Interesting arguments in this one — Roy v Minnesota Cert Petition
Questions presented (check out no. 5 — a treaty right to possess firearms?):
1. DOES THE STATE OF MINNESOTA LACK SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY BECAUSE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IS “CIVIL-REGULATORY” IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE?
2. DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE A RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS THAT IS PROTECTED AS A RESERVED RIGHT IN THE 1854 AND 1855 TREATIES WITH THE CHIPPEWA?
3. DID THE MINNESOTA APPELLATE COURT IMPROPERTLY DENY REVIEWOF THIS MATTER BECAUSE THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO ADDRESS OR REVIEW THE RELEVANT AND APPLICABLE 1854 AND 1855 TRIATIES WITH THE CHIPPEWA?
4. DO PETITIONER’S TREATY RIGHTS BELONG TO HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL TRIBAL AS WELL AS A TRIBAL AND BAND MEMBER OF THE MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE, AS WELL AS COLLECTIVELY TO THE BANDS THAT ARE SIGNATORY TO THE TREATIES OF 1854 AND 1855?
5. DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE A TREATY RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS AS A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT’S 2008 DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. HELLER (2008 WL 2520816)?
Turtle Talk 