Gun Show - Pechanga Resort & Casino, August 7th & 8th Options

[DKScott]

Its a very limited sovereignty. Remember the "Nation within a nation" description from school?

Here's some details:

http://www.airpi.org/pubs/indinsov.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovere...e_United_States

I assume its at least broadly correct.

As for cancelling the gun show, I suspect it will turn out to be something boring like an internal issue within the Pechangas or a contract dispute with the promoter. Or maybe the Pechangas found out that anti-gunners are compulsive gamblers.

[Bishop]

California cities can have gambling too. Look at Commerce and Gardena. There is federal law allowing indian reservations to have gaming, if they they get approval from their state.
"Indian Gaming Regulatory Act11 (1988)
Should a tribe decide to engage in casino gaming, this act requires the state to negotiate in good faith with the tribe to form a compact setting forth games, limits and other terms. "
That's why the reservations are always running commercials to show how gaming contributes to the economy. Because they know the states voters can restrict or outlaw gaming.

[WinMag1]

California cities can have gambling too. Look at Commerce and Gardena. There is federal law allowing indian reservations to have gaming, if they they get approval from their state.
"Indian Gaming Regulatory Act11 (1988)
Should a tribe decide to engage in casino gaming, this act requires the state to negotiate in good faith with the tribe to form a compact setting forth games, limits and other terms. "
That's why the reservations are always running commercials to show how gaming contributes to the economy. Because they know the states voters can restrict or outlaw gaming.

It's not necessarily "state approval" that they need but rather a good faith agreement/compact between the tribe and the state on certain aspects of the gaming operation as you've cited above. And it only applies to class lll (high stakes) gaming. Class l & ll (Bingo Halls, Card Rooms etc.) are exempt from state jurisdiction. Link

Indian tribes are expected to request a compact with states if they should desire to have Class III gaming (States have no jurisdiction over Class I and II gambling).

states are required to enter negotiations and deal with the tribes in "good faith". The original text of the act implied that if states tried to "stone-wall" tribal gambling, the tribes could look to the federal courts for support [3] But while the IGRA is giving states unprecedented influence on tribal economic concerns, it also seeks to maintain the federal government as the "guardian" of the tribes.

Prior to President Reagan signing the IGRA in 1988 there was no "jurisdictional framework" governing Indian Gaming whatsoever. In every case that came before the supreme court where states challenged tribal sovereignty as it related to gaming, the court held in favor of the tribe. (see Worcester v Georgia

Guess I'm straying a tad from the original topic, sorry, not trying to hijack.