . .
Navajo Nation Police Chief Phillip Francisco said he would support a gun registry since it can help law enforcement officials address public safety issues.
Just like the gun registration scheme in, say, New York state, the Navajo’s new mandate flies in the face of constitutional law. Or does it?
The right to keep and bear arms for peaceful purposes exists in the Navajo Nation Bill of Rights but under a section of tribal law that addresses law and order, it is a crime to carry a loaded firearm or other types of deadly weapons on your person.
The law has exceptions for peace officers, possession in residences or in the trunks or glove boxes of motor vehicles, for hunting, or for use as part of any traditional Navajo religious practices, ceremonies or services.
Just goes to show how prescient America’s Founding Fathers were when they wrote those simple words “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And how universal the desire to use disarmament as means of political and social control.
While I dislike the idea for all the usual reasons I do have to say it’s their Nation and if this is what they want to do then it’s not our place to try and stop them. I mean we should certainly discourage them from trying, but they are supposed to be Sovereign unto themselves so it’s their rules on their land.
Their land until the BIA decides otherwise. A bunch of the reservations in NM have complained that they effectively have no property rights because the BIA won’t approve them to start a business or do much of anything else.
Which is why the BIA needs to be disbanded and the “tribes” should be expected to live under the same laws as other citizens of their respective states.
Personally I don’t really have a problem with them having their own “nation” or whatever they’d like to call it.
That said, it’s not “their nation” when control of many key aspects of it comes from D.C..
https://www.amazon.com/New-Trail-Tears-Washington-Destroying/dp/1594038538
Read some stuff on this. Sounded pretty interesting. Seems very appropriate to this thread.
Paul, nobody cares. They chose not to integrate into American society for over a century. At this point, they don’t get to claim special protections not granted to other citizens. In America, no animals are supposed to be more equal than others.
Why should they integrate? The whole point of having a reservation is to have their own territory where they can not integrate.
And the reason why they have reservations, is because establishing them was the conditions of various treaties with the tribes, usually in exchange for land. So if you want to disestablish them, that would amount to reneging on a business deal.
I understand that there are no treaties with the Indian nations that we (the feds) haven’t broken yet.
So we have already broken those deals.
Because treaties are only binding between sovereign nations. Given that every single member of their “nation” claims US citizenship, that “nation” no longer exists. This is what happens when you lose wars.
Right now, the members of those “nations” have privileges not afforded to any other US citizens. That is an unacceptable situation. It flies in the face of the 14th amendment and is a mockery of our legal system.
If the “tribes” want to be sovereign, they should act like any other nation and quit existing on the backs of American taxpayers. Since they clearly do not, they should not be granted any privileges not afforded to other US citizens.
Well, whether it’s their nation or not can be debated. While the Navajo’s have a recognized preserve conveniently called a “nation”, they exist at the sufferance of the USA. I have a feeling this issue will end up in court. Should be interesting.
I can’t find it but there was a federal case where the judge took notice that with respect to the native tribes, “nation” does not mean the same thing as it does when speaking of the United States or England or France, but rather means a “people” in the original meaning of the term, that of having one blood, all related however distantly. This was linked to noting that a native nation is not a territorial entity, but rather an entity made of people who may own territory.
Except that they are not a sovereign state. This stupidity has to stop. They have no more right to national sovereignty than a bunch of Somalis in Minneapolis.
But hey, if they want to be a sovereign nation, they should feel free to do so. So long as they play by the rules of any other foreign nation. Border control, visa requirements to enter the US, trade agreements, etc… I bet that these spear chuckers wouldn’t last a month without taxpayer funded handouts.
Will they have to register said spears if this proposal passes?
No they will not register,someone came up with an idea of an 80% spear lower and they can hand craft their own.
Ever visit an Indian reservation? Not that nice single square mile with a casino, hotel and water park the tribe did a land swap for. One of the ones with land that’s no good for farming, little better for grazing, and water you don’t want to drink even if it can be brought out of the ground. (Although, side note, if the NM tribes can get it together, they could make outstanding solar plants with the land they have.)
Native Americans can be some of the nicest, kindest, most generous people you’d want to meet. But poor as it is, that land is theirs and one is wise to tread carefully and speak thoughtfully while visiting.
You mean one of those tribes that have received endless funds from the US Taxpayer over many decades? To less result than similar efforts to various inner city cesspool or the darkest Africa. Some things just can’t be fixed by clicking your heels together. Too much firewater and too little WASP work/success effort. Darwinism if you likel
It stopped being “their land” one we won the Indian Wars. Pro-tip: don’t lose wars.
Vae Victis
Really do you have to call them spear chuckers? I thought we were past that kind of trash now
Had to? No. Enjoy mocking their refusal to join the rest of society? Yes. The level of entitlement that these clowns feel is incredibly offensive to me.
Federal Highways cross the tribal land whether it is in New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Oklahoma, or any other State. If there is an Indian casino, it is probably illegal for you to carry a weapon to protect yourself from the predators who find it easier to steal from the “winners” than to risk their losing money gambling.
Gun Free Trial Lands, certainly encourage muggings. Muggings often result in crushed skulls, brain damage and death.
I’d just ask what I always ask:
How does knowing someone has gun X prevent them from using it improperly/illegally/unsafely unless you take it away beforehand?
It strikes me that, at best, these sorts of laws are eminently abusable. John down the street, well someone in power doesn’t really like him and said person in power spots John buying a 30 rack of Tecate. Oh no! John owns guns and now he has booze! It’s a safety issue! Confiscate!
Another law to ignore.
The 2nd Amendment and Constitution in general does nothing to prohibit the registration of firearms. Let’s not “read into” it as much as the antis do.
Can I own a gun without registering it? No? That’s defacto infringement. We won’t even start the conversation about things like chilling effects which when applied to a right, make the cause of said chilling effect unconstitutional on its face.
Can you vote without registration?
Actually, yes. It’s called “same day registration”. Oh, and voting is a privilege, not a right.
The Second is that strongest protection in the Bill of Rights: the other protections name the thing itself, but the Second names the thing and those things related to it — its “fringe”. So however far we extend the First, the Second reaches farther, and should be treated that way.
“Shall not be infringed” is a very strong legal statement. Registration serves no pourpose other than confiscation. Seems like a rather hefty infringement.
No, confiscation is infringement. Saying that registration is infringement because it can lead to confiscation is like saying the existence of police is an infringement because it can lead to illegal searches. It may be true if you adopt a philosophical extreme but such a viewpoint is not fitting with the original meaning behind the Amendment.
Actually, this might be an interesting point to bring up vis-a-vis the state election registration laws that are being challeneged in Federal courts. The argument is that forcing people to show ID when they register is infringement on their right to vote. I would argue the same thing about gun registration. Let gun registration follow the same rules. I’ll be happy to register my guns as long as I don’t have to show any ID proving who I am. I suspect Mr. Mikey D. Mouse will own a lot of guns under that scheme.
It’s a lot more like non-speech protections of expression under the 1A.
Absolutely it is infringement, it is infringement on your basic human right to own property without being forced to adhere to illegal/unconstitutional government mandates. You don’t have to register baseball bats, knives, crock pots, etc. Any registration of any personal property should be entirely voluntary, like registering your bicycle. Registration has nothing to do with anything but government control of the people!
The entire purpose of registration is to make confiscation possible. It has nothing to do with crime control.
The first modern gun control law in the USA that wasn’t selective for blacks or Indians was the Sullivan Law in NYC.
Tim Sullivan was a leader of the Irish Five Points Gang. He wrote the law to promote his gang and restrict rivals.
Tim had the full “discretion” to deny a permit or grant a permit to anyone.
His gang and associates got permits. Rival gang members did not get a permit and they could be rousted by the police.
Yet it was advertised as crime control.
Anyone ever thought we’ve had our own injun version of Sharia law for many years? Just so you can keep your own land and a crappy trailer. I do have some Indian blood(and cheekbones to die for). Don’t give your rights up so cheaply…
Oh, I was well aware. I think the special status granted to these “tribes” (most of whom are more European than naive) is a direct violation of the 14th amendment.
First, the Native Americans were raped by the US government. Now they have learned to do the raping themselves. Irony.
No. They were beaten by the US government. They chose not to assimilate into civilized society.
The “five civilized tribes” did, to a large extent.
Your comments are ignorant and racist. It’s genocide. And yes me and my family are part of the great Cherokee Nation. Go Chuck your own spear!
Ah… the “Great Cherokee Nation”… so great they couldn’t be bothered to invent the wheel until the evil white man showed up and brought them kicking and screaming out of the Stone Age.
But please. Tell this Russian Cossack how native traditions can’t be maintained without segregating yourself from larger society and demanding special legal status you have not earned. I’m sure the Cossack hosts would love to hear all about it. (When they stop laughing at you.)
The government locked up the Indians on the least habitual land and held the in condition as evil as the slave owners did in 1860 Alabama. The Indians able to escape from the socialist reservation faced many problems.
Indians were not even citizens of the United States until 1955 [if I recall correctly].
You know I’m just gonna say it. Of all people that should be pro gun, and opposed to all gun control… It’s the Indians. Stockholm syndrome maybe. Because you’d think Jews would be overwhelmingly pro gun too… But they’re not either.
JPFO thinks otherwise. So does the IDF. Both are extremely large groups of Jews who have read history or learned it from their family members or having lost family members. They are strongly in support of the individual right to self-defense because they have seen the results of forcible disarmament.
I am sure some Navajos have read or learned history from their forbears and might have good reason to think that registration and resulting disarmament are bad ideas too. After all, their ancestors were denied repeating arms because it would have given them a measure of parity with the US Cavalry which was decimating their nation. Now they live where the government says they can live: in deserts and on land nobody else wanted.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Over and over again. Until the lesson sinks in: you cannot trust other people who think they should be armed and you should not. Frankly, I think such people are a public menace and should be treated as such. They clearly want to push an agenda that they think you might oppose so strenuously that you’d shoot them rather than suffer their agenda. Why give them the opportunity to promote such a thing? The right to keep and bear arms is a magnificent deterrent to that kind of mindsets which values itself over everyone else in the world. Without it, such people would run amok. Despotism and tyranny would be the universal rule.
Israel is very pro collective self-defense but nearly as much when it comes to individual self-defense when you look at its actual laws and not the meme that has developed about it.
Ummmm… the JPFO and the IDF do not see eye to eye. Israel as a Nation is very collectivist in their political theory and are very controlling on who owns what, when, and how. Israel is not a gun friendly nation. The images people post of IDF conscripts walking around with issued ARs is just that. They’re soldiers walking around with issued rifles. They aren’t personal property. They aren’t allowed to keep them after service. They aren’t allowed to CCW when not in the service. Etc…..
The JPFO is an AMERICAN JEWISH ORGANIZATION that has nothing to do with the State of Israel. Gun Ownership in Israel makes NYC look like a bastion of freedom.
“Now they live where the government says they can live: in deserts and on land nobody else wanted.”
While many choose to do so, they are not limited in where they can live by any law, just like the rest of us.
They can, and do, live outside reservations, hold jobs, indeed own businesses.
I know a lot of people who would prefer Indians to be unarmed and defenseless. I’m not sure, however, that any of them are Indian.
After banning guns to Negros the colonies banned gun trading with the Indians. Many years later in the late 1800s the government put a special tax on anyone using a bow and arrow on federal lands.
Register guns on Indian land???
Amazing how the Indian government intimates the white government. The Indians have adopted and now worship the white mans socialist/communism. They aren’t the only ones. I know blacks who have gone this way also. They will both become the slaves of white people again.
I have a new metric for gauging opinions: whatever viewpoint or opinion is espoused by pwrserge can be safely discounted as diametrically opposed to the correct position.
Well, they sure took to the early Winchesters faster than our cavalry. Sarc intended
This is what happens when people’s brains operate on altruism, fantasy, and emotion.
Never, ever, in the entire history of mankind, has there been peace “for all time to come”. There always have been, and there always will be people with evil in their heart who seek to steal, rape, pillage, plunder, and murder. Disarm at your peril.
Important note: those evil people are not content to “kindly” steal, rape, pillage, plunder, and murder — they frequently do it with sadistic, tortuous qualities basically beyond imagination. Reference Japan’s Unit 731 as one of the most horrific examples of what evil people can do to others.
“I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle.”
-Sitting Bull
Let none forget how the government “took care” of the Sioux when they relinquished their firearms.
“The bill proposes individuals who reside on tribal lands and own firearms – including automatic guns, rifles, shotguns and antique firearms – register those weapons with the Navajo Nation Police Department, which would maintain a central registry.
“According to the bill, the registry would record a firearm’s serial number, a date of registration and the owner’s name and address.”
Sounds to me like the gun registration regulations that now exist on any federal military base, and have for a long time.
Folks seem to have a hard time understanding the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation and other Indian Reservations. They aren’t a nation in the same sense as the US, Germany, or Colombia are. They are a sovereign political entity in the same sense as a county, parish, or state is. Except that are governed by slightly different laws than states are.
Different tribes have been granted different levels of political sovereignty. The Navajo Nation is pretty much close to having the same political sovereignty as Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands. Indians as a whole were treated differently than Black Americans. They were granted citizenship until 1921. Puerto Rico didn’t get citizenship until 1917. Guam for example didn’t get citizenship until 1951. Hell, American Samoans aren’t US Citizens to this day, They’re American Nationals. They ahve the right to abode in the US but they have to apply for citizenship like any other immigrant.
I don’t agree with the Navajo Nation’s political stance on gun rights. But as a sovereign political entity; they’ve been granted certain freedoms within their borders to set up laws just as they see fit. Same as NY or CA. And just like with that…. those that live in their borders can move to more free areas of the country.
The Reservations are poor because of 100+ years of failed Democrat Socialist Policies. The people within their borders have been multi-generational families of welfare leaches. Those that want to succeed do and leave the Rez for the most part and live productive happy lives. Yes, they got the scraps in terms of land and resources when they were originally set up. But in this day and age, they can rise above it and choose not to. They continue to vote for socialist policies as a whole.
If they are citizens then the US Constitution belongs to them also. The progtards attempt to gift the Constitution to every mohammadan in the world and every illegal that has snuck in/had a baby.
Just like the Constitution should apply to residents of NYC or Camden, NJ.
Hell, the Constitution should apply to American territories but it doesn’t thanks to the Insular Cases of the early 1900s. SCOTUS back then said that the Constitution does not follow the flag.
The right to life, liberty and constipation belongs to every human being, everywhere. Not just those smugly approved by any person or group among them. But “rights” mean little if they are not understood and actively exercised. Government “school” works hard to create such ignorance, and far too many people set themselves up as judge and jury over who they think should exercise even a few of those “rights.”
Now, let’s see… you’ve “registered” your marriage, your children, your cars and trucks, your dogs and, in many cases your cats. You pay forced tax (rent) on your paycheck, any property you may own or occupy (you don’t think the landlord actually pays it, do you?) and you fork out the tax bribe for everything else you buy. Do you think that food is not taxed? The farmers, truck drivers, distributors, manufacturers and retail sellers pay billions in taxes every year… which is reflected in the price, of course. The end consumer always pays the tax – and the cost of every regulation and bureaucrat involved in the process.
Thousands of other taxes and indignities, regulation and tax mountains to climb to be “allowed” to follow a profession or open a business of ANY kind, let alone something the overlords in D. C. don’t really like. And many insane prohibitions – like the war on drugs, prostitutes and children’s lemonade stands – that destroy people’s lives and feed the tyranny from the politicians and bureaucrats every hour of every day.
A great many people see no real problem with all that, and will likely cheer this “registration” and more like it. The “Stockholm syndrome” is pretty well distributed all across America.
I’d sure love to see all of us who understand the right to keep and bear arms extend that to the rest of our lives. The right to life, liberty and property is not limited to guns. Guns are the tools to keep safe all of our natural rights. Hasn’t worked that way for a long time, unfortunately.
I am always amazed at my fellow Jews being against guns
If every Jew had shot 2 Nazis, there would be millions of dead Nazis
If every Jew shot two Nazis, there would be no Nazis. The total casualties suffered be the Wehrmacht in WWII would pale in comparison.
If you study why Jews are primarily Anti-Gun you’d understand it comes down to victimhood status and culture.
I guess its about time tribal councils got in on the security theater. The Navajo rez is huge like biggest in the naiton huge. Larger than some states. And their tribal police is going to enforce this how? And like anyone is going to care after the law is passed?
Well, the Navajo Police have 154 Sworn and the Navajo Rangers have 16 sworn, So less than 200 total sworn for a population of 173,667 people. So the question then becomes how many folks own guns.
Always funny when people mock others for not wanting to join society when in the end that’s what all of us gun owners are doing too. Personally I don’t think anyone needs someone else to think for them but that’s just me.
There are some really ignorant and simple minded comments here about Native Americans and this issue. There are many people on the Navajo Nation that completely oppose this legislation and are fighting it. Kayenta Township Opposes Proposed Navajo Nation Firearms Registration: http://www.kayentatownship-nsn.gov/blog/?p=7333
Comments are closed.