[celticmusic]

they're not outside the scope of US law.

Governments set laws based upon land areas. This is why we have things like county lines, state lines, city lines, etc.

But these local governments have no jurisdiction over federal land. This is why you can have a federal building in the middle of a city, and that city's laws do not apply to the building, or the land around the building (that's held by the US government).

Native land is technically federal land that's held on behalf of the tribes. And THIS is why local laws don't apply to native land.

It's a common misconception that native american tribes are sovereign. They're considered 'domestic dependent nations', but not sovereign. This is why, for example, the US can limit their ability to issue drivers licenses and travel VISA's.

[snagglegaggle]

But they are outside the scope in very important ways this glosses over and which does make them much more sovereign than a state, such as sin taxes (cigarettes) and gun law enforcement (a PMC was incorporated in and trading fully automatic weapons through Indian territory). The basis for those is what is important.

[celticmusic]

It's very simple. It's federal land and therefore cannot be taxed by the local governments.

[snagglegaggle]

I'm not totally sold on this interpretation, I've interacted with enough territorial land that I got the impression it is completely left to the tribes. It may technically be "under federal jurisdiction" but if a treaty ceded any or most right to law enforcement then it's independent.

[celticmusic]

Then you disagree with the interpretation of the US Supreme Court, take it up with them.

[jki275]

federal gun laws still apply on native land -- most federal law applies in fact.